Tuesday, October 28, 2008

No-Obama 08 Blog Burst: Presidential Character

Presidential Character

Some people argue that domestic issues are of far greater importance than any discussion of character. I could not disagree more. All elections are about character. If we cannot trust the honor, patriotism, and fidelity of our elected representatives, then the issues don’t matter because whatever a candidate of low character shall say about political issues cannot matter.

I believe we each must consider the character of the two men who want us to elect them as our next president. Some may argue “What more is there to know about either candidate?” after a campaign that has lasted far too long. Ordinarily, at this point in the campaign, I would say, “nothing more.” Except in this election, “We the People” have found the press (as guardians of American democracy) seriously deficient. Rather than remaining impartial, the media has fallen head-over-heels in love with one of the candidates; we must excuse them from the jury of the court of public opinion. This year, the American people have not witnessed a fair trial.

Samuel Adams once said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men,” but this was long before the Obama Era. Political correctness and liberal bias have led us to outcries of racism for even asking questions not even remotely related to race.. The press castigated our friend “Joe the Plumber” for daring to ask about income redistribution. According to one radio report, the Secret Service visited a woman because she told an Obama Campaign worker that she would vote for Barack Obama, “over her dead body.” This kind of attention applied to citizens for merely expressing an opinion is patently un-American, but it is also reminiscent of the intimidation used to silence dissent in communist countries. Character matters all right, especially if suppression of the right of expression is what we can expect from an Obama presidency.

In order to assess the character of our presidential contenders, we must decide upon an appropriate exemplar. On the democratic side of the aisle, the obvious notables are Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Jefferson may be too far back in time to serve as our role model. Roosevelt was a patent socialist. Truman left office as one of the most unpopular of all our presidents. Lyndon Johnson gave us too many scars. Mr. Carter was a buffoon and Bill Clinton . . . well, I wonder if we aren’t just a little too tired of hearing about him. Kennedy seems to qualify as the best Democratic Party exemplar, even if he was a womanizer; no one is perfect.

In the twentieth Century, notable republican presidents have included Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Of these, Roosevelt was impetuous, Eisenhower cautious, Nixon resigned in disgrace, and Reagan was the great communicator. I therefore propose Reagan as our Republican Party exemplar.

In 1961, John Kennedy issued this mandate to the American people: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John Kennedy became the darling of the American people; many around the world shared this view. We called his presidency Camelot. He was young, relatively inexperienced, but he excited the people about America’s future. He believed in the rights of man, a strong national defense, and the protection of liberty throughout the world. He believed that nuclear deterrence was insufficient to maintain peaceful coexistence. He believed the United States should be a beacon of hope, and he argued for increased world trade. He sought to achieve working partnerships with other world leaders to achieve dignity, justice, and liberty for all the people of the world. He sought to attain solidarity among the western (Atlantic) nations; he refuted communism as doomed to failure. He set forth an economic policy of unshackled enterprise, industrial leadership, and vibrant capitalism. He sought to lower interest rates in order to increase the flow of money, reduced government spending, and lower taxes. He also vowed to help small businesses through government loans and fair trade policy. Mr. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative.

Ronald Reagan was once a democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.” We assume he spoke about the party of John Kennedy, a platform designed to inspire the American people to greatness. This was also the platform of Ronald Reagan. He repudiated the policy of Jimmy Carter; looking forward, he said, “Democratic politicians are without programs or ideas to reverse economic decline and despair. They are divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility.”

Reagan brought the American people a new pride in their country and themselves, their achievements and future possibilities. He wanted the American people to have liberty and freedom of choice, low taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. He repudiated the so-called Great Society because it created low human productivity. He fought for an expansion of private property ownership, committed himself to improved economic opportunities for black Americans, rights and equality for every minority, and equal opportunities for women. He was committed to the rights of unborn children.

Modern Democrats have turned Kennedy’s ideal upside down; now the cry is “Ask what your country can do for you.” Today’s Democrat pursues the politics of dependency, the essential breaking point between civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. King wanted black Americans to realize the reality of equality, while Jackson’s policies pursue racism, separatism, and demands for greater gifts from the government. King wanted black Americans judged according to their character; Jackson views character as secondary concern because the means justifies the end. King fought for unity, Jackson has dedicated his entire life to reverse-segregation.

Modern Republicans have broken faith with the American people. They broke their Contract with America. Much of what has happened since mid-2005 is the result of this failure. As a Republican, I bemoan a democratically controlled Congress, but I realize that men such as Duke Cunningham brought it to fruition. But, before anyone starts gloating, we should note that the United States Congress today has achieved the low point of popular opinion; it cannot possibly get worse. Or, can it?

