And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Posts Tagged ‘freedom of speech

  • This video reminded me of the home child care workers who were forced to join the union and pay dues totally against their will.  These people are thugs and any union members who follow their bosses lead in the actions they back are thugs too.

Now the international union  is planning to attack Boeing Air Craft for building a plant in South Carolina a Right to Work State (meaning a person is not forced to join a union in order to get a job! as is the case in union states such as California)  he reason the union thugs give for going after Boeing is because they build a new plant in South Carolina “deliberately” instead of building another one in California.    There were no jobs lost in the Boeing Plant in California because of this move!  The California plant is going strong with no plans to shut it down or move it!   So, this is just an example of union thuggery and by going after a big outfit like Boeing the union bosses hope to warn other companies from moving to Right to Work states.  THIS EFFORT IS BEING LEAD AND ENCOURAGED BY THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.  OBAMA RECENTLY APPOINTED A FORMER UNION BOSS TO THE NLRB !

We the People have got to be vigilant and watch these underhanded tactics.  It is especially important that decent union members who are indeed the majority begin to recognize what their bosses are doing and demand changes from within.  BB)

Advertisements

What Is ‘Shariah’?.

Again and again I have tried to warn my readers that Islam is at war with the world of “non-believers” and there is no such thing as Islam being a peaceful religion.  It is a religion of hate and an admonition from their supreme being to kill.  This article may help some of you finally get the facts of just what Islam is and why we must stand firm against Islams law which is called “shariah”.  BB

NOTE: The United States is under attack by foes who are openly animated by what is known in Islam as shariah, or Islamic law. According to shariah, every faithful Muslim is obligated to wage jihad – whether violent or not – against those who do not adhere to this comprehensive, totalitarian, political-military code.  A team of experts coordinated by the Center for Security Policy has recently produced a ground-breaking report, Shariah: The Threat to America, describing in detail precisely what shariah is and what it means for all of us. What follows is extracted from that report, issued on September 15.

How Does Shariah Define Jihad?

Posted by Team B Sep 19th 2010 at 4:21 am in Featured Story, Islam, Islamic extremism, Justice/Legal, sharia | Comments (32)

Shariah – the law derived from Islam’s foundational documents – defines the Islamic doctrine of the universal obligation to jihad against non-believers.

The question is, What is meant by “jihad”? Is it merely a personal struggle to sacrifice for God and be the best possible Muslim? Or does jihad mean holy war, the pursuit of a global Islamic state known as a caliphate, that rules in accordance with shariah?

The Center for Security Policy’s “Team B” studied the question in its recent report, Shariah – Threat to America. On September 17, BigPeace ran Team B’s answer to the question, “What is Shariah?“  Today we summarize the Team B report’s findings on shariah and jihad.

Team_B_Avatar

The answer to the question, “What is Jihad?” is readily accessible to those willing to seek it – not from critics of Islam, but from the Quran and other foundational Islamic sources.

Shariah scholars typically cite as authority for jihad from the Quran any of the 164 verses that specifically refer to jihad against non-Muslims in terms that include military expeditions, fighting enemies, or distributing the spoils of war. By describing the warfare of jihad as something sanctioned by Allah himself, Islamic authorities set it apart from the common tribal warfare of the time and elevated it to a superior status of something sacred.

In addition to the Quran, which Muslims believe is the text of words delivered directly from Allah to Mohammed, the hadiths (accounts of the actions and sayings of Mohammed) are a second primary source governing jihad in Islamic doctrine. A third principal source is made up of recognized compilations of classical Muslim writings that systematize and codify Islamic law. They spell out the duty of jihad as holy war, which all Muslims, according to shariah, must advance in one or more carefully delineated ways.

Islamic jurisprudence, known as fiqh in Arabic, forms the legal context for shariah and its rulings. As such it relies first and foremost on the Quran and cites its verses to support the caliphate and jihad. Simple citation of the verses themselves, without the context provided by how sharia scholars (who guide and enforce Islamic thought and action) interpreted these verses, provides an incomplete and incorrect understanding.

