72,000 Stimulus Payments Went to Dead People
Another 17,000 worth $4.3 million were sent to people in prison
WASHINGTON — More than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each went to people who were either dead or in prison, a government investigator says in a new report.
The payments, which were part of last year’s massive economic recovery package, were meant to increase consumer spending to help stimulate the economy.
But about $18 million went to nearly 72,000 people who were dead, according to the report by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general. The report estimates that a little more than half of those payments were returned.
An additional $4.3 million went to more than 17,000 prison inmates, the report said. Most of the inmates, it turns out, were eligible to get the payments because they were newly incarcerated and had been receiving Social Security before they were locked up.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
“Communist” Is No Longer an Exaggeration
One of the most disgusting events in American history was held in our nation’s capital last weekend and the American press has had absolutely nothing to say about it.
On October 2, 2010 — Democrats, Union Workers, and Communists Rallied Together in Washington.
For years, I have written on the subject of how the terms democrat, socialist, communist, Marxist, liberal, and progressive are all synonymous in American now. In the good ole days, they were in the closet, but today, they are on daily display from the White House to the Halls of Congress, to the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument.
Calling this cabal of mental and emotional misfits communists is nicer than they really deserve. The proper term is parasite, “a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.” One need look no further than the signs carried at last weekend’s DC rally for confirmation.
Decent, honest, hard-working American taxpayers are all caught up in the daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty, and rightfully so today. The 24/7 assault on individual freedom may be worse in America than anywhere else on earth right now and political pandering to parasites is at the root of the problem.
Now to be at least somewhat fair, most of these parasites are not really parasites by choice. They have been systematically trained to be parasites — taught that the world owes them a certain standard of living — and that Robin Hood in the form of our Federal Government is the modern American Dream. They are simply in pursuit of the happiness earned by others.
[…]
Total national bankruptcy is where policies for parasites will end. There are numerous fallen nations throughout history to prove it, most notably Cuba of late, which is now laying off a million public sector workers in an effort to force them back into productive private sector employment, tossing them off the empty public feeding trough and out into the real world where they can begin to contribute to society for a change.
But in case that’s not close enough to home for you, the Obama administration has increased our national debt by nearly 40% in just their first two years in power. In case you think things look brighter anywhere in the future, here’s what the administration financial wizard had to tell the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council in Providence, Rhode Island just a couple days ago:
“As I have discussed, projections by the CBO and others show future budget deficits and debts rising indefinitely, and at increasing rates. To be sure, projections are to some degree only hypothetical exercises. Almost by definition, unsustainable trajectories of deficits and debts will never actually transpire, because creditors would never be willing to lend to a country in which the fiscal debt relative to the national income is rising without limit.” — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
20 Reasons Why Jan Schakowsky is Unfit for Congress
There is a battle brewing in the Illinois 9th congressional district between Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky and challenger Republican Joel Pollak. Even though the race is taking place in a +20 Democrat stronghold, Pollak is in excellent position to knock off one of the most anti-American and morally corrupt incumbents around.
Last week it was disclosed that Schakowsky intervened on behalf of wealthy Chicago businessman and campaign donor Balvinder Singh to block foreclosure proceedings initiated against him and his colleagues by United Central Bank. While Schakowsky has turned a blind eye to the closing of numerous businesses in her district devastated by the recession, she still somehow managed to help a businessman who has donated $85,000 to Democratic causes over the past eight years.
Protecting wealthy donors is just the latest of many questionable activities, statements and associations that have marked Schakowsky’s career in Congress. She is a member of the Socialists of America Caucus, an early backer and close political ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a fervent advocate for single payer healthcare.
I urge conservatives everywhere to support her challenger Republican Joel Pollak who is working on a shoestring budget to beat one of the biggest recipients of union donations in Congress. He is smart, principled and a true conservative and with a little help, he can win.
20 Reasons Why Jan Schakowsky is Unfit for Congress:
1. The Almanac of American Politics describes Schakowsky as “one of the leftmost members of the Democratic Caucus”. She is also a dedicated statist once telling a writer for the Democrat Socialists of America, “The American people are not ideological; therefore, the way to go is to attack private power.”
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
Civil Suit ‘Likely’ Over Arab Festival Charges
DEARBORN, Mich. (BP) — A civil lawsuit may be filed against the city of Dearborn, Mich., on behalf of four people — including two Southern Baptists — who were arrested on charges of “breaching the peace” at an Arab festival in Dearborn, Mich.
The four were later acquitted of those charges.
Attorney Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., said the arrest and detainment of four self-described Christian missionaries on June 18 at Dearborn’s annual International Arab Festival were a clear infringement of their first and fourth amendment rights and a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
A Dearborn jury on Sept. 24 acquitted all four defendants — Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, Negeen Mayel, and Paul Rezkalla on the breach of peace charges. Mayel was convicted of an additional charge of failure to obey a police officer. Muise said that ruling would be appealed and the conviction likely overturned.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
Debunking the DOJ’s Hit Piece, Part 2: Assault on the Constitution and Those Who Revere it
In Part 1 of this essay, I showed that the Department of Justice’s glossary “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism: Terms and Concepts,” was nothing more than a hit-piece against the citizenry who are waking up to the lies of Big Government. The first part debunked their assertion that the Patriot Movement is made up of “conspiracy theorists” who believe that CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and Bilderbergs are working against the American people. This second of three parts debunks their attacks on the Constitution Party, as it represents a de facto attack on our Constitution: — the very foundation of our country.