It is time to ask ourselves where Barack Obama and John McCain stand with regard to our exemplars of presidential character. We should assume that “Country First” is a sentiment that every patriotic American deeply subscribes; that all of us want to see positive changes for the future. That said, let us dispense with bumper-sticker ideology, and investigate the actual character of each candidate. Let us consider the deeds of these men rather than their words.

Before announcing his candidacy for the highest office, Barack Obama associated himself with socialist organizations, a peculiar philosophy that supports state or collective ownership of all property and the means of production. Since we achieve personal and national wealth through property and the means of production, Mr. Obama apparently believes than an egalitarian society is only possible when the state controls property and wealth. By extension, the State will distribute wealth according to its own priorities, and the State will achieve this through any number of programs, including taxation. Socialist programs relieve individuals of responsibility, for themselves, and for their families. We see this clearly in Mr. Obama’s platform;

Economic Policy

· An immediate energy rebate to American families

· An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy

· Federal assistance to states and localities in education, health care, and infrastructure

· Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending

· Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges

· Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools

· Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs.

· Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity.

· National health care initiatives

We should perhaps note at this point that governments do not create wealth, people do. Governments may facilitate productivity through sound economic policy, but they cannot interfere in a market economy without significant disruption to capitalist investment and diminishing personal and corporate income and profits. Barack Obama’s socialist platform is anathema to Kennedy’s economic philosophy, and may be unparalleled since the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Simply stated, responsible government cannot spend more than anticipated revenues, and it is contrary to American values to redistribute income in a free-market environment.

John McCain is a moderate conservative approximating John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. He believes that the Constitution of the United States limits the role of the federal government, and he strives to work with the Congress within a constitutional framework to improve government efficiency and reduce waste. Like Kennedy and Reagan, McCain believes that lower taxes improve productivity, and that reduced spending is fiscally responsible and economically necessary. While there are some things the federal government must do, other projects constitutionally fall within the purview of the 50 states. National defense and homeland security is something the federal government must do, but the central government must form partnerships with the states on other important human-services programs. Reflected in Mr. McCain’s platform:

Economic Policy

· Implement immediate transparency to the budgeting process

· Evaluate and reduce spending on wasteful and inefficient programs

· Empower states to improve public services

· Implement meaningful (and trustworthy) oversight of government programs

· Make government more efficient and responsive to citizen’s needs

· Prioritize spending to improve and safeguard America’s infrastructure

· Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Programs

· Restore Social Security to a sound financial basis

· Expand opportunities to promote personal and industrial prosperity
Of these two men, which has the greatest character? Which of these candidates maintains faith with our founding principles of Constitutional Federalism, a steady hand on the tiller of state, while allowing individuals to choose for themselves their best course? John McCain is not a perfect man, nor is he without justifiable criticism of his previous positions; but John McCain is an open book. His service to his country and his associations has been honorable, and trustworthy.

Barack Obama has not been honest and forthright with the American people. He has hidden his past associations or played them down. He has defamed religious teaching through adherence to black separatist theology and racism, consorted with known terrorists, and enjoys the backing of organizations harmful to the interests and the people of the United States. As an advocate of socialist/Marxist ideology, Barack Obama is frankly, in our judgment, un-American. He falls far short of exemplars such as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Character matters because our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts. If we intend to resolve these problems, we must have the steady hand of true statesmanship. We must have in our president wisdom, experience, honesty, fidelity, and valor. Our president must be a man whose character is consistent with our Nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.

Every presidential election brings forth professional pundits who tell us that this election is the most important of our entire lifetime. This time, they could be right. Our selection of the right man will assure our children, and theirs, of a nation dedicated to individual liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. If we choose the wrong man, we may very well witness an end to the United States as created by our forefathers. We are living in perilous times — there is no room for error in our selection of the 44th President of the United States.

On Election Day, one of these candidates will receive a majority of popular votes. In December, the Electoral College will validate the popular vote and confirm the identity of our next president. But this election is more than a referendum on the ability of the American voter to discern between two well-educated men. This election is rather a test of America’s ability to distinguish and reward personal character and to recognize integrity and statesmanship between one man who possesses these qualities and the other who does not.
We urge Americans to vote for John McCain. There simply is no other choice that is good for the American people, or our great country.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" — Ronald Reagan

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Blog Burst: An Enigma Named Barack

An Enigma Named Barack
by L. A. Sunset

We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.

Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.

Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):


William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years.

Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.

Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader
Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.

Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.

Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the
Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.

Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down
the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)

Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.

Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis
assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.

Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.

Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to
a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground
leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is a former director of
The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”

Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for
six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the
Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”


Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.

The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:


The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.

Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).

Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this
1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party


Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.

From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.

Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled
Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled,
The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.

Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.

John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.

Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.

Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.

Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.

We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.

We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Obama/Biden Economic Plan A Fraud


OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD


The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week we will address that issue; and we’ll do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?
We don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.


With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what we found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a
manner that benefits the middle class.

In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”

Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.

He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.

Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”

Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.

Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.

To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?

To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.



(click chart for larger image)

NOBAMA!



Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.


None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.

Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Seriously Nobama08

We cannot oppose Barack Obama without also opposing the party he represents, along with Republicans who enable socialist engineering. Barack Obama is not the only socialist who seeks elective office in November.

Why do we oppose Barack Obama? As comedian Jackie Mason recently reminded us, Barack Obama is popular because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the way he presents himself – but remember that’s his field of expertise. His primary accomplishments include looking good, lying with a straight face, and associating himself with powerful radical activists. When you think about it, he is exactly who un-American liberals want living in the White House. Last week, we argued that Barack Obama is an empty suit. This week, we should admit the suit isn’t completely empty … there are dangerous, anti-American forces at work within the Obama election infrastructure.

It is difficult to fathom the arrogance of someone who, after only 143 days in the U. S. Senate, announces he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency. And what is it exactly that causes this egotism? It may be that Barack Obama has cleverly orchestrated a sophisticated behind-the-scenes mechanism designed to create conditions favorable to his election. It is a cooperative of followers of (anarchist) Saul Alinsky, busily implementing the so-called “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.” According to The Nation magazine (1966), “The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

American Thinker illustrates the workings of this scheme in the following graph; one that demonstrates a well-funded program centered around George Soros’ Open Society Institute, managed by former SDS member Aryeh Neler, and facilitated by the now infamous Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) (Note: Associations … plural). With 28 days to the National Elections, we do seem suddenly plagued with one financial catastrophe after another. Government bureaucracy is definitely overloaded, and society is being pushed into a sense of crisis. Fact, or fiction … the reader can decide for him or her self. But if it is only partially true, the implications present us with unsettling possibilities.


We are used to political organizations, such as the Democratic and Republican Party; but no one outside the radical left can be comfortable with an organization such as this. And if Barack Obama’s ego causes him to believe that he is brighter than most, and that he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency … he could be correct – no one so far has been smart enough to figure out what is happening behind the scenes. Few mainstream journalists have seriously evaluated Obama’s connection to the anti-American, radical left; not the so-called conservative press, not the Republican Party, and none of the self-styled America-first organizations.

Barack Obama is dangerous for other reasons, too. On the one hand, it is possible to dismiss the junior senator as one of those people with advance degrees, lacking common sense. We can say that he is able to quote Marxist and anarchist rhetoric, but lacks a concomitant real world understanding of the implications of such radical ideas. But there is yet another possibility: Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He knows precisely where he wants to take this country. And no one who understands this man’s motivations can feel comfortable with that perspective.

Barack Obama’s radicalism, thinly disguised by his subtle move to the political center-left, clearly repudiates everything America stands for. Conservative Americans may find themselves baffled by a man who professes love for the United States, but who then seeks to institute radical Marxist changes in government, in our courts, and within society … but not if we are watching and listening carefully to the Obama rhetoric. If we have not already dismissed common sense concern for his radicalism, if we have not already accepted Obama’s mild protestations of innocence, then we can recall the words of Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit (“g-damn America”) and we can say, “There is the real Barack Obama.” If we can focus on the obvious, we can draw a direct line between Jeremiah Wright’s church and the Black Racist ideology of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan – both of whom engage in the radicalization of the black community, then we know the real man behind the deceptively “empty suit.” The underlying, important question is, “Are Americans Paying Attention?”

By pursuing his radical, anti-American agenda, Barack Obama repudiates everything America stands for … and his rejection of our traditional values extends well beyond the sophomoric debate between capitalists and socialists, even if not altogether irrelevant. The United States is a great nation today because of our traditional values. Our forefathers rejected big government, and they were able to raise their families without having to rely on the mistaken notion that “Only a village can raise a child.” They avoided personal indebtedness, preferring to live within their means, and they denounced the idea that government is entitled to their hard-earned income. In the past, we celebrated entrepreneurial spirit; today we demean it. Today, encouraged by the poison of materialism and socialist entitlement programs, America is a nation of debtors; ever the opportunist, Barack Obama and his radical left organization is taking full advantage of our social and individual indolence.