The Team B report on Islamic threat doctrine specifically cites the sources. Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Umdat Al-Salik) written in the 14th century by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, states, “Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.” According to this authoritative doctrinal text, the “greater” jihad is the struggle for the spiritual self – what the Muslim Brotherhood wants the non-Muslim world to understand as the “real” meaning of jihad.

When Reliance refers to the greater and lesser jihad, it indicates that this differentiation is not a part of the law of jihad – leaving us with no alternative but to understand that, under shariah, the meaning of “jihad” connotes force and violence.

In the 20th century, Muslim Brotherhood ideologues such as Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-56) recast modern jihad on the fiery language of revolution and anti-colonialism of the times and not just strictly warfare to expand Islamic and legal political dominance – whether against oppressive colonialist forces of Muslim rulers (“the near enemy”) who were judged apostates because of their failure to uphold shariah.

Qutb, the chief theoretician for the Muslim Brotherhood, declared in his capstone book Milestones, “The reason for jihad which have been described in . . . verses [from the sacred texts] are these: to establish God’s authority in the earth; to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God; to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life; to end the lordship of one man over others since all men are creatures of God and no one has the authority to make them his servants or make arbitrary laws for them. These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming jihad.”

By “Satanic systems of life,” Qutb was referring to the way of life practiced in Western-style, secular, liberal democracies. The reference to “the lordship of one man over others” was not reserved for dictators, but to any man-made law – including Muslim leaders who did not rule under the shariah code. The assassins of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat acted on Mawdudi and Qutb’s injunctions with respect to jihad.

The Quran (verse 2:216) obligates all Muslims to wage jihad, “though it be hateful to you.”

Most Americans are familiar with the violent form of jihad as waged by the terrorists. There is a second kind of jihad that is not violent – at least not for the moment – that the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” Civilization jihad is “pre-violent.” And it is all around us.
Part two:

David    Yerushalmi

Is Shariah the Same as Jewish Law?

At the recent press conference on Team B II’s report, Shariah: The Threat to America, a reporter from UPI asked the following question:

I’ve always thought Shariah was a body of Islamic religious law much like Jewish Halacha, governing peoples’ personal affairs. So I’m wondering, what is it in your view? What is Shariah, and why, specifically, is it a threat to our country?

Below, you can see my response.

embedded by Embedded Video

This line of argument follows a long tradition of Muslim Brotherhood agents in the West and other apologists for the brutality of Shariah. For example, just recently, many of the press reports announcing that England has recently granted Shariah courts on its home soil formal authoritative status as a recognized arbitration panel concluded identically as follows: “Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: ‘The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.’”

Consider this, then, a tutorial on why the active and purposeful pursuit of Shariah in the U.S. has implications for the federal criminal law of sedition (notably Title 18, Section 2385 of the U.S. Code) and why Jewish law and Christian dogma or Catholic canon do not. Specifically, I present here a brief discussion of whether such application of federal criminal law to Shariah would have an impact on the practice of Jews who observe Jewish law and the private adjudication of religious and commercial matters before a bais din or Jewish court of law (or, for that matter, Christians or Catholics submitting arbitral matters before private ecclesiastical boards or panels).

To begin, by Shariah we mean the authoritative and authoritarian corpus juris of Islamic law as it has been articulated by the recognized Shariah authorities over more than a millennium. The term Shariah as used herein, therefore, does not refer to a personal, subjective, pietistic understanding of the word or concept of Shariah. This latter understanding of the word Shariah is closer to its literal meaning in Arabic without any of the legalistic connotations it has developed as an authoritative institution in Islamic history; as it is currently practiced in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan; and as it is meant when referred to in the various laws and constitutions of most Muslim countries.

I have written extensively on the question of the practice or advocacy of Shariah by Shariah authorities as a violation of the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385) on the grounds that throughout the long 1200-year history of the development of Shariah, and across all five major schools of Shariah jurisprudence, five salient facts are embedded in a deep consensus among all authoritative Shariah authorities:

  1. The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.
  2. Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non- violent means. But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.
  3. The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.
  4. The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,
  5. Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.

Much of my work in this area has drawn upon original Shariah-based works and the academic scholarship relating to that body of work, but also includes the scholarship of others. I especially owe much to Stephen Coughlin (Major U.S. Army Reserves, military intelligence) and his work for the Joint Chiefs while assigned to USCENTCOM.