If you need more convincing that the Power Elite running our government right now hates you and the Constitution to which they swore an oath to uphold, there is plenty more evidence from the DOJ’s glossary to prove this point. The mere fact that this glossary, which is defined by the Department of Justice as a “tool for criminal justice professionals to enhance their understanding of words relating to extremist terminology, phrases, activities, symbols, organizations, and selected names that they may encounter while conducting criminal investigations or prosecutions of members of extremist organizations” mentions the word “Constitution” or any permutation of that word literally over a dozen times should be an indication that these “officials” are on the lookout for anyone who either speaks passionately about the Constitution, or dares to refer to it to back up their arguments.
On top of linking the term “Constitution” to criminals and terrorists, it also attacks provisions within the Constitution; namely money, precious metals, and the right to bear arms — essentially anyone involved in the rising Patriot Movement, which is also mis-defined over and over (I lost count after 50). We will continue to debunk the glossary, which attacks this rising Patriot Movement to show that true Patriots merely want a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which is exactly what The Powers That Be fear.
The “Constitution Party,” defined by the DOJ as, “A minor right-wing extremist political party formerly known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party which is one of the primary parties that specifically tries to appeal to the ‘Patriot Movement.’“ All you have to do is visit the U.S. Constitution Party’s website and see that calling it a “right-wing extremist” group is an outright lie. Yes, it is a minor party compared to the corporate-owned Republican and Democrat parties, but to label it “right-wing extremist” is to label our Constitution and our Founding Fathers right-wing extremists — which the Department of Homeland Security has no problem doing, by the way. So anyone who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution is a right-wing extremist and domestic terrorist according to the DOJ, which should be more than enough evidence to show how much they hate the Constitution. This will serve as a basis for this part of my essay, for everything mentioned henceforth can be linked back to the platform of the Constitution Party, which advocates actually reading and following the guidelines laid out for us in the U.S. Constitution.
| [Return to headlines] |
Government Improves on God, Creates Frankenfish
Has the FDA gone completely mad? Why are they trying to open the flood gates to genetically engineered (GE) salmon—a move that will go down in history as one of the most asinine and dangerous ever made by our government? What’s it going to take for them to actually start protecting public health?
Frankenfish can promote disease
The FDA is reviewing data submitted by AquaBounty, the company that spliced a growth hormone gene into Atlantic salmon, forcing it to grow up to five times faster, and reach market size in about 18 months instead of 3 years. But according to the evidence, their buff salmon might have higher levels of a cancer promoting hormone IGF-1, more antibiotics, and more of a potentially life-threatening allergen(s).
The FDA failed to learn their lesson with their idiotic approval of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. It also has higher levels of IGF-1 and more antibiotics. Now it’s condemned by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association, banned in most other countries, and has been banished by most US dairies. Even Wal-Mart won’t allow the stuff into their milk.
[…]
Canadian scientists engineered their own set of fast growing salmon and tested their behavior in tanks with other fish. When there was sufficient food, all was fine. When food stocks decreased, the Frankenfish freaked. They became cannibals, attacking and killing other fish—whether GE or natural. Their unexpected behavior resulted in population crashes or complete extinctions in the fish tanks. The study also suggested that if released, these ravenous aggressive salmon would pursue and consume other types of fish.
[…]
Even with stacked committee membership, an antiquated approval policy, and an agency that is officially mandated to promote biotechnology, the Frankenfish did not swim past the advisory committee on September 19th and 20th. That’s because the committee agreed with safety experts like Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union (they publish Consumer Reports) that the evidence presented by AquaBounty was abysmal and insufficient. Using a sample size of only 6 fish, employing insensitive detection methods that could easily miss cancer-promoting hormones or allergens, and testing fish that were raised in a completely different climate than what is planned, were among the sloppy science that the FDA had accepted. (See addendum below for examples.)
In fact the only person on the committee who had any experience with fish, Gary Thorgaard, completely disagreed with the FDA’s conclusion that the Frankenfish didn’t threaten the environment. He called for a full Environmental Impact Statement.
Hansen says, “The data and analysis of food safety risks from the AquAdvantage Salmon are so sloppy and inadequate that, if this were an undergraduate paper, it would get a failing grade. No self-respecting scientist could conclude that these data demonstrate that AquAdvantage salmon are safe to eat.”
[…]
When AquaBounty looked for potentially dangerous growth hormones in the salmon, for example, they used a detection method so insensitive, it couldn’t find any hormones in any fish. The FDA therefore concluded that there was no relevant difference in hormone levels in GE salmon. Dr. Hansen told the committee, “This would be like the police using a radar gun that cannot detect speeds below 120 mph and concluding that there is no ‘relevant difference’ in the speed of cars versus bicycles.”
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
Ground Zero ‘Mosque’ Or ‘Rabat’?
The name Cordoba House is the first indication that the “mosque” planned for Ground Zero is actually a rabat and not really a mosque. In Islam, every building associated with the faith and its rituals has a specific, prescribed character. I have been in mosques in various places around the world, including the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. A mosque is a one-story building with a mihrab, or atrium. That one story can be 10 feet high or hundreds of feet high, but it must have only one floor.
The owner of the property, Sharif el-Gamal, has referred to Cordoba House, or Park 51, as an outreach center for Islam, or a Dar al-Tabligh, which is a place to proselytize for Islam. However, the prescribed structure is not consistent with the construction plans as described by el-Gamal and Imam Feisel Rauf. The plans for Cordoba House do, however, describe a building known well to Islamic purposes and that is a “rabat.”
A New York Post article by Amir Taheri Sept. 10 clearly laid out the differences between a mosque and a rabat.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
National Security Adviser to Resign, Officials Say
President Obama will announce on Friday that Gen. James L. Jones, the national security adviser, is resigning and will be replaced by Thomas E. Donilon, the principal deputy national security adviser, senior administration officials said.