Let us not forget that government largess feeds upon itself. Marxists use government to redistribute wealth; it is the great equalizer ensuring everyone is equally miserable. Obama is using Alinsky’s “community activism” to achieve that power, and socialist ideology to maintain it. We stand in opposition to Barack Obama and his machine politics because we reject Marxist/socialist government. It strips people of their individualism, their dignity, and their will to resist subjugation, but this is the goal of an Obama administration, gift wrapped with empty promises. In our view, Barack Obama is willing to do anything to achieve his objectives, legal or not. We categorically reject him as a new-age messiah, and we stand united against his anti-American programs and policies.

Our question to Obama supporters remains unanswered: “How is it possible to love America, and support Barack Obama?” The horror of radical left/Marxist ideology is Obama’s consistent and unfettered promise for America. It is why we oppose him. It is why we urge our readers to vote NO to Obama and NO to socialists in Congress.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Video: The Violent Suppression of Women in Islam

Description of video:
The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam is a graphic, nightmarish, and profoundly unsettling glance into the darkest recesses of our fellow man. Narrated by Nonie Darwish, this film accurately depicts the dehumanizing theology, brutal abuse, and degradation that comprise the daily lives of millions of women in the fascist portions of the Islamic world -- arcing like a crescent from sub-Saharan Africa, through Iran, to north-central Asia and reaching into hidden pockets of the United States. These acts include the honor killing of a seven-year-old girl, beheaded for having been the victim of sexual abuse; gang-rapes, occasionally perpetrated by family members, to punish women who refuse to wear the hijab; the regular marriage of grown men to nine-year-old girls, in imitation of Islam's founder, Muhammad; genital mutilation of infant girls to destroy their sexual pleasure and objectify them as outlets for the gratification of man's lust; the widespread, often public practice of wife-battery, a practice justified by the Koran; public stoning for violations of Shari'a law; and sadly, much, much more. Taken together, the images of this video are a grotesque and disturbing assault on the integrity of women....



YouTube link

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Support The Free Speech Protection Act of 2008

When Congress returns next month, the Senate Judiciary Committee may take up the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2977), a bill that protects U.S. authors and publishers from the threat of libel tourism.

The Libel Tourist - Updated Edition explains:



YouTube link

Right NOW the bill is pending in Congress. We have only until the first week of September to get everybody to demand that Congress pass this bill. If we miss this opportunity, all American writers and publishers - except those living in New York State, where Rachel's Law already passed, continue to be silenced.

Write or call your Congresssional representatives to demand their support of the Free Speech Act 2008. Don't wait! The deadline for responding is close of business Friday, September 5.

The numbers of the bill are as follows: H.R. 5814 (House of Representatives) and S-2977 (Senate).

Useful contact information:

General Judiciary Committee

Staff Majority Communications Director Jonathan Godfrey:
Tel (202) 225-3951

Majority Press Secretary/Spokesperson Melanie Roussell:
Tel (202) 225-3951

Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel Perry Apelbaum:
Tel (202) 225-3951

Minority Chief of Staff/General Counselor:
Tel (202) 226-0002

Minority Communications Director Kim Smith:
Tel (202) 225-6906

Senators on Committee

NY Charles Schumer
Press Secretary Brian Fallon: (202) 224-7433

VT Patrick J. Leahy
Press Secretary Erica Chabot: (202) 224-2154

MA Edward Kennedy
Press Secretary Melissa Wagoner: (202) 224-2633

DE Joseph Biden
Press Secretary Elizabeth Alexander: Tel (202) 224-2154

WI Herbert Kohl
Press Secretary Lynn Becker: (202) 224-2240

WI Russ Feingold
Press Secretary Zach Lowe: (202) 224-8657

CA Dianne Feinstein
Press Secretary Scott Gerber: (202) 224-8657

IL Richard Durbin
Press Secretary Joe Shoemaker: (202) 224-7028

MD Benjamin Cardin
Press Secretary Sue Walitsky: (202) 224-7433

RI Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
Press Secretary Alex Swartsel: (202) 224-7433