Because Jihad necessarily advocates violence and the destruction of our representative, constitution- based government, the advocacy of Jihad by a Shariah authority presents a real and present danger. This is sedition when advocated from within our borders; an act of war when directed at us from foreign soil.

This is especially true because a Shariah authority commands the absolute allegiance of the Shariah faithful Jihadist. As Professors Frank Vogel and Samuel Hayes explain, both distinguished professors at Harvard University and proponents of Shariah-compliant finance, Shariah is not some personalized, subjective, pietistic approach to Islam but an institutionalized legal-political-normative doctrine and system:

Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the next, church and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual conscience from rules enforced by a judge or by the state. Since scholars alone are capable of knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are expected to seek an opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in doubt; if they follow that opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the opinion is in error.[1] (Emphasis added.)

Shariah, as it is described on its own terms, is fundamentally and critically unlike Jewish law and any form of Christian canon or ecclesiastical law. Specifically, because neither Jewish law (halacha) nor Christian canon or ecclesiastical law obligates the Jew or Christian, respectively, to violently impose theo-political tenets in lieu of the Constitution, there is simply no basis to apply the laws of sedition to the application of Jewish law or Christian dogma within private religious or commercial contexts. While Jews and Christians may advocate and petition their government for laws that reflect their moral and theological worldview (as may Muslims or atheists), neither Jewish law nor Christian dogma permits the forceful imposition of a theocracy in lieu of representative government or the replacement of our constitution with theocratic legislation.

The contrast between Jewish law and Shariah makes this point vividly. After the fall of the Jewish Commonwealth and the dispersion of the Jews into lands ruled by non-Jews following the Roman destruction of the Second Holy Temple (the current Exile, which includes the modern State of Israel), Talmudic and Jewish legal authorities developed several fundamental principles of Jewish law. The first is dina d’malchuta dina – or, the law of the land in commercial matters is the law (see, e.g., BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Baba Kama 113a, Baba Basra 54b, Gittin 10b, and Nedarim 28a). In other words, the sovereign’s secular commercial laws control Jewish law.

The second post-Exilic legal ruling which separates Jewish law from traditional and still quite contemporary Shariah is that Jewish law on its own terms no longer grants jurisdiction over criminal matters or any form of civil or administrative penalty to a Jewish bais din or court. At best, a Jewish court established by the community may render decisions about money judgments for actual damages as a kind of private arbitration (see, Rabbi Joseph Caro, SHULCHAN ARUCH, Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 1:1-2.) Thus, Jewish law does not allow a bais din, even in modern Israel, to issue a ruling that could have any penal or even compensatory function for non-money damages – such as embarrassment or shame.

It is also worth noting that there is no Jewish legal or normative doctrine for taking lives – others’ or one’s own – as a martyr in fulfilling Jewish law. Specifically, Jewish law requires a Jew to violate Jewish law and to follow the law of the land rather than suffer death except in three cases[2]: (i) if the local law requires a Jew to murder someone (fighting and killing in a legal war of the nation is of course not murder so Jews have no basis for resisting a military draft); (ii) if the local law requires the Jew to engage in some sexual perversion (incest, rape, or homosexuality); and (iii) if the local law requires the Jew to worship idols. But even in these three cases, a Jew must simply allow himself to be punished or martyred by the authorities for his refusal to violate one of these fundamental sins. That is, Jewish martyrdom is a passive act of resistance. There is no concept of a Jewish martyr who dies murdering his enemy.

Shariah turns the Jewish legal doctrine of martyrdom on its head. As noted above, Shariah demands that its law dominate and it is a fundamental crime under Shariah for a Muslim to adhere to a secular law that does not make clear that Shariah is the “highest law of the land”. If a Muslim adheres to a secular constitution deemed the “highest law of the land”, even if the secular constitution and the laws of the land allow for Shariah adherence, the Muslim is considered a Mushrik or polytheist – subject to capital punishment because he has implicitly acknowledged a law giver higher than Allah.[3] Moreover, according to Shariah, a Muslim is a martyr when he dies killing/murdering the infidel. There is nothing passive about the act which awards the Jihadist this appellation.