General Jones’s departure had been long rumored, and he had previously indicated to his staff that he intended to leave by the end of the year. But the schedule was accelerated, and in recent weeks White House staff had been increasingly critical of General Jones for statements that he apparently made to Bob Woodward, the author of “Obama’s Wars.”
| [Return to headlines] |
Oath Keepers Statement About Video Titled, “Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital”
Stewart has just now as of 7:45PM PST, spoken to the father and he is faxing documents to Stewart. We are establishing a legal defense fund. Once it is confirmed through documentation that the father’s association with Oath Keepers was listed as a reason, even if among several reasons listed, for taking the child, we will actively pursue aggressive legal remedy and redress. We will assist in locating competent local legal counsel in New Hampshire and additional expert legal counsel from around the country in First Amendment and child custody law. Stewart, who has worked on several First Amendment cases in State and Federal court will also volunteer his services to assist in the case Pro Bono.
Video
Here is Stewart’s statement for now:
We are doing all we can to confirm and document this. But if is IS accurate, and a newborn child was ripped from her mother’s arms because the parents were “associated” with Oath Keepers by simply being members of our online ning discussion forum, then this is a grave crossing of a very serious line, and is utterly intolerable. It cannot be done. It cannot be allowed to stand.
If it is true, then I will do all in my power to stop it. We will pull out all the stops, every lawful means of seeing that this child is returned to her parents and that all persons responsible are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. There can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of association, no freedom to even open your mouth and “speak truth to power,” no freedom AT ALL, if your children can be black bagged and stolen from you because of your political speech and associations — because you simply dare to express your love of country, and dare to express your solidarity and fellowship with other citizens and with active duty and retired military and police who simply pledge to honor their oath and obey the Constitution. It was to prevent just such outrageous content based persecution of political dissidents that our First Amendment was written.
If true, then this is as bad, and in fact worse, than any of the violations of liberty that our Declaration of Independence lists as the reasons for our forefathers taking up arms in our Revolution and for separating from England. We no longer have freedom at all if this is allowed to be done. And we will not let it stand.
Stewart Rhodes
Founder of Oath Keepers
Stewart will post additional statements and info as this situation develops. Please be ready to flood the responsible parties with phone calls and emails to put public pressure on them in the court of public opinion.
UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST — We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states, along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts — they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).
But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it isutterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech! If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare. Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that “officials” may not approve of. Don’t you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on “the list” and then child protective services might come take your kids.
Note that there is no allegation that Oath Keepers is a criminal organization or that Mr. Irish, in the context of his association with Oath Keepers, is committing any crime. We are not advocating or planning imminent violence, which is the established line where free speech ends and criminal behavior begins (See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S.444 (1969), which, as Wikipedia notes, “held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.” We don’t even advocate that the current serving use violence of any kind, let alone imminent violence. We ask them to merely stand down.
Neither is Oath Keepers a militia, for that matter. However, EVEN IF WE WERE, that also would not be a valid reason to take someone’s child away. PRIVATE MILITIAS, JUST LIKE OTHER VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, ARE NOT ILLEGAL, and it is not a crime to associate with them. To the contrary, we have an absolute right, won by the blood of patriots, and protected by our First Amendment, to freely associate with each other as we damn well please so long as we are not advocating or planning imminent violence or directly harming our children (and no, teaching them “thought crime” like “All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” or that those who swear an oath should keep it, does not count — at least not yet). A parent associating with a militia is not engaged in child endangerment and is not evidence of child endangerment (despite the shrill screeching of people such as Mark Potock of the SPLC, who desperately wants it to be so).
Just recently a Time Magazine article described how the reporter visited the happy home of a militia member and his family — and those kids are still at home, where they belong, as is the case with many thousands of children across this country who have parents who “associate” with private militias and all manner of other non-criminal groups. You had damn well better defend the rights of those parents to freely associate in their militiasand keep their kids while doing so. You can bet that if you let such an association be listed as grounds for taking children from their parents that it won’t only be militia folks who have their rights violated. Homeschoolers, evangelical Christians, gun owners, etc. will also be on the hit list. Just wait. Remember Pastor Niemöller’s timeless warning:
They came first for the Communists,-000*and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.-000*-000*Then they came for the trade unionists,-000*and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.-000*-000*Then they came for the Jews,-000*and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.-000*-000*Then they came for me-000*and by that time no one was left to speak up.
A modern version might read like this:
They came first for the militia members,-000*and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a militia member.-000*-000*Then they came for the three percenters,-000*and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a three percenter.-000*-000*Then they came for the Oath Keepers,-000*and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an Oath Keeper.-000*-000*Then they came for me-000*and by that time no one was left to speak up.
So, defend the right of even the most hardcore militia members to freely associate without that right being chilled and suppressed by means of the threat of taking their kids.
But this particular listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking a child from her parents is all the more absurd, taking it to a whole other level of Alice in Wonderland “down is up” and up is down,” when you consider that a significant percentage of the members of Oath Keepers are current serving police, fire-fighters, and military personnel. Three of our state chapter presidents are current serving police officers. How can “associating” with such fine men and women who are daily trusted with tremendous power and responsibility constitute evidence of child endangerment? How can it be that a New Hampshire police department can consider someone associating with other current serving police officers as evidence of child abuse and endangerment? Only in the bizzaro world of the SPLC are public servants who commit to simply following the law, keeping their oaths by refusing to violate your rights ,considered “extreme” and “dangerous.”