PA Arlen Specter
Press Secretary Chris Gindlesperger: (202) 224-5225

UT Orrin Hatch
Press Secretary Mark Eddington: (202) 224-5251

IA Charles Grassley
Press Secretary Beth Levine: (202) 224-6197

AZ Jon Kyl
Press Secretary Andrew Wilder: (202) 224-4521

AL Jeff Sessions
Press Secretary Michael Brumas: (202) 224-4124

SC Lindsey Graham
Press Secretary Wes Hickman: (202) 224-5972

TX John Cornyn
Press Secretary Brian Walsh: (202) 224-2934

KS Sam Brownback
Press Secretary John Rankin: (202) 224-6521

OK Tom Coburn
Press Secretary John Hart: (202) 224-5754



Congressional Representatives

NY-9th Anthony Weiner

NY-8th Jerrold Nadler Tel: 202-225-5635

CA-24th Elton Gallegly

CA-3rd Dan Lungren

CA-29th Adam Schiff

CA-28th Howard Berman Fax (202) 225-3196

CA-16th Zoe Lofgren

CA-35th Maxine Waters

CA-39th Linda Sanchez

CA-27th Brad Sherman

CA-49th Darrell Issa

MI 14th John Conyers (Chair) Fax (202) 225-0072

VA-9th Rick Boucher

VA-3rd Bobby Scott

VA-6th Bob Goodlatte

VA-4th Randy Forbes

NC-12th Melvin Watt

MA-10th William Delahunt

FL-8th Ric Keller

FL-24th Tom Feeney

FL-20th Debbie Wasserman Schultz

FL-19th Robert Wexler

TN-9th Stephen Cohen

GA-4th Hank Johnson

OH-13th Betty Sutton

IL-4th Luis Gutierrez

WI-2nd Tammy Baldwin

AL-7th Artur Davis

MN-5th Keith Ellison

TX-21st Lamar S. Smith

TX-18th Sheila Jackson Lee

TX-1st Louie Gohmert

WI-5th F. James Sensenbrenner

NC-6th Howard Coble

UT-3rd Chris Cannon

IN-6th Mike Pence

IA-5th Steve King

AZ-2nd Trent Franks

OH-4th Jim Jordan

OH-1st Steve Chabot

Read more about The Free Speech Protection Act at The American Center for Democracy.

Monday, August 11, 2008

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Muslims, Your Whining about Islamophobia Is Stupid and Juvenile!

By Cassandra (USA)
author of Thirty-Three Secrets Arab Men Never Tell American Women:
A Dissection of How Muslims Treat Women and Infidels

To Muslim apologists who are working to ruin and destroy the United States and the rest of the free world:

Rather than stand around and whine about Islamophobia, about how you are not respected, and about how Islam is reviled by those of us who count our blessings daily that we are infidels, why don’t you do something constructive about it?

If you would truly like to change how people think about you, your backward god of slaughter, your political agenda for conquering the world, and your pedophile/ butcher father-figure, Muhammad, there are some practical things you could actually be doing to improve your low-class image:

• Stop killing people all over the world.

• Stop slandering, abusing, and killing Israelis and Jews all over the world, especially in Israel.


• Stop slandering, killing, and abusing Christians, Hindus, and all other non-Muslims everywhere.


• Force the imams and mullahs to stop preaching hatred and murder of non-Muslims everywhere.


• Start abiding by, and promoting, the peaceful, Meccan suras in the Qur’an.


• Get rid of Salafi/Wahhabi terrorist imams, teachers, doctors, businessmen, and organizations such as CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Association, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and HAMAS and force them to return to the Middle Eastern deserts to stir up trouble over there.


• Force CAIR to close all its offices and deport the employees back to the Middle East. An equally practical alternative—turn them in to the authorities for prosecution as terrorists, seditionists, and traitors.


• Force all Muslim Brotherhood chapters to close up shop and the members to return to their countries—or turn them in for prosecution as terrorists, seditionists, and traitors.


• Close every madrassa or change the curriculum and textbooks to instill positive attitudes about making one’s way in the society in which the students live , loyalty to and appreciation of that country, and to impart knowledge of skills that can be used to forge a good life for oneself.


• Close every mosque until nonviolent imams can be found.


• Integrate more into the society in which you live—enclaves of Muslims are not the way to get along and they are not conducive to positive behavior patterns as demonstrated by the enclaves in the Netherlands, Britain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Falls Church VA, Detroit, MI, Sudan, India, Indonesia . . .


• Get rid of the oil lobbies. Send the Saudis, including Saudi students, home.


• Get rid of all Wahhabi Islamic Studies Department in all universities.


• Reject anything to do with violence and terrorism.


• Stop using every little excuse to make trouble for non-Muslims.


• Stop playing the victim card—life is not perfect for anyone. Solve your own problems.


• Stop going after special privileges. You are not any more special than anyone else. Rise to the top through great behavior and a good, honest work ethic!


• Stop lying through your teeth about American history, the nature of Christianity, the nature of Judaism, the nature of Islam and definitions in Muslim terminology, the nature of madrassas, the nature of sharia finance, your determination to rule the world and yank everyone back into your own cultural morass of bestiality. . .