And, returning to the Jewish legal concept of “the law of the land is the law”, this Jewish legal doctrine is true according to most authorities precisely because a legitimate sovereign acting as a representative of its people passing laws for just and peaceful relations is participating itself in the divine plan for human existence. Jewish law recognizes this divinity and does not seek to deligitimatize secular or foreign law by rendering it, as Shariah does, an affront and illegal challenge to supreme divine law and punishable by death.

Further, the only method available to the contemporary bais din to enforce its rulings is by the imposition of a kind of communal excommunication (i.e., herem, niddui, or nezifah).4 As a practical matter, because the post-Exilic Jewish legal structure is not hierarchical, no bais din can force its ruling on any other and this leaves even this enforcement action as little more than local, voluntary censure.

To a Shariah-adherent Muslim, however, contemporary Shariah has lost none of its political clout and continues to have the power of state action. Thus,

Since Islamic law reflects the will of [Allah] rather than the will of a human lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution (sic) matters, as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established under divine law.[5]

To conclude, it should be clear with but a cursory analysis, because Shariah calls for the destruction of our constitutional republic and for our conversion, subjugation, or murder it is criminal. There simply is no basis to suggest that either Judaism or Christianity, or in fact any other well-known religious dogma or doctrine, falls within the statutory coverage of our extant laws criminalizing sedition.

References

[1] Frank E. Vogel & Samuel L. Hayes, III, Islamic Law and Finance: Religion, Risk, and Return 23 (1998).

[2] Excepting a case of general oppression of the Jewish people qua Jews or the requirement for a Jew to publicly desecrate Jewish law because he is a Jew. In these two cases, a Jew is also required to passively resist violating Jewish law, even to the point of suffering death. See, generally, Maimonides, MISHNE TORAH, Chapter 5 in the Laws of the Foundation of the Torah.

[3] See, e.g., the newly minted constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Crafted by U.S. “Islamic law scholars” who insisted on the importance of inserting a Shariah-supremacy clause, these constitutions provide explicitly that no state law may contravene Shariah. 4 See, e.g., Maimonides, MISHNE TORAH, Chapter 6 of the Laws of Talmud Torah, Halacha 14; Rabbi Joseph Caro, SHULCHAN ARUCH, Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 334:43.

Obama administration reports to the UN on human rights issues in U.S..

I heard this story on FOXNEWS yesterday and could not believe  it, then i considered the Obama Administration and what has become one of it’s biggest goals is denigrating America and Americans.  And yes, I had to accept this latest outrage. This action by our President is guaranteed to turn your stomach! BB

Obama administration reports to the UN on human rights issues in U.S.

By Doug Hagmann  Wednesday, August 25, 2010imageNortheast Intelligence Network

Under the administration of Barack Hussein Obama, the United States submitted its first ever “Universal Periodic Review (UPR) report” to the United Nations.  This is the first time in the history of the United Nations that the U.S. has submitted a report to the United Nation’s Human Rights Council, which is the first step in submitting the United States to international review by some of the most repressive and abusive nations in the world.  The 29-page report can be read here.

//
//

The report is the product of about a dozen conferences held across the U.S. between January and April 2010. The participants of these conferences featured such luminaries as Stephen Rickard and Wendy Patten, from George Soros’ Open Society Institute; Devon Chaffee, Human Rights First; Andrea Prasow, Human Rights Watch; Imad Hamad (a suspected member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Dawud Walid, Council American Islamic Relations; Nabih Ayad, Michigan Civil Rights Commission; Ron Scott, Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality; Osama Siblani, Arab American News; Shannon Minter, National Center for Lesbian Rights and Cynthia Soohoo, Center for Reproductive Rights, among others.

According to its authors, the report to the United Nations “gives a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society.” Obviously, one of the “problems” identified with the report is illegal immigrationSB 1070 has been a particularly thorny issue to the Obama administration, which has now been moved to an international venue and potential international oversight by the United Nations. The stakes for our national sovereignty have been just raised by the submission of this document, which is the first step of “voluntary compliance” to the provisions of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council. and Arizona’s own initiate to solve the problem through state legislation.