This is the camel’s nose under the tent. We need to fight even this one instance of such a violation of the right to associate and to peaceably assemble, and we need to push back against the new world of thought crime that is being relentlessly pushed upon us. If this listing of mere association with Oath Keepers is allowed to be used in this case to justify, even in part, removing a newborn from the custody of her parents, with nothing else alleged about Oath Keepers except that the father “is associated” with this organization, that will have a sweeping chilling effect on the First Amendment protected rights of freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances for all of us — and it will only be the beginning.
OK, now it is TIME TO PUSH BACK — peaceably, of course, using our voices and pens. Let the officials in question know that you strongly oppose their listing of an association with Oath Keepers as one of the reasons for taking this child. Let them know you insist that they remove that “reason” from the affidavit and issue a public retraction, and until they do so, they will hear from all of us, and also from our legal counsel. And we won’t relent until they respect our First Amendment protected rights of free speech and association and cease and desist this chilling of those rights. Be professional, but firm. Make them hear you.
Stewart Rhodes
| — Hat tip: VH | [Return to headlines] |
Sharron Angle Surge Unnerving Nevada Democrats
The three most recently released public polls show Angle with a nominal edge, though all have been within the margin of error.
While Reid’s campaign insists there is nothing to be nervous about, one Nevada Democratic strategist said that’s not the vibe behind the scenes.
“Reid’s people are really antsy,” said the strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Reid’s far-reaching political machine tends to come down hard on those who talk out of school. “That’s why their external message has been to try really, really hard to discredit these polls. Angle is building a lot of momentum, and they don’t know how to stop it. This is exactly what happened during the primary.”
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
U.S. ‘Occupation’ To Blame for Terrorism, Muslims Say
Promote author of book that claims religion isn’t linked to Islamist attacks
A University of Chicago professor and a Muslim organization linked to the terror organization Hamas are teaming up to proclaim that American occupation of foreign lands is the reason for terrorism.
Word of the cooperation between the Council on America- Islamic Relations and University of Chicago political science professor Robert Pape over his new book, called “Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It,” comes from CAIR.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
Why Did Media Ignore Threat of ‘Flag of Islam’ Flying Over the White House?
Imagine the furor if a televangelist went on a major TV network and told viewers Christianity would conquer the world and that the flag of Christianity would fly over the White House. Network reporters, Hollywood celebrities and the pundit class likely would seize the moment as an example of the evils of America’s supposed Christian theocracy. The story might be tied to the dangers of evangelical religion and likely even to the Tea Parties. Across the oceans, radical Islamists would likely do as they did during the Koran burning episode or after the Danish cartoons were published. They would riot. Cars, businesses and maybe even embassies might burn. People might die.
Thankfully, that didn’t happen. What did happen is far scarier.
ABC News held a townhall meeting, bringing on experts from left and right to ask the question: “Should Americans fear Islam?”
Thanks to ABC, we know the answer. Americans absolutely should. One of the network’s “experts” was Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, who Britain’s Sunday Times called “the leader of the now-outlawed extremist group Islam4UK.” His comments on “This Week” bore out everything conservatives criticize about radical Islam. “We do believe as Muslims the East and the West will be governed by the Sharia,” Choudray said. “Indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.”
According to Choudary, “Islam has a solution for all of the problems that mankind faces.” You don’t need to read between the lines to know what he was talking about. That is, if you could find those lines anywhere. Our allegedly unbiased media have done almost nothing with the story. No network used the clip except ABC and that was just in its original program. Only two major newspapers mentioned it, and none of the top papers — New York Times, Washington Post, etc.
Even ABC, which aired the program, tried to spin things against conservatives. Host and pro-Islamist Christiane Amanpour told one guest that “a series of politicians have used the Islamic center, have used sort of Islamophobia and scare tactics in their campaigns.” The dictionary calls a phobia “a persistent, irrational fear.” There’s nothing irrational about fearing radical Islam. It’s stupid not to do so.
Instead, the only things the media fear these days are the continued decline of their profession, and the rise of the Tea Parties. You can find a story bashing Tea Party folks for not recycling. That kind of petty criticism is to be expected. The media hate them.
[…]
| — Hat tip: DF | [Return to headlines] |
9/11 Link to Militant in Europe Terror Alert
HAMBURG, Germany — The Islamic militant whose disclosures under U.S. interrogation in Afghanistan triggered Europe’s terror alert is an old friend of a man convicted in the 9/11 attacks and, as the strikes were being planned, frequented the same mosque where the Hamburg-based plotters often met, officials say. Hamburg security officials in August shuttered the al-Quds mosque because of fears it was becoming a magnet for homegrown extremists who, unlike foreigners, could not be expelled from the country. Ahmad Wali Siddiqui, a 36-year-old German of Afghan descent arrested by the U.S. military in July in Afghanistan has emerged as the latest link between Germany and al-Qaida’s worldwide terror campaign. Siddiqui is believed to have been part of the Hamburg militant scene that also included key 9/11 plotters. Intelligence officials say he was a friend of Mounir el Motassadeq, who was convicted by a German court in 2006 of being an accessory to the murder of the 246 passengers and crew on the four jetliners used in the 2001 terrorist attacks, and also frequented the al-Quds mosque. Motassadeq was found to have aided suicide hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah by helping them keep up the appearance of being regular university students — paying their tuition and rent — though it was never established whether he knew of the planned timing, dimension or targets of the attacks. “Siddiqui is a long-term member who has been a friend of Motassadeq since 1997,” said a senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.
[…]
| — Hat tip: DF | [Return to headlines] |
‘Defence Leagues’ Plan Amsterdam Show of Support for Geert Wilders
Far right groups modelled on the English Defence League have been set up across Europe and are planning to demonstrate in Amsterdam in support of the Dutch politician Geert Wilders.
French and Dutch “defence leagues” will join the EDL and several other anti-Islamic organisations on 30 October to coincide with the end of Wilders’s trial for hate speech and inciting racism.
About 2,000 EDL supporters are expected to demonstrate in Leicester tomorrow. Home secretary Theresa May banned marches in the city this week but the EDL said its protest would go ahead, raising fears of unrest.
The EDL, formed in Luton last year, has become the most significant far-right street movement in the UK since the National Front. It claims to be a peaceful, non-racist organisation protesting against “militant Islam”. Many of its demonstrations have descended into violence and Islamophobic and racist chanting, attracting known football hooligans and far right extremists. At its most recent demonstration in Bradford, in August, 1,600 police officers tried to contain EDL supporters as bricks, bottles and smoke bombs were thrown. There were 13 arrests.
Critics say the demonstration in Amsterdam is a sign of the EDL’s growing influence among far right and anti-Islamic groups in Europe and the US, and part of its self-proclaimed “international outreach work and networking”.
The EDL refused to answer the Guardian’s questions today but its leader, who uses the pseudonym Tommy Robinson, wrote on the group’s website that the Amsterdam demonstration would “take the English Defence League global”.
“The EDL has been in contact with our European brothers and sisters and we have decided that on Saturday 30th October the European defence league will be demonstrating in Amsterdam in support of Geert,” Robinson wrote. “We hope that all of you will be able to join us for this, what promises to be a landmark demonstration for the future of the defence leagues.”
The Amsterdam protest will see EDL supporters join other activists from countries including Germany, Belgium and Switzerland for the launch of what is being called the “European Defence League”.
One group planning to attend is the French Defence League, or Ligue de Defense Française. It was formed in July and one of its co-founders confirmed it was modelled on the EDL. “We were indeed inspired by their [EDL’s] statutes and by the spirit of openness which enlivens them,” a spokesman wrote in an email to the Guardian.
Like the EDL, the French group denies it is racist or violent and says it aims to fight the “threat” Islam poses to France’s values and customs. “We who wish to keep our values and our liberties must unite and fight those who are willing to sell the nation and our country for a politician’s sash,” the spokesman said.
The growth of the EDL and similar groups is of growing concern, says the Labour MEP for London, Claude Moraes, who chairs the all-party European parliament group on anti-racism.
“The EDL’s racist and Islamophobic message is resonating across Europe as we can see from the formation of these groups,” he said. “This is particularly dangerous because they are using this virulent Islamophobia as an excuse to promote what is a dangerous agenda of hate and division.”
The European connections are part of a number of international links forged by the EDL in the past year. In August it emerged that the EDL had received endorsements from Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, opponents of a Muslim community centre being built near the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York. In one of her blogs Geller wrote: “I share the EDL’s goals … We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the west and not leave it solely to fringe groups like the BNP.”
Last month Robinson and at least seven other EDL supporters flew to New York to attend a protest against the community centre near “ground zero”.
In April EDL supporters attended a demonstration in support of Wilders in Berlin, and in June EDL delegates spoke at a “counter-jihad” conference organised by the International Civil Liberties Alliance in Zurich, where they gave a presentation entitled The Anatomy of an EDL Demo.
Nick Lowles of anti-fascist organisation Searchlight said: “The EDL is operating on two levels. There are the violent street demonstrations that have brought fear and division to towns and cities across the country, then there is the political wing of the organisation that is partly inspired by Christian fundamentalism and is making links and inspiring other groups in Europe and elsewhere.”
| — Hat tip: ICLA | [Return to headlines] |
Far-Right Belgian Could Face Massive Fine for Mecca Slur
A far-right Belgian leader who posted names and addresses of 770 residents on the web in a bid to prove “Islamisation” was at work in the city of Antwerp could face a 500,000-euro fine for racism.
Filip Dewinter, leader of Vlaams Belang (which means Flemish Interest), said on his website that the official registry of residents of an Antwerp suburb “includes only 21 Flemish names”.
“All the other names are African or North African. This mind-boggling list symbolises the Islamisation of entire districts of Antwerp and elsewhere,” he said.
Dewinter, who has a seat in the regional parliament of Flanders, dubbed the district in question “Mecca-on-Escaut”, the latter being the river that runs through the northern city.
His party, unlike an increasing popular sister movement in neighbouring The Netherlands, is on the decline, sliding from 24 percent of the regional vote in 2004 to 12.6 percent in June this year on an anti-immigrant and separatist platform.
A commission for the protection of privacy filed a complaint Thursday against him before the Antwerp prosecutor’s office, alleging violation of a 1992 law banning the publication of private information “based on racial or ethnic origin”.
A commission official, Emmanuel Vincart, told AFP that if the prosecutor pressed charges under article six of the country’s privacy legislation, the politician could be fined up to half a million euros.
Dewinter responded by saying he would keep the list to first names only.
“But the political analysis remains unchanged,” he said, according to the domestic Belga news agency.
“Barely three percent of the names on the list are ethnic Flemish.”
| — Hat tip: KGS | [Return to headlines] |
Germany: ‘Should Muslims be Treated on an Equal Footing?’
The recent statement by German President Christian Wulff that “Islam belongs in Germany” has provoked something of a conservative backlash. The German press is divided on whether the presence of Muslims in Germany is self-evident or cause for concern.
When German President Christian Wulff said that “Islam also belongs in Germany” during his speech to mark the 20th anniversary of German reunification on Sunday, he was initially showered with praise for recognizing the reality that around 4 million Muslims now live in Germany. Yet just a few days later, it is clear than many on the conservative side of German politics and society are still deeply uncomfortable with such a statement.
The ongoing unease in some quarters about the country’s Muslim population was revealed by a poll published by the influential mass circulation newspaper Bild on Tuesday which showed that 66 percent of those polled disagreed with Wulff’s assertion and only 24 percent agreed with it.