• Males, STOP KILLING YOUR POOR WOMEN AND GIRLS. Let them make a few of their own choices in life without fear of being killed.


• STOP FORCING YOUR DAUGHTERS TO BE GENITALLY MUTILATED. This causes lifelong diseases, infection, and often death.


• Move into the 21st century! Leave your 7th-century barbaric behavior patterns in the dust of Arabia to lie there and die there.


• Males, learn to take responsibility for your own actions. Do not blame your own failures on your mothers, sisters, aunts, wives, daughters—this is craven, low-class, and worth hating you to the death for. Right now, you are the scum of the earth for this habit of yours.


• Stop trying to ruin, destroy, conquer, and steal other peoples’ countries from them.


• Stop trying to destroy and steal the cultural and religious heritages of other countries such as India, Asia, Europe, the United States, and the rest of the free world.


• Let those people who label themselves as Palestinians migrate to other countries to establish lives for themselves.


• Stop committing terrorist acts all over the world.


• Get over this obsession with thinking that what you want is all that matters and that anyone who gets in your way is “an enemy” and that “you are oppressed”.


• Treat other people as you want to be treated. The Golden Rule goes a long way in relationships with other people.


Those are just a few suggestions — if you really want to reduce the rising amount of hatred for Muslims as a whole which the terrorists and their supporters are causing for those of you who just want to live your lives and raise your children in safety.

These will work — if you implement them. If you do implement these changes, the whole world will salute you. And people like me will be proud to call you friend.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

The Truth About The Islamic Genital Mutilation Of Four- and Five-Year-Old Children By Muslims


Female genital mutilation, which the New York Times recently tried to gloss over in the name of multiculturalism, is a horrific practice, typically performed in the name of Allah. How hideous a practice is FGM? A few drawings and photos from this source:

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!

THIS POSTING IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC!

DO NOT SCROLL DOWN IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY PHOTOS AND DRAWINGS OF FEMALE AND MALE GENITALIA!






























Normal female genitalia




Butchered female genitalia (3 drawings)



"Type I FGM, often termed clitorectomy, involves excision of the skin surrounding the clitoris with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris (Fig 2). When this procedure is performed in infants and young girls, a portion of or all of the clitoris and surrounding tissues may be removed. If only the clitoral prepuce is removed, the physical manifestation of Type I FGM may be subtle, necessitating a careful examination of the clitoris and adjacent structures for recognition."




"Type II FGM, referred to as excision, is the removal of the entire clitoris and part or all of the labia minora. Crude stitches of catgut or thorns may be used to control bleeding from the clitoral artery and raw tissue surfaces, or mud poultices may be applied directly to the perineum. Patients with Type II FGM do not have the typical contour of the anterior perineal structures resulting from the absence of the labia minora and clitoris. The vaginal opening is not covered in the Type II procedure."




"Type III FGM, known as infibulation, is the most severe form in which the entire clitoris and some or all of the labia minora are excised, and incisions are made in the labia majora to create raw surfaces. The labial raw surfaces are stitched together to cover the urethra and vaginal introitus, leaving a small posterior opening for urinary and menstrual flow. In Type III FGM, the patient will have a firm band of tissue replacing the labia and obliteration of the urethra and vaginal openings."
Information for which no graphic is provided:
"Type IV includes different practices of variable severity including pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization of the clitoris; and scraping or introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina."

Actual photos (2)





"Instruments" used



CLICK HERE to read the information about the complications of female genital mutilation, which include
hemorrhage, shock secondary to blood loss or pain, local infection and failure to heal, septicemia, tetanus, trauma to adjacent structures, and urinary retention...[as well as] the development of painful subcutaneous dermoid cysts and keloid formation along excised tissue edges. More serious complications include pelvic infection, dysmenorrhea, hematocolpos, painful intercourse, infertility, recurrent urinary tract infection, and urinary calculus formation....anxiety before the event, terror at being seized and forcibly held during the event, great difficulty during childbirth, and lack of sexual pleasure during intercourse...
According to this source, "genital surgery" in certain Islamic nations is not only for females. The following two photos were obviously not taken at Jewish circumcisions:



Excerpted from "Knife Edge of Manhood" Text and Photograph by Esaias Baitel

Independent on Sunday/London, p. 44, 23 June 1995

In Istanbul's "Circumcision Palace," 10 boys from three to nine years old are sitting on a merry-go-round waiting for one of the most important ceremonies of their lives to begin. Dressed in colourful pasha-style costumes, they are about to be circumcised, like all Muslim boys in Turkey, and the carousel is spinning to the rhythm of a Muslim cleric's chanting.