It is no surprise that the report is dripping with the all too familiar “blame America first” rhetoric that has been the gold-standard of “citizen of the world” Barack Hussein Obama. The report promises that “President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system…” and promises to work “with fellow members of the Human Rights Council.”

Taking counsel from the list of individuals and organizations, some who have openly called for the subjugation of our country to the United Nations and supported our enemies, while engaging in self-flagellation before an international body of dubious distinction… it’s the “gold-standard” of Barack Hussein Obama.

Serious Questions Raised About Obama Tactics in 2008 Election.

No!  Not our dear President Obama.  Say it isn’t true!   I just can’t believe this wonderful, “clean” (according to VP Biden) young American (maybe?) would have anything to do with  anything corrupt.  After all he said over and over again that his administration would be  free of all corruption and the most translucent in history.  (Could he have meant perhaps Soviet Russian history or perhaps the history of Nazi Germany?).

I get a rise out of Democrats who are finally seeing the light.  Obama was so blatantly  lying during his campaign that  chain saws froze up getting thru the solid muck, but those who refused to see did not see and are now sooooo surprised.   There were those of us who were crying in the wilderness from the beginning but no one was willing to listen.  Especially the Main Stream Media! ABC, CBS,  NBC, MSNBC, and even CNN couldn’t sing  Obama’s praises enough.  In fact they were so loud and loyal that even other Democrats could not get thru to them.  The New York Times, The Washington Post and Newsweek went far beyond singing praises and actually lied for Obama.  Now we all have to pay the price for these people’s duplicity.  Creatures like Obama do not come out of the dark and survive without the help of  many, many  fools.  BB

Serious Questions Raised About Obama Tactics in 2008 Election

By Roger Aronoff  |  August 6, 2010

//

Recently AIM interviewed Gigi Gaston, director of the documentary film, “We Will Not Be Silenced.” The film documents voter intimidation and corruption by forces working for then-candidate Barack Obama at Democratic precinct caucuses and state conventions during the 2008 Presidential primary. The filmmaker is surprising in that she is a lifelong Democrat, whose grandfather was the mayor of Boston and later the governor of Massachusetts, and she is a Hollywood screenwriter.

She says that after receiving a call from a former congressional investigator, she went to Texas to look into charges of voter irregularities in the Democratic caucus process to choose their presidential nominee. It was down to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. What she found, as described on the website for the film, was “falsified delegate counts, falsified documents, and other violations” And she describes the “disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign,” and said that the “infamous campaign of ‘change’ from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stop them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices, and stop their right to vote.”

Through interviews with people with a first-hand knowledge of what was going on, including civil rights activist Helene Latimer, a very disturbing picture formed of what the Obama campaign was up to in order to “win” the nomination. Attorney Gloria Allred is shown calling for the elimination of the caucuses.

Ms. Gaston described how the Clinton campaign attempted to bring evidence of some of these irregularities to the attention of the media, but they were largely ignored.

You can listen to the full interview, or read the transcript here.

Here are some additional quotes from the interview.

“In Sioux City, Iowa, alone, out of a caucus where a hundred people caucused for Obama, 40 people had the same address.  Different things like that I saw, but the people are really the things that made me realize what was going on was far more serious than what I’d gone down to do, which was basically to prove everyone wrong.  And I was even more startled that when you actually tried to say something about it, and let people know, especially the press in this country—I think not only is our voting in great jeopardy here, but I think the press is.”

“…if you had an Obama sticker on, they didn’t check ID, they just waved you into the room to stand on the side of Obama.  That happened constantly.  A lot of people weren’t even from that precinct, in that area.  If I want to caucus, and, say I’m in Venice, California, or Santa Monica, California, I can’t go to Malibu and caucus also.  There were a lot of repeats, of people going all over. Bussing in was the worst part.  I don’t know if you saw, in the documentary, where all these parents didn’t know where their kids had been taken, and they’d been taken across from Illinois into Indiana, and caucused, bought dinner, and returned.  It’s not legal to pay someone to vote for you.”

“I haven’t left the [Democrat] party yet, because I’m in to try to see if this is one last shot, that they could totally be heroic, unite the party, and address this.  I know it’s a crazy hoop-dream, but I haven’t left the party yet.  I definitely don’t believe in what—the great gifts we were given as people that came to this country.  I don’t believe that it’s still there.  I really am concerned about our voting.  I really don’t feel we’re going to have—that our votes are ever going to be represented again if we, as people, don’t go, ‘Hey!  You guys have to address this!’”

The People Versus the Government.

This is a good article by Alan  Caruba stating some hard factsx and things going on in the Democratic Party and the states that are in disagreement with Obama.  But the most significant thing he wrote was:

Obama is Marxist ideologue

All this comes back to the fact that Obama is Marxist ideologue. He is also a liar, a trait no one likes, and a narcissist who gives continued evidence of regarding the presidency as a daily opportunity for self-indulgence and bottomless ego satisfaction.

A recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial said, “As Americans suffer economically, President Obama golfs, vacations, campaigns, appears on a frivolous talk show—and vacations some more. Gee, don’t we have a war and other problems to attend to?”

Obama may not be easily removed, but he can be politically neutralized if Republicans can gain control of Congress in November. There are barely 900 days left in his first and hopefully last term; still time for him and his cadre of czars to do more damage.

Another really great article: Deceit and Denial upon Our Ramparts

Pundits and talking heads keep saying that Obama and his administration just don’t get it, can’t learn from their mistakes, aren’t listening or don’t understand the average American citizen. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is listening, he does understand us and he gets it. He just hates what we stand for. It’s the Republicans that aren’t listening, don’t get it and don’t understand that we get it, we understand and we will do something about it. We are tired of being collateral damage to a deceitful, disdaining administration run by ideologues with no practical experience at any level and by politicians who lie, cheat and steal from every living human on this planet by virtue of their supposed elitist entitlement as members of a “ruling class”.

Obama is not incompetent either. He knows precisely what he is doing. His ancient agenda is deliberate and premeditated, full of disdain for everything America stands for, full of contempt for “rich people”, “poor people”, free enterprise, white people, black people, brown people, white women in particular, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Mormons, freedom, American tradition and American law. Want proof, just read his books.  He is clever, deceitful and damaged goods with no shame and no conscience. To a nation of ordained free patriots, Obama’s appearance of total incompetency is simply the measure of his intent and his refusal to accept the reality that socialism is not an acceptable form of government to Americans and a historically failed, incompetent system. Each day, while Europe scrambles to free and save itself from another miserably failed socialist experiment, Obama drives another nail into the coffin of our Republic.


» Understanding the Cyber-Collectivist Threat to Our Media Freedoms – Big Government.

Obamanation is out to take all of our liberties from us and they have made tremendous gains in their war on human freedom and dignity.  With Obamacare they took over 16% of our economy and with the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill just passed and signed by President  Obama they took over control of the rest.  He who controls the money controls the nation!  I truly believe it is too late for the ballot box in November because by then they will have consolidated their gains by taking over the only weapon we have left: freedom of the press or free communications.

With a Presidential Decree Obama already has the power to take over and/or shut  down the Internet.  In fact I have read several accounts where he has already shut down over 100 sites but I can not verify this with any sources that I have full confidence in.  I do know the Obama Administration is out to get FOXNEWS, the ONLY TV news outlet that is reporting the news.

Glenn Beck feels this SNAFUS over Sherrod is a prelude to shutting down  the media.  I personally smell bad cess with this whole story.  The Obama Administration and the NAACP are both claiming that FOX NEWS caused the whole mess and firing of Sherrod by reporting her racist sounding video clip.  Not true.  Obama demanded her firing according to her own words BEFORE anything about the story was broadcast on FOXNEWS so how could they be to blame?  Another history rewrite to fit their needs perhaps.  I would like to know what Beck knows for him to say this.

Of one thing we can be sure of however and that is right before evil overtakes a country and the country’s government the last thing they do is take over  all forms of public communication.  This is when you will know it has finally come.  I hope patriots are ready to act at this point.  BB

Understanding the Cyber-Collectivist Threat to Our Media Freedoms

by Adam Thierer

There are many battle fronts in the war for human freedom, but perhaps the least-appreciated of these is the battle over America’s communications and media marketplace and whether free markets or government mandates will ultimately rule them.  This battle takes on added importance since all other public policy debates depend upon an unfettered press and robust, independent channels of communication.