That gave the green light to conservative politicians to line up to attack Wulff, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Wolfgang Bosbach, CDU member and chair of the German parliament’s domestic affairs committee, told Bild that, “while Islam is a part of daily reality in Germany, ours is a Judeo-Christian tradition.”
Norbert Geis, of the Christian Social Union, the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, told Bild that: “If the president wants to put Islam in Germany on an equal footing with Christianity and Judaism, then I think that is wrong.” And Christine Haderthauer, a CSU member who is social affairs minister in Bavaria, warned in the Leipziger Volkszeitung that: “Such a statement can be misunderstood. Religious freedom cannot be allowed to become religious equality.”
No Shariah
By Tuesday, Merkel was rushing to point out that, while Wulff had indeed said that Islam belonged in Germany, he had also said that the country’s roots were Judeo-Christian. “Now we obviously have Muslims in Germany. But it’s important in regard to Islam that the values represented by Islam must correspond with our constitution,” she said, adding: “What applies here is the constitution, not Shariah law.”
And on Thursday, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière rejected calls from some center-left Social Democrats and Greens for Islam to be recognized as a state religion along with Christianity and Judaism. Speaking on Deutschlandradio Kultur, he said: “If you now ask: Will Islam be put on the same level as the Judeo-Christian understanding of religion and culture that we have, then my answer is: not for the foreseeable future.”
The conservative backlash may be surprising, considering four years ago a similar statement to Wulff’s was made by then-Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. Ahead of the 2006 integration conference which he had convened, Schäuble, who is now finance minister, said: “Islam is a part of Germany and a part of Europe, a part of our present and a part of our future. Muslims are welcome in Germany.”
Yet Wulff’s speech should also be seen in the context of the heated debate in Germany in recent weeks following the publication of a controversial book by Thilo Sarrazin, then a member of Germany’s Central Bank, in which he accused Muslims of sponging off welfare, refusing to integrate and not attaining high enough levels of education.
On Friday, commentators in Germany’s main newspapers take a look at the issue.
The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:
“With every day that has passed since his words to mark the unification anniversary, the German president has gained in stature and his speech has become more historic.”
“Under Angela Merkel, the Christian Democrats have turned their backs on the lie that Germany is not a ‘country of immigration.’ Instead they use mottos like ‘country of integration’ and that the immigrants have to be ‘challenged and encouraged.’ Some people in Germany are overwhelmed by this development. And even among the CDU grassroots there is grumbling about the fact that Merkel dismissed Thilo Sarrazin’s book as ‘not helpful.’ At the core of this debate is the question of whether Muslims and their religion are treated on an equal footing in this country — or whether they are kept at bay and basically denied integration.”
The conservative Die Welt writes:…
| — Hat tip: Block Ness Monster | [Return to headlines] |
UK: Mohammed Abdul Aziz’s Advice on Islam Has Cost Britain Quite Enough
Which public servants should be paid more than the Prime Minister? Some might argue for an outstanding police chief or NHS executive. But not even the most devout defender of the status quo would nominate someone whose work is at best pointless and whose advice apparently given to the Government is potentially dangerous. Mohammed Abdul Aziz is a senior adviser within the Department for Communities and Local Government, working on, among other things, the “Prevent” strategy to curb home-grown extremism. He has visited several countries on our behalf, via such initiatives as “Projecting British Islam”. Mr Aziz has also been involved with the East London Mosque; the London Muslim Centre; the Muslim Council of Britain; the Commission for Racial Equality; the Equal Opportunities Commission; the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism; the European Network Against Racism; and the UK Race and Europe Network.
This attempt at a one-man clean sweep of the Muslim quangocracy is all very well, but there are two rather large problems. First, the advice Mr Aziz gives. The Daily Telegraph revealed this year that Mr Aziz had suggested that the new Government build closer ties with the controversial East London Mosque. He said that ministers should be willing to share a stage with groups that promote “a message of divisiveness, expressing intolerance towards other communities in the UK”, and to treat privately with organisations that might support “violent extremism in Britain”. Last night he apparently claimed that this was “completely untrue” As so often, the more divisive and sectarian you are, the better chance of being heard by government. But the second problem — the lunatic punchline — is the premium we pay for this service. Mr Aziz runs an organisation called Faithwise Ltd, the directors of which are himself and his wife. This summer, the Centre for Social Cohesion, of which I am the director, used the Freedom of Information Act to ask the Department for Communities and Local Government about its dealings with Mr Aziz over the previous year (though he had been its adviser since 2007).
What we turned up was extraordinary. Faithwise was retained to provide “strategic consultancy”. Mr Aziz’s organisation worked for 156 days for £113,394 — £725 a day, or at least £175,000 per annum, pro rata, rather more than the £142,500 the PM gets. Mr Aziz said his pay included VAT and operational costs
[…]
| — Hat tip: DF | [Return to headlines] |
UK: Magistrates Order Pregnant Muslim to Remove Veil
Georgina Richards, 36, initially refused for religious reasons but reluctantly agreed when JPs said they might not accept her evidence if they could not see her “facial expressions”. The case at Leicester Magistrates Court on Thursday was held up for over an hour while magistrates agreed to hear her evidence from behind a screen.
Lawrence Faulkner, one of the magistrates, told her: “We need to see a person’s facial expressions to assess the evidence they are giving. “If you refuse to remove your veil we may not be able to accept your evidence.” Miss Richards, who is heavily pregnant, gave evidence against her ex-partner Ismail Mangera, 30, from behind a screen in the courtroom. Mangera was found guilty of punching Miss Richards in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door. But after the hearing, Miss Richards criticised the magistrates for forcing her to remove her veil. She said: “I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off. “They put screens up next to me but I didn’t really want to do it but I thought the case would be dropped if I didn’t take it off. “It just made me feel uncomfortable. They wanted to see the expression on my face but I don’t think it really matters, I think I could have done it with my veil on.” Miss Richards told the court that her religion said she could not remove her veil in front of men in public. The magistrates heard that Mangera attacked Miss Richards, mother to three of the couple’s children and eight months pregnant with their fourth, between April 1 and April 30.
[…]
| — Hat tip: DF | [Return to headlines] |
UK: Mothers Wrongly Told Their Healthy Unborn Babies Had Died: Hospital ‘Sorry’ For Missing Heartbeats During Routine Scans
Two women were told that their unborn babies were dead after a hospital missed their healthy heartbeats in routine scans.
Joanna Barro, 25, was devastated when doctors said they were ‘100 per cent sure’ her baby was dead at eight weeks.
She was preparing to go through a miscarriage procedure a week later when a shocked nurse found a heartbeat and told her the pregnancy was fine.
Miss Barro went on to give birth to a healthy baby girl, Ruby.
Earlier this week, Brighton’s Royal Sussex County Hospital was forced to apologise to Sofia Taylor after it advised her she had lost her child at nine weeks.
Mrs Taylor, 22, told how she refused to accept her baby was dead and demanded a second scan which showed her pregnancy progressing normally.
She said: ‘The minute they told me the baby was dead I didn’t believe them. It was mother’s intuition. I insisted on having another test. They weren’t happy about it and said I really should have a termination.
‘If I had listened to them I would have lost my baby. It doesn’t bear thinking about.’
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
UK: Pregnant Muslim Ordered to Remove Her Veil in Court Because Magistrates Can’t See Her Face
A pregnant Muslim woman was ordered by magistrates to remove her veil while she gave evidence against her violent ex-partner yesterday.
Georgina Richards, 36, initially refused for religious reasons but reluctantly agreed when magistrates said they might not accept her evidence if they could not see her ‘facial expressions’.
The case at Leicester Magistrates Court was held up for over an hour while magistrates agreed to hear her evidence from behind a screen.
Chairman of the bench Lawrence Faulkner told her: ‘We need to see a person’s facial expressions to assess the evidence they are giving.
‘If you refuse to remove your veil, we may not be able to accept your evidence.’
Miss Richards, who is heavily pregnant, gave evidence against her ex-partner Ismail Mangera, 30, from behind a screen in the courtroom.
Mr Mangera was found guilty of punching Miss Richards in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door.
But after the hearing, Miss Richards hit out at the magistrates for forcing her to remove her veil.
She said: ‘I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off.
‘They put screens up next to me but I didn’t really want to do it.
‘But I thought the case would be dropped if I didn’t take it off.
‘It just made me feel uncomfortable. They wanted to see the expression on my face but I don’t think it really matters, I think I could have done it with my veil on.’
‘Now I just feel relieved that I’ve said what I’ve got to say.’
Miss Richards told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public.
Magistrates heard that Mr Mangera attacked Miss Richards, mother to three of the couple’s children and eight months pregnant with their fourth, between April 1 and April 30.
The magistrates warned Mangera he was facing jail.
Sentencing was deferred until October 20 to allow a probation report to be produced.
| — Hat tip: Gaia | [Return to headlines] |
UK: Student Charged With Trying to Blow Up Plane ‘Not Radicalised at UCL’
A former student at a London university charged with attempting to blow up a plane over the US on Christmas Day was unlikely to have been radicalised on campus, an independent inquiry ruled yesterday.
The inquiry found no evidence that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab adopted extremist views while studying engineering at University College London. It also said there was no evidence that conditions at the university were “conducive to the radicalisation of students”.
Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, is in US custody facing charges including attempted murder and attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight above Detroit on 25 December last year.
He was president of UCL’s Islamic Society in his second year and graduated in 2008.
The inquiry, set up by UCL’s governing body but carried out by an independent panel, found that “no student support system” would have drawn attention to Abdulmutallab as a potential terrorist. “The evidence is that he was not lonely or isolated while at UCL and that he became well integrated into the student body.”
He is the third student or former student of UCL to be charged with offences of this kind, the report noted.It highlighted two cases for concern over speakers invited to campus in the last academic year, one by the Islamic Society and the other by another faith-based student society.
In the case of the Islamic Society’s speaker, concerns were raised about homophobia and the event was cancelled.
[…]
| — Hat tip: DF | [Return to headlines] |
Gaza Flotilla Attack: Calls for International Criminal Court to Step in
The international criminal court is being urged to prosecute members of the Israeli defence force for the raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship. Turkish victims have formally requested an investigation, the Guardian has learned.
Lawyers acting for Turkish citizens injured or killed when Israel intercepted the flotilla in May have written to Luis Moreno Ocampo, the court’s prosecutor, claiming there is an “overwhelming” case for prosecution.
The request is a significant step towards a criminal investigation by the court, which experts say has jurisdiction to prosecute those involved in the raid despite Israel not recognising its jurisdiction.
“The attack on the flotilla occurred in international waters, which directly violated many parts of international law as well as international public and criminal law,” said Ramazan Ariturk, a partner at Elmadag Law Office, the Turkish legal body that is representing the Turkish victims and the human rights group IHH. “The crimes committed by Israeli Defence Forces should be prosecuted and the International Criminal Court is the sole authority which is able to do that.”
There is mounting pressure on Israel after a UN report into the incident, in which nine Turkish activists were killed, accused Israel of violating international law.
The report, published last month, said Israel “betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality” during the raid on the flotilla and it “constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law”.
Israel condemned the report as “biased and distorted”. It has created its own state-appointed inquiry, headed by retired supreme court justice Jacob Turkel.
An Israeli government spokesperson said: “The event is being investigated by Israel including international observers, as well as a UN investigation initiated by the UN secretary general. Further investigations are redundant and unnecessary, and will contribute to further alienation between otherwise friendly countries.”
[…]
| — Hat tip: DF | [Return to headlines] |
India: The Same Cause: Muslim Intransigence and the Same Effect: War and Endless Conflict
Following the atrocious act of terrorism in Mumbai, a considerable number of pundits/observers with a “liberal” persuasion, have argued that some blame should be put on India’s Hindus by stressing that the terrorist group carrying out the outrage of random murder of civilians was composed of “disaffected” or “aggrieved” Muslims.
They believe, as Fareed Zakaria contemptuously stated in Newsweek, that Indian Hindus “had it coming”, writing that “One of the untold stories of India is that the Muslim population has not shared in the boom the country has enjoyed over the last 10 years. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination, and many remain persecuted.”
This view is not just wrong and short-sighted, it is symptomatic of why India has become a major target for terrorism that enjoys widespread support not only in Pakistan but in the wider Muslim world. Hatred of India stems from a psychological need to link India and Israel as guilty in the “injustice” Muslims believe they have suffered and to deflect blame and muddy the waters by shifting responsibility for the Partition of India in 1947 to the Hindus and conjuring up the vision that the Jews and Zionism did precisely this in Palestine in 1948. Nothing is further from the truth.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
India: ‘Growing Islamization’ Feared by Hindus
Militants now offering instability for major U.S. ally
Increasing Islamist attacks on Hindus in India have intimidated local police to inaction, allowing militant Muslims to act with virtual impunity in their “growing Islamization” efforts in the region of West Bengal, where India’s fourth largest city, Calcutta, is located, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
The development could pose increased threats to the stability of India, a U.S. ally, as neighboring Pakistan, which looks upon India as its enemy, assists Islamist proxies to engage Indian troops not only in India proper but in the Indian-administered region of Jammu-Kashmir.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
Military Security Contracts Aided Taliban, Senate Inquiry Finds
Millions of dollars, and sometimes sensitive information, have flowed to militants via Afghans hired to provide security at military bases in Afghanistan, a Senate report says.
Reporting from Washington — Defense Department security contracts in Afghanistan have funneled millions of dollars to local powerbrokers, some with ties to the Taliban and who carried out killings, bribery and kidnappings, a congressional investigation has found.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters at a news conference Thursday that a yearlong inquiry has uncovered “significant evidence that some security contractors even worked against our coalition forces, creating the very threat that they are hired to prevent.”
The Senate inquiry is the latest investigation of millions of dollars suspected of going astray in the war effort. Last week, an audit by the inspector general of the U.S. Agency for International Development found a U.S.-funded development project near Jalalabad, in northern Afghanistan, may have inadvertently paid millions to militants for security.
| — Hat tip: Block Ness Monster | [Return to headlines] |
Federal Court Rules: 11 Foreign Countries May Join Lawsuit Against Arizona
In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.
The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.
“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening.
“What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”
| [Return to headlines] |
UK: School Dinner Lady in ‘Grooming for Sex’ Row With Education Chiefs After Giving Pupil a Biscuit
A dinner lady was warned she could be accused of ‘grooming’ a primary school pupil after she gave him a biscuit.
Pat Lavery, a catering supervisor, handed the boy a biscuit after he asked for one. The child and the woman are related.
But the following day, she was warned that her action could be interpreted under child protection legislation as ‘grooming’ the child for sexual exploitation.
She was so upset that she refused to return to work at St Mary’s Primary School in Co Fermanagh, Northern Ireland, until the row was sorted out.
During this time, she was threatened with the sack and suffered a ‘horrendous’ two years of rumour and innuendo.
Yesterday her husband, Eoghan Lavery, said: ‘It has been a horrendous two-plus years for my wife because there was a shadow hanging over her that she’d done something wrong.’
His wife was made to attend three meetings, firstly with the acting principal then two with the school principal to discuss the biscuit incident.
One of the meetings lasted more than an hour and when she was requested to attend a fourth meeting, she left her job because she was so upset after being subjected to ‘a grilling’.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
Hidden Health Risk in Mobiles: Phone Giants Accused of Burying Warnings in Small Print
Mobile phone firms have been accused of concealing warnings about the health risks of using their handsets.
A warning that Apple’s popular iPhone should be kept at least 15mm away from the body is buried deep inside the manual.
BlackBerry goes even further, saying customers should use their devices hands-free or keep them an inch from the body ‘including the abdomen of pregnant women and the lower abdomen of teenagers’. Again, this advice is hidden in the instruction booklet.
All other manufacturers, including Nokia and HTC, carry similar small-print warnings despite insisting that holding mobiles against the ear and head is harmless.
Health campaigners and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are calling for clear warnings to be put on handset boxes.
| — Hat tip: JD | [Return to headlines] |
2 comments:
Quote:
A University of Chicago professor and a Muslim organization linked to the terror organization Hamas are teaming up to proclaim that American occupation of foreign lands is the reason for terrorism.
end quote.
Even if all the military actions in Muslim countries stopped tomorrow, it would change nothing.
The nation was not occupying anyone when 9/11 happened.
What makes you think that anything will change if America's stance changes militarily?
Expel the enemies of Western civilization, NOW!
Quote:
The development could pose increased threats to the stability of India,
end quote.
Wherever Muslims are, and wherever they go, they bring chaos and violence.
We do indeed know them by their fruits.
Post a Comment