"It's like Russian roulette," says Kemal Ozkan, laughing. Ozkan, known as the "Sultan of Circumcision," presides over the mass ceremony, stopping the wheel to pick up the boy in front of him for the next operation. Ozkan has done as many as 2,000 circumcisions in a day, and has performed tens of thousands in all.

"If you don't cut, I'll give you double the money that my father is paying you," whispers the seven-year-old to Ozkan. "I don't sell my reputation that cheap," the Sultan of Circumcision jokingly answers, as he grabs the boy's penis.

When all the boys on the wheel have been circumcised, the celebration begins. Traditional music fills the hall and the boys and their families take to the dance floor. But not for long. The anaesthetic only lasts for about two hours, after which the pain sets in.





In some cases, a ceremony follows. Blood is visible on the boy's hands:

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Muhammed: A Cult Leader

From Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allâh's Prophet
We are often taken aback by the level of fanaticism of Muslims. Millions of them riot, burn churches, and kill completely innocent people because a newspaper has published a few cartoons of Muhammad or because the Pope has quoted a medieval emperor saying that violence is not compatible with the nature of God.
People generally are biased towards a belief system that has this many followers. They believe that the sheer size of Islam qualifies it as a religion. But is Islam really a religion?
Some say all religions start as a cult until, with the passage of time, they gradually gain acceptance and the status of religion. However, there are certain characteristics that distinguish cults from religions. Dr. Janja Lalich and Dr. Michael D. Langone have created a list that describes cults fairly well.[1] The more a group or a doctrine has these characteristics the more it follows that it should be defined and labeled as a cult. The following is that list, which I have compared Islam to point by point.
1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Muslims are extremely zealous about their faith and have an unquestioning commitment to their prophet, whose book, the Qur’an, for them is Truth and Law.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Muslims are forbidden to question and doubt the basic tenets of their faith, and dissent is punishable by death.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
Five times during the day Muslims stop whatever they are doing and stand for a repetitive and ritualistic prayer and chant the Qur’an. In addition, for one whole month in the year they must fast and abstain from drinking or eating, from dawn to dusk, a practice that can be particularly taxing in summertime.
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel.
For example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth.
Every detail of the life of a Muslim is prescribed.
He is told what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted (halal), what food to eat, how to dress, and what rituals to follow in order to pray. A Muslim is not allowed to date, and marriages are arranged. Corporal punishment, including torture for disobedience to the authorities, is enjoined, both for children and adults.
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members.
For example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity.
Muslims claim special status for their prophet, while they vilify all other religions. They can become extremely violent if their prophet is slighted. They regard themselves as superior to all others, and when in a non-Muslim country, they constantly lobby for concessions and preferential treatments like the special privilege of having a special room set aside in publicly funded schools so that Muslim students can pray there. They are frequently granted exceptions unavailable to members of other religions. Recently in Ontario , Canada , they tried to make Islamic law (Sharia) recognized and binding, so they could bypass Canadian law. They were defeated, thanks largely to the tireless opposition of ex-Muslims.
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
Muslims have a very strong us-versus-them mentality. They call all non-Muslims, regardless of faith, kafir, an expressly derogatory term, which means one who blasphemes God. For them, the world is forever divided into Dar al Salam (House of Peace) and Dar al Harb (House of War). The non-Muslim countries are the House of War. It is the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad on the House of War, to fight, kill and subdue non-Muslims and convert that land into the House of Peace. Peace, according to Islam can only be attained by subduing non-Muslims and making them subordinate to Islamic rule. The idea is not so much to convert everyone to Islam, but to make Islam dominant. The non-Muslims can continue practicing their religion, but only as dhimmis, a term which means protected and is only applied to Christians and Jews. The Christians and the Jews (the people of the Book) will be protected, provided they pay the protection tax, known as the jizyah and feel themselves humiliated and subdued, as stated in the Qur’an.[2] If they fail to pay the jizyah, they can be exiled or put to death. This is how the Mafia operates. If you own a business, you could be harassed or even killed, unless you pay them a protection fee to be left alone. As for those unbelievers who are not protected, i.e. the pagans, the atheist, the animists, etc., they have either to convert or be killed.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities.