What many on the far Left have long understood, and many defenders of freedom have failed to appreciate, is that the battle for control of media and communications policy is fundamentally tied up with the broader war for control of our economy and society. “Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution,” argues the prolific Marxist media theorist Robert W. McChesney. “While the media is not the single most important issue in the world, it is one of the core issues that any successful Left project needs to integrate into its strategic program.”

Un-Free Press logo

Normally we wouldn’t need to pay attention to what unrepentant ‘60’s radicals or neo-Marxist university professors think about media and communications policy. In this case, however, it is essential we pay attention. First, McChesney is right in one sense: history reveals that almost every successful effort to impose sweeping controls over an economy / society was accompanied by government efforts to control press and communication systems. If the State is going to have any luck gaining widespread and far-reaching control of an economy, gaining more control over “the Press” — which means all of us these days — becomes an essential part of the “strategic program” for control. Second, we need to pay attention to these radicals because McChesney and the group that he and John Nichols of The Nation co-founded — the insultingly misnamed Free Press — have given this fight new immediacy with their relentless agitation for media and communications policy “reform.”  And they are not the only ones.

Worse yet, as I pointed out in my previous essay here, these reformistas now have an audience with the Obama Administration.  They are regularly invited to testify before the FCC, FTC, and in Congress or have a private audience with policymakers and regulators, and some of the central figures from this movement (and Free Press in particular) now hold key positions within the government and have the ear of key tech policymakers at the highest levels of power.

It is time, therefore, for us to better identify and understand the growing “cyber-collectivist” threat to our liberties, for this threat is real and imminent.  We see this threat manifest itself in policy battles over “Net neutrality” regulation of communications networks; efforts to “save journalism” through a massive infusion of State subsidies; proposals to impose a variety of “localism” or “diversity” requirements on local media outlets; efforts to abolish virtually any sort of copyright / IP protection; and in a renewed war on commercial advertising and marketing, which have traditionally sustained a free, independent press in America. These are just a few of the fault lines in a battle that puts our core First Amendment values and capitalistic freedoms at stake.  We have to understand the enemy before we can repeal its advances and make the case for real media freedom.

What is real media freedom?  If we were to believe radicals like Free Press, McChesney, and Nichols, “media freedom” means a media and communications world wrapped in regulatory red tape and shackled at every juncture with meddlesome mandates handed down from Beltway bureaucrats. Of course, such a contorted view of “media freedom” shouldn’t be shocking coming as it does from an organization founded by an avowed Marxist like McChesney, who has said that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control” and that “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”  Sure, because public utilities have been soooo efficient and innovative in other contexts!

There is another — and much more accurate — view of what “media freedom” is really all about.  In our 2008 book, A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Brian C. Anderson of the Manhattan Institute and I defined “media freedom” as follows:

For media consumers, it’s the freedom to consume whatever information or entertainment we want from whatever sources we choose, without government restricting our choices. For media creators and distributors, it’s the freedom to structure their business affairs as they wish in seeking to offer the public an expanding array of media options, for both news and entertainment. And for both consumers and creators, media freedom is being able to speak one’s mind without restraint, and without the threat of FCC or FEC bureaucrats telling us what is “fair.”

What would an agenda for real media freedom or media policy reform look like?  Again, Brian Anderson and I mapped one out in our Manifesto for Media Freedom:

  • Embrace the dazzling variety of modern media—a media cornucopia that gives people the freedom to choose among a rich and growing array of information and entertainment options. Never has it been easier to become an informed democratic citizen.
  • Reject any effort to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine, either within Congress or at the FCC—it is anti-free speech, subject to political abuse, and would substantially reduce the variety of voices (especially on the right) contesting in the modern agora.
  • Liberate media operators from archaic restrictions and mandates that limit their flexibility to respond to the radical changes taking place in the media marketplace.
  • Say no to new “localism” or “public interest” mandates that would impose yet greater regulatory burdens on broadcast television and radio operators already struggling to remain competitive in the new media universe. These mandates should also be dismissed as sly attempts to re-impose Fairness Doctrine-esque content controls on the market.
  • Allow Broadband Internet providers to manage more actively the data pulsing through their cables, fiber optics, phone lines, and wireless connections and so create a twenty-first century telecommunications infrastructure. Net Neutrality is a bad idea — a form of infrastructure socialism that will stifle innovation and threaten a big Web slowdown.
  • Don’t fear new media!
  • Reject “a la carte” mandates on cable and satellite providers that would decimate the vibrant diversity of programming on pay TV today, and hit family-friendly and religious broadcasters particularly hard.
  • Reject federal, state or local efforts to regulate video game content, or get rid of the industry’s excellent voluntary rating system and impose a government ratings system in its place. Parents have all the tools they need to monitor their children’s video-game consumption without expanding the Nanny State.
  • Encourage parental empowerment and education-based strategies to address concerns about online child safety instead of banning social networking websites or other online content.
  • Take steps to roll back the most onerous elements of modern campaign finance law and, at a minimum, protect new media outlets and forms of political expression from speech-stifling restrictions.

And there are many other priorities, but these are the big fights for now.  We must remain vigilant in our fight to protect our First Amendment freedoms and capitalistic rights from radical cyber-collectivists like Robert McChesney, Free Press, and their allies within the Obama Administration.

Ground Zero Mosque Goes Radioactive.   ()Update video)

3:38

Added to
queue
Dr. Jim Garlow on the Cordoba Initiative (7/19/10)621 viewsrealaction13

I have never made any excuses for my hatred of Islam.  I believe it is a religion spawned by the devil and is pure evil.  Anyone who would  accept this religion  whether they practice all the laws or not is a pathetic soul.  I have also shown again and again on this site that Islam has one goal: to take over the world.  this is what their religious book tells them in no uncertain words they are to do.  I have also shown you what the children are taught in their schools.

On September 11, 2001 Muslims following their holy book killed 3000 people; now to celebrate their victory they are planning on building a 13 story mega mosque just  a short distance from ground zero.  In fact the building they have purchased for this monument to their attack on America was in the path of toxic dust from the Twin Towers as they fell. The mayor of new York is claiming that the building of the mosque is a local issue.  It is not!   September 11, 2001  and anything having to do with that date belongs to all Americans.

The Muslims have always taken over and then turned others religious buildings into mosque.  This is the way of showing the world they have conquered.   Don’t allow it to happen to this sacred ground where murderers killed 3000 people because a pedophile monster who lived 1500 years ago decreed that it be done and that all people forevermore on Earth worship him.  BB

Ground Zero Mosque Goes Radioactive

Posted by Frank Gaffney Jul 22nd 2010 at 12:01 pm in Culture/Art, Featured Story, Islamic extremism | Comments (64)

The latest assault of the stealth jihadists has suddenly gone national.  And so has the push-back by freedom-loving Americans.

With help from two of our country’s most prominent leaders – former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – Americans are being alerted to a truly horrifying prospect:  The site where nearly 3,000 of our countrymen were murdered on September 11, 2001 is at risk of being defiled by a 13-story, $100 million megamosque.

More importantly, people across the Nation are learning about the true purpose of this complex:  It is intended to be a symbol of America’s defeat on 9/11 – and a beachhead for the toxic program that animated the perpetrators of that murderous attack, the program authoritative Islam calls “Shariah.”

A new 1-minute video just released by the Center for Security Policy shows how the Ground Zero mosque would fit the pattern of other mosques built elsewhere as permanent manifestations of Shariah’s triumph over its enemies.  The ad powerfully describes how our acquiescence to this initiative will be seen by the jihadists as proof not of our “religious tolerance,” but of what it is:  Our submission to Shariah.

Unfortunately, such a perception will only have the effect of inducing Shariah’s adherents to redouble their efforts to kill, terrorize and use more stealthy means – like the Ground Zero Mosque – to achieve the ultimate triumph over us, replacing our Constitution with the barbaric, totalitarian law of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Newt Gingrich put it so well:  “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.  Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

“No mosque. No self deception. No surrender. The time to take a stand is now – at this site on this issue.”

Amen.

See also:

‘COEXIST?’ You First. and

Kagan, Shariah, and Cultural Relativism


See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

Advertisements