For Muslims, all actions of Muhammad constitute law. He cannot be held accountable for his actions. He was entitled to marry or have sex out of marriage with as many women as he wished. He could raid civilians, kill unarmed men, loot their properties and take their women and children as slaves and even rape them. He could assassinate his critics and torture them to make them reveal where they had hidden their treasures. He could have sex with children. He could lie and deceive his opponents. He could massacre his prisoners of war in cold-blood. None of that bothers his followers. At first they deny all of the above charges vehemently, accusing you of maligning their prophet, but once the evidence is presented, they suddenly change tactic and defend him, justifying his evil deeds, the very deeds they outrageously denied. For Muslims, Muhammad’s actions are not measured by what we humans know as right and wrong. Rather he is the standard, the measure of right and wrong. As the result, if a crime was committed by Muhammad, that crime becomes a holy deed and is emulated by his followers unquestioningly. Muslims are capable of committing the most atrocious acts of indecency and savagery with clear conscience, because it is sunnah (performed by Muhammad).
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary.
This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
In Islam, the ends always justify the means. For example, killing is bad, but if it is done to promote Islam, it is good. Suicide is prohibited, but suicide bombing that will cause the death of non-Muslims is a holy act. Stealing from fellow Muslims is prohibited and the thief’s hand will be chopped, but looting non-believers was practiced by Muhammad and so is considered acceptable by Muslims. Sexual intercourse out of marriage is taboo, but rape of the women of unbelievers is okay. The goal, which is the establishment of the reign of Allâh on Earth, is regarded to be so lofty that everything else becomes secondary. In the history of Islam, we read that people murdered their own fathers or waged war against them. Such actions are praised as the sign of faith and devotion of the believer. Lying in Islam is prohibited, except when it is said to deceive the non-Muslims and advance the interests of Islam.
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members.
Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Muslims’ thoughts tend to be overridden with guilt. If a Muslim does something contrary to what is permitted, other Muslims are required to remind him or her of the Sharia law and demand compliance. In most Islamic countries, particularly in Iran and Saudi Arabia , it is the state that makes sure the individuals follow the religious law. In March 2002 Saudi Arabia 's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress.[3] As a result fifteen girls were burned alive.
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
Muslim converts are encouraged to cut their ties with family and friends if they are not Muslims. I have received countless heart-rending stories from non-Muslim parents whose children converted to Islam with whom they have lost touch completely. Occasionally, they may receive a call or a cold visit, but the visit may be so restricted, so bereft of any love from their children and their Muslim spouses that the outcome further saddens the already heartbroken parents. The purpose of these visits is usually to ask the parents to convert to Islam. They leave, as soon resistance is encountered.
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
Muslims’ main goal is to promote Islam. This practice of promoting Islam is called da’wa. It is the duty of every Muslim to bring new converts, starting with their own family and friends. Expanding Islam is the main obsession of every Muslim.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
Raising funds for jihad is one of the main objectives of all Muslims. Today this is done through what are known as Islamic “charities.” However, during the time of Muhammad, and throughout the course of Islam, raising money for jihad was done principally by looting. Islam’s main goal is to establish itself as the pre-eminent earthly power.
13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Muslims’ main preoccupation is Islam. They are required to regularly go to the mosque, attend obligatory prayers five times a day, listen to the sermons, etc. So enwrapped do they become in their thinking about how to perform their religious duties, what to wear, what to eat, how to perform their prayers, etc. that they are left with very little time for thinking of anything else. In fact, they are even told what to think and what not to think.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
Muslims are taught to shun kafirs and are encouraged to socialize only with fellow Muslims. The Qur’an prohibits taking friends from among unbelievers (Q.3:28), calls them najis (filthy, impure) (Q.9:28), and orders harshness towards them (Q.9:123). According to Muhammad, the unbelievers are the vilest animals in the sight of God. (Q.8:55)
15. The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group.
They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
The thought of leaving Islam is something so unbearable for true Muslims they can’t even entertain it. Despite the fact that millions of Muslims have left Islam in recent years, hardcore Muslims remain adamant in believing nobody ever really leaves Islam, that such claims are all fabrications and part of the conspiracy to shake the faith of believers. Emails I have received from Muslims share one common theme. They all warn me of hellfire in the afterlife. Between the fear of hell and fear of reprisal, Muslims are trapped in a web of terror of their own making.
Islam was not created to teach humans spirituality, nor make them enlightened. The spiritual message in Islam is secondary or virtually nonexistent. Piety in Islam means emulating Muhammad, a man who was far from pious. Rituals like prayers and fasting are mere window dressings to lure the foolhardy inside, to give Islam the appearance of sacredness and spirituality.
This subject is explained in more detail in my book Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allâh's Prophet
[1] www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
[2] Qur’an 9:29 “Fight those who believe not in Allâh nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm