Dhimmi Watch
Sharia Alert -- we are constantly told in the West that honor killing has nothing to do with Islam, but Muslims somehow seem to keep misunderstanding that. I've said this before, and I will keep saying it:
A manual of Islamic law certified by Al-Azhar as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).
In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.
Why does this stipulation appear in a manual of Islamic law if this has nothing to do with Islam?
"Five women buried alive in name of honour," from the PakTribune, August 25 (thanks to all who sent this in):
ISLAMABAD: Three teenage girls along with their two close elderly relatives were shot at before being buried alive in a desert of Balochistan by their tribesmen in the name of honour.
The shocking reports of this horrible incident reaching the capital from different quarters revealed that the girls studying in classes 10 to 12 intended to marry men of their choice through a civil court by defying the centuries-old tribal traditions. When the fuming elders of Umrani tribe came to know about the intentions of these girls to appear before a local court, they picked them up from their homes along with two of their elderly women relatives. The crying girls were pushed into official cars and driven to a deserted area. There they were pushed out of the cars, made to stand in a queue and volleys of shots fired at them.
As the bleeding girls fell on the sand, the tribesmen dragged them into a nearby ditch and levelled it with earth and stones before the girls could breathe their last. As the two shocked elderly women tried to rescue the hapless girls, they too were gunned down and buried in the same manner.
The killers after burying these women returned to their tribe like conquerors without any action against them. The step taken was to send a loud message to the rest of the tribe’s girls. Father of these girls lodged an FIR with the police against his own brother, who was said to be the architect of this crime. But after some family pressure, he withdrew the case and so the blood of those girls was forgiven in the name of centuries-old tradition, which does not allow any girl of the tribe to contract marriage of her choice.
Meanwhile, the Human Rights Watch has accused Abdul Sattar Umrani, the younger brother of PPP Housing Minister in Balochistan Government Mir Sadiq Umrani, of being directly responsible for this shocking act of barbarianism....
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Fitzgerald: Greater Jihad and Lesser Jihad
"There are, according to Khan, two kinds of Jihad. The greater Jihad, in which a person fights their animal tendencies, and a lesser Jihad, in which they fight on behalf of their community." Again and again this phony business about "Lesser Jihad" and "Greater Jihad" keeps coming up, and we are carefully told that the "Greater Jihad" is the internal struggle of Muslims with their own consciences. But this is not quite what it seems.
First of all, Islam is based not on solicitousness for the individual, but concern for the collective of Believers, the Umma, and for furthering the interests not of a single soul but of the Great Cause: that of spreading Islam until it dominates everywhere. The individual Believer is akin to a recruit to an army. If he leaves, that is regarded as treason. His duty is that of mental submission -- no independent questioning, no comparing what his duties are with what reason, or morality, tell him should be his duties. His not to reason why, but to follow scrupulously the rules as to what is prohibited and what is commanded.
This "Greater Jihad" business is designed merely to convince Infidels that the real "Jihad" -- the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam -- is not that, but a lesser thing, something hovering in the background, while all attention should be focused on these individuals wrestling with their consciences. The weight of authority is completely on the other side. Qur'anic commentators and Muslim jurisconsults and Muslim historians all agree that the "Jihad" means that "struggle" to spread Islam, and that the "internal struggle" is simply a later invention by a few Muslim would-be reformers who realized that "Jihad" would not be wise or even possible in a world of overwhelmingly more powerful Infidels, and that therefore the idea should be given a different interpretation. Or at least they would try to do the impossible and hope that some Muslims might actually accept that interpretation.
But it never happened. Yet today, all kinds of security services in the Western world keep trying. They keep believing that if they stay away from the word "Jihad" and supply every other sort of word (hiraba, etc.), that somehow they will manage to convince Muslims in the West that the real Jihad is this "internal struggle." They are not only whistling in the dark, but are delaying the widespread recognition of what the "Jihad" is and why it matters among the very Infidels who need to recognize the meaning and menace (for them) of Islam in order to realize what is going on, and to support measures that otherwise might appear to them to be uncalled-for. Our security services and our political and media elites all over the Western world failed to understand Islam before the great unhindered migration of Muslims to the Lands of the Infidels began. That failure continues right up to the present, because few wish to think rationally about this problem, so fearful and confused does it make them. And then there are always the crazies, the ones who, in having sensed the threat, are incapable of soberly discussing it, but instead focus on the trivial or the tendentious -- "it's all the fault of lefties [Marxists, democrats, fill in your favorite epithet here].” And in their inarticulateness and political parti pris, and general uncultivated and comical ineptness, they simply allow others to more easily dismiss them.
This "Greater Jihad" and "Lesser Jihad" business comes from a single Hadith that is not judged authentic by the most authoritative muhaddithin, such as Bukhari and Muslim. Karen Armstrong, naturally, in her little guide to nothing called "Islam," quotes this hadith and makes much of it, without hinting at how little it means to Muslims. Of course, it is unclear if Armstrong understands what an isnad-chain is, or how the muhaddithin studied and ranked the hundreds of thousands of claimed Hadith (more correclty, ahadith), or how the muhaddithin themselves have been ranked according to their supposed authoritativeness.
This is never mentioned by the kind of Muslims who want to convince us that the "Jihad" is not what we think. They want us to believe that our understanding of the texts and our study of how Muslims, over 1350 years, acted on those texts reveals nothing about Jihad, and that the truth of it can be learned from latter-day Muslim propagandists. Those propagandists have to deal with an unprecedented situation -- that of millions of Muslims living within the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-Kufr. They have to stave off any inquiry, or critical analysis, or study of, Islam that might lead Infidels, quite naturally, to become keenly worried -- as they discover that Islam is not a "religion" but also, and mainly, a politics and a geopolitics within a Total Belief-System that is based on the notion of uncompromising and permanent hostility between Believer and Infidel, a hostility that does not lessen if the Infidel moves heaven and earth to prove his own good will and surpassing generosity.
And, of course, those who report on such matters rarely think they have an obligation not merely to write down and transmit to others, as docile amanuenses, what is told them by Muslim propagandists, but to study Islam, and to question what they are told, and to learn enough so that, in such cases as the one above, they will be able to discuss this matter of the "Lesser Jihad" and the "Greater Jihad" precisely in the way that...well, that I have done in this very article.
First of all, Islam is based not on solicitousness for the individual, but concern for the collective of Believers, the Umma, and for furthering the interests not of a single soul but of the Great Cause: that of spreading Islam until it dominates everywhere. The individual Believer is akin to a recruit to an army. If he leaves, that is regarded as treason. His duty is that of mental submission -- no independent questioning, no comparing what his duties are with what reason, or morality, tell him should be his duties. His not to reason why, but to follow scrupulously the rules as to what is prohibited and what is commanded.
This "Greater Jihad" business is designed merely to convince Infidels that the real "Jihad" -- the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam -- is not that, but a lesser thing, something hovering in the background, while all attention should be focused on these individuals wrestling with their consciences. The weight of authority is completely on the other side. Qur'anic commentators and Muslim jurisconsults and Muslim historians all agree that the "Jihad" means that "struggle" to spread Islam, and that the "internal struggle" is simply a later invention by a few Muslim would-be reformers who realized that "Jihad" would not be wise or even possible in a world of overwhelmingly more powerful Infidels, and that therefore the idea should be given a different interpretation. Or at least they would try to do the impossible and hope that some Muslims might actually accept that interpretation.
But it never happened. Yet today, all kinds of security services in the Western world keep trying. They keep believing that if they stay away from the word "Jihad" and supply every other sort of word (hiraba, etc.), that somehow they will manage to convince Muslims in the West that the real Jihad is this "internal struggle." They are not only whistling in the dark, but are delaying the widespread recognition of what the "Jihad" is and why it matters among the very Infidels who need to recognize the meaning and menace (for them) of Islam in order to realize what is going on, and to support measures that otherwise might appear to them to be uncalled-for. Our security services and our political and media elites all over the Western world failed to understand Islam before the great unhindered migration of Muslims to the Lands of the Infidels began. That failure continues right up to the present, because few wish to think rationally about this problem, so fearful and confused does it make them. And then there are always the crazies, the ones who, in having sensed the threat, are incapable of soberly discussing it, but instead focus on the trivial or the tendentious -- "it's all the fault of lefties [Marxists, democrats, fill in your favorite epithet here].” And in their inarticulateness and political parti pris, and general uncultivated and comical ineptness, they simply allow others to more easily dismiss them.
This "Greater Jihad" and "Lesser Jihad" business comes from a single Hadith that is not judged authentic by the most authoritative muhaddithin, such as Bukhari and Muslim. Karen Armstrong, naturally, in her little guide to nothing called "Islam," quotes this hadith and makes much of it, without hinting at how little it means to Muslims. Of course, it is unclear if Armstrong understands what an isnad-chain is, or how the muhaddithin studied and ranked the hundreds of thousands of claimed Hadith (more correclty, ahadith), or how the muhaddithin themselves have been ranked according to their supposed authoritativeness.
This is never mentioned by the kind of Muslims who want to convince us that the "Jihad" is not what we think. They want us to believe that our understanding of the texts and our study of how Muslims, over 1350 years, acted on those texts reveals nothing about Jihad, and that the truth of it can be learned from latter-day Muslim propagandists. Those propagandists have to deal with an unprecedented situation -- that of millions of Muslims living within the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-Kufr. They have to stave off any inquiry, or critical analysis, or study of, Islam that might lead Infidels, quite naturally, to become keenly worried -- as they discover that Islam is not a "religion" but also, and mainly, a politics and a geopolitics within a Total Belief-System that is based on the notion of uncompromising and permanent hostility between Believer and Infidel, a hostility that does not lessen if the Infidel moves heaven and earth to prove his own good will and surpassing generosity.
And, of course, those who report on such matters rarely think they have an obligation not merely to write down and transmit to others, as docile amanuenses, what is told them by Muslim propagandists, but to study Islam, and to question what they are told, and to learn enough so that, in such cases as the one above, they will be able to discuss this matter of the "Lesser Jihad" and the "Greater Jihad" precisely in the way that...well, that I have done in this very article.
Finnish jihadists back Russia
Jhad Watch
And at least one of them was or is KGB.
We have noted many times over the years how eager Russia is to help Iran and other jihadists, despite facing its own jihadist troubles in the Caucasus. And now this suggests that the linkage between Russia and the jihadists may be even closer. "Finnish Islamists back Russia," from A Step At A Time, August 28 (thanks to Maxwell):
The possibility that Islamist movements in Europe and probably also further afield to some extent work in harmony with the Putin/Medvdev schemes in the field of military and foreign policy is evidenced by an interesting statement by the Finnish Islamic Party (Suomenislamilainenpuolue), which aims to represent the interests of Finland's small Muslim minority. The statement condemns the "aggressive acts of the Georgian leadership" and gives the party's full support to Russia. It also makes a savage attack on the president and government of Estonia, and demands that President Saakashvili be put on trial for war crimes. Although Finland's Muslims are mostly Tatars, and have little time for fundamentalist ideology, the document is a curious and revealing indicator of the sort of sources where the Kremlin may really be deriving support in today's world. The fact that the Hamas organization was the first to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia may not be a coincidence.
That some voices in Finland may be helping to foment a movement which they call a "Russian Intifada" among Estonia's Russian-speaking minority is shown by this blog, which is dedicated to the subject.
There has long been a noted connection between the Kremlin and Islamist groupings, and it is no secret that, as Alexander Litvinenko pointed out before he was brutally murdered in London, Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri trained at a Federal Security Service (the former Russian KGB) base in Dagestan in 1998.
And at least one of them was or is KGB.
We have noted many times over the years how eager Russia is to help Iran and other jihadists, despite facing its own jihadist troubles in the Caucasus. And now this suggests that the linkage between Russia and the jihadists may be even closer. "Finnish Islamists back Russia," from A Step At A Time, August 28 (thanks to Maxwell):
The possibility that Islamist movements in Europe and probably also further afield to some extent work in harmony with the Putin/Medvdev schemes in the field of military and foreign policy is evidenced by an interesting statement by the Finnish Islamic Party (Suomenislamilainenpuolue), which aims to represent the interests of Finland's small Muslim minority. The statement condemns the "aggressive acts of the Georgian leadership" and gives the party's full support to Russia. It also makes a savage attack on the president and government of Estonia, and demands that President Saakashvili be put on trial for war crimes. Although Finland's Muslims are mostly Tatars, and have little time for fundamentalist ideology, the document is a curious and revealing indicator of the sort of sources where the Kremlin may really be deriving support in today's world. The fact that the Hamas organization was the first to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia may not be a coincidence.
That some voices in Finland may be helping to foment a movement which they call a "Russian Intifada" among Estonia's Russian-speaking minority is shown by this blog, which is dedicated to the subject.
There has long been a noted connection between the Kremlin and Islamist groupings, and it is no secret that, as Alexander Litvinenko pointed out before he was brutally murdered in London, Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri trained at a Federal Security Service (the former Russian KGB) base in Dagestan in 1998.
Turkish army chief warns against Islamization
When he says that the military will take seriously any attempt to undermine Turkey's secular principles and turn it into an Islamic state -- which does seem to be the ultimate goal of Prime Minister Erdogan and the ruling party -- will result in a military coup to protect the Kemalist order. It has happened before. "Turkish army chief warns of Islam," from PressTV, August 28 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
Turkey's new military chief warns against what he calls a rising "religious lifestyle", highlighting secularist and AKP government tensions.
General Ilker Basbug, in a speech to an audience during a ceremony which he officially replaced former chief of military Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, said the military would take seriously any attempt to undermine Turkey's secular principles.
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul from the Justice and Development Party (AKP) Gul attended the ceremony at the military headquarters without their wives who wear headscarves.
Basbug said part of the nation is concerned that a new culture and lifestyle heavily influenced by Islam was emerging in Turkey.
"A segment of society thinks that religion is given a great weight in an emerging new cultural identity and lifestyle, and is worried about this development," Basbug said as he took command of NATO's second-biggest army.
"This concern should be taken seriously. This is compulsory for social peace within the scope of a pluralistic democracy."
Turkey has a secular constitution and the military considers itself the ultimate guardian of the republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Hardline secularists, including the military and judges, accuse the AKP of harboring a hidden Islamist agenda by seeking to loosen restrictions on religion, such as its failed attempt to ease a ban on Muslim headscarves at universities. Erdogan and the AKP deny the convictions as illusions, but argue that Turks should be free to choose their way of life including what they wear....The staunch secular establishment bans female citizens from educational and government establishments if they cover their hair and use the headscarf.
Basbug said the military's constitutional role was to "protect and preserve the founding philosophy" of Ataturk, who banished religion from public life and introduced Western-style reforms.
Basbug appointment comes at a difficult time for the military that is known for having an untouchable status in Turkey and having ousted four elected governments since 1961. The army has lost influence in recent years amid social changes and as Turkey moves towards European integration and EU membership.
Turkey's new military chief warns against what he calls a rising "religious lifestyle", highlighting secularist and AKP government tensions.
General Ilker Basbug, in a speech to an audience during a ceremony which he officially replaced former chief of military Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, said the military would take seriously any attempt to undermine Turkey's secular principles.
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul from the Justice and Development Party (AKP) Gul attended the ceremony at the military headquarters without their wives who wear headscarves.
Basbug said part of the nation is concerned that a new culture and lifestyle heavily influenced by Islam was emerging in Turkey.
"A segment of society thinks that religion is given a great weight in an emerging new cultural identity and lifestyle, and is worried about this development," Basbug said as he took command of NATO's second-biggest army.
"This concern should be taken seriously. This is compulsory for social peace within the scope of a pluralistic democracy."
Turkey has a secular constitution and the military considers itself the ultimate guardian of the republic founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Hardline secularists, including the military and judges, accuse the AKP of harboring a hidden Islamist agenda by seeking to loosen restrictions on religion, such as its failed attempt to ease a ban on Muslim headscarves at universities. Erdogan and the AKP deny the convictions as illusions, but argue that Turks should be free to choose their way of life including what they wear....The staunch secular establishment bans female citizens from educational and government establishments if they cover their hair and use the headscarf.
Basbug said the military's constitutional role was to "protect and preserve the founding philosophy" of Ataturk, who banished religion from public life and introduced Western-style reforms.
Basbug appointment comes at a difficult time for the military that is known for having an untouchable status in Turkey and having ousted four elected governments since 1961. The army has lost influence in recent years amid social changes and as Turkey moves towards European integration and EU membership.
Iran gives Hizballah advanced missiles to hit Israel
Another warning of Israel's destruction if the U.S. and/or Israel dare to attack Iran. However, this one has a curious hollow ring. "Report: Iran supplied Hizbullah with advanced missiles," by Roee Nahmias for YNet News, August 29 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
Iran has supplied Hizbullah with advanced missiles which can accurately hit extensive targets inside Israel, the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi reported Friday, quoting Arab sources. According to the report, the missiles will be operational at any moment Israel "thinks of acting adventurously and attacking Iran" or when the United States launches a regional war against the Tehran government. The Arab sources said that the new missiles are capable of reaching a range "Israel cannot even imagine" and are one of the "surprises" promised by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah....
Yeah, it's some surprise, if I know about it this morning. This makes this story sound like the desperate and empty threats of an unarmed man with his finger poking out inside his suit pocket.
Which is not to say that none of this is accurate.
According to recent reports, Iran plans to build an array of antiaircraft missiles for Hizbullah in Lebanon. Kuwaiti newspaper al-Siyasa reported Tuesday that 300 Iranian experts were working to build an array of antiaircraft missiles on the mountain range in western Lebanon.
Al-Quds al-Arabi went on to report that Iran is not only helping Israel's enemies in Lebanon, but is also attempting to reinforce the Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip in a bid to weaken the truce between Hamas and Israel....
Iran has supplied Hizbullah with advanced missiles which can accurately hit extensive targets inside Israel, the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi reported Friday, quoting Arab sources. According to the report, the missiles will be operational at any moment Israel "thinks of acting adventurously and attacking Iran" or when the United States launches a regional war against the Tehran government. The Arab sources said that the new missiles are capable of reaching a range "Israel cannot even imagine" and are one of the "surprises" promised by Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah....
Yeah, it's some surprise, if I know about it this morning. This makes this story sound like the desperate and empty threats of an unarmed man with his finger poking out inside his suit pocket.
Which is not to say that none of this is accurate.
According to recent reports, Iran plans to build an array of antiaircraft missiles for Hizbullah in Lebanon. Kuwaiti newspaper al-Siyasa reported Tuesday that 300 Iranian experts were working to build an array of antiaircraft missiles on the mountain range in western Lebanon.
Al-Quds al-Arabi went on to report that Iran is not only helping Israel's enemies in Lebanon, but is also attempting to reinforce the Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip in a bid to weaken the truce between Hamas and Israel....
Fitzgerald: Muslims and America
And one more question. If Muslims have no trouble at all being "as American as apple pie" then surely they have no trouble viewing the defining document of the American polity, the Constitution of the United States, as worthy of their complete loyalty. "We have a message: Muslim Americans are as American as apple pie” – from this article in The Guardian about Muslims at the Democratic National Convention in Denver
If Muslims are "as American as apple pie," are they as American as pumpkin pie, the pumpkin pie traditionally served at Thanksgiving, which like Independence Day, Memorial Day, and other national holidays, are not to be observed by observant Muslims, for only Muslim holidays, Muslim history, Muslim everything, counts?
And one more question. If Muslims have no trouble at all being "as American as apple pie" then surely they have no trouble viewing the defining document of the American polity, the Constitution of the United States, as worthy of their complete loyalty. And that includes, of course, the guarantees of individual rights in the Bill of Rights. And since the Bill of Rights is so very close, in so many of its key provisions -- freedom of speech, freedom of conscience (which naturally includes the right to apostatize) -- to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can we conclude that American-as-apple-pie American Muslims find it puzzling that all of the Muslim countries (save for the Shah's Iran, and most temporarily and temporizingly) have failed to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and instead have concocted a Muslim version, the so-called Cairo Declaration, which in every essential respect, involving individual rights, fatally vitiates the original, Universal Declaration?
These people can carry on all they want with their bromides, and their pledges-of-fake-allegiance, but to the precise extent that they are True Believers in Islam, and Defenders of the Faith, to that exact extent they cannot conceivably owe their allegiance, above what Islam commands and prohibits, to the American Constitution. And that means no Believer who owes his loyalty to Islam and fellow members of the Umma, that is, no one calling himself a Muslim who is truthful about the requirements of this Total Belief-System and what it inculcates (above all, the division, permanent and immutable, between Believer and Infidel, until such time as Infidel becomes Believer), can conceivably owe his allegiance to a document that is flatly contradicted, in letter and spirit, by the Shari'a.
We are getting tired of the Interfath Healers, the three-abrahamic-faith boys, the we're-as-American-as-apple-pie mountebanks and carney barkers.
And the more they say this, the more they insist on these phrases that are so easily seen to be hollow, the more they elicit in people of sense, people willing to find out for themselves (the texts are a click away, the testimonies of defectors from the Army of Islam, the apostates, are a click away -- what Islam teaches, what Muslims believe), a deep and growing suspicion.
Repeat the nonsense a hundred times or a hundred thousand times. We can read the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira. We can overhear -- thanks to MEMRI and other organizations -- what is actually said by imams, what is said on Al Jazeera, and what the quality, the texture and tenor, of Muslim public life in Muslim lands, or addressed to Muslim audiences worldwide, actually is. We can read the testimonies of those who have through no fault of their own been born into Islam and have managed to fight their way free -- people such as Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and many others. And what they say, the world of Islam that they depict, corresponds exactly to what we read about, what we see, what we have come, some slowly, some more rapidly, to comprehend. It is they whom the evidence of our senses and the workings of our reason confirm. It is not those Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque boys, in Denver or elsewhere, who think they can get away with telling us, with sweet smiles and pledges of feigned allegiance to an Infidel nation-state, that they are "as American as apple pie."
Not on your life. And take that last phrase very carefully indeed: not on your life.
The Guardian reporter in this article also says: "Their [Muslim American] community is still suffering from suspicion in an age of the war on terror..."
No, the reporter has it all wrong. It is not a case of "still suffering from suspicion" but rather, of growing suspicion, growing slowly and inexorably. It is growing even against the natural grain of so many who would prefer not to believe the evidence of their senses, and the correct workings of their reason. No, that suspicion grows because of what we read, what we see, what we learn, about the texts of Islam, the tenets of Islam, the attitudes and atmospherics that naturally suffuse Muslim societies, and of course the experience of dealing with Muslims in Iraq, seeing their mendacity and rapacity and the way they attempt to use the Americans for their own gain against their own enemies, and have no intention of changing their spots, or becoming advanced Democratic Man, despite the messianic sentimentalism of the Bush Administration.
Yes, that suspicion grows, despite the best efforts of our political and media elites, starting with George Bush -- who after the 9/11/2001 attacks instituted Iftar dinners and could hardly stop talking about how wonderful Islam is, was, always will be (and Tony Blair, carrying his Qur'an ostentatiously around with him, seconded the motion). Bush and those dutifully echoing him, such as Condoleezza, all find Islam swell. But the "extremists" and the "radicals" and the "radical extremists" and the "extremist radicals" among them -- god knows what texts they rely on for the strange version of Islam we're expected to believe that they've apparently made up out of whole cloth -- are the ones we are fighting. And in this fight we are so loyally aided by true-blue American Muslims. They are at the forefront of attacking, in thought, word, and deed, those "radical extremist Muslims" who are giving -- but we won't let them succeed, will we, fellow Americans, Americans all? -- Islam, kind Islam, forbearing Islam, tolerant Islam, peaceful Islam, an entirely unmerited bad name.
If Muslims are "as American as apple pie," are they as American as pumpkin pie, the pumpkin pie traditionally served at Thanksgiving, which like Independence Day, Memorial Day, and other national holidays, are not to be observed by observant Muslims, for only Muslim holidays, Muslim history, Muslim everything, counts?
And one more question. If Muslims have no trouble at all being "as American as apple pie" then surely they have no trouble viewing the defining document of the American polity, the Constitution of the United States, as worthy of their complete loyalty. And that includes, of course, the guarantees of individual rights in the Bill of Rights. And since the Bill of Rights is so very close, in so many of its key provisions -- freedom of speech, freedom of conscience (which naturally includes the right to apostatize) -- to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can we conclude that American-as-apple-pie American Muslims find it puzzling that all of the Muslim countries (save for the Shah's Iran, and most temporarily and temporizingly) have failed to subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and instead have concocted a Muslim version, the so-called Cairo Declaration, which in every essential respect, involving individual rights, fatally vitiates the original, Universal Declaration?
These people can carry on all they want with their bromides, and their pledges-of-fake-allegiance, but to the precise extent that they are True Believers in Islam, and Defenders of the Faith, to that exact extent they cannot conceivably owe their allegiance, above what Islam commands and prohibits, to the American Constitution. And that means no Believer who owes his loyalty to Islam and fellow members of the Umma, that is, no one calling himself a Muslim who is truthful about the requirements of this Total Belief-System and what it inculcates (above all, the division, permanent and immutable, between Believer and Infidel, until such time as Infidel becomes Believer), can conceivably owe his allegiance to a document that is flatly contradicted, in letter and spirit, by the Shari'a.
We are getting tired of the Interfath Healers, the three-abrahamic-faith boys, the we're-as-American-as-apple-pie mountebanks and carney barkers.
And the more they say this, the more they insist on these phrases that are so easily seen to be hollow, the more they elicit in people of sense, people willing to find out for themselves (the texts are a click away, the testimonies of defectors from the Army of Islam, the apostates, are a click away -- what Islam teaches, what Muslims believe), a deep and growing suspicion.
Repeat the nonsense a hundred times or a hundred thousand times. We can read the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira. We can overhear -- thanks to MEMRI and other organizations -- what is actually said by imams, what is said on Al Jazeera, and what the quality, the texture and tenor, of Muslim public life in Muslim lands, or addressed to Muslim audiences worldwide, actually is. We can read the testimonies of those who have through no fault of their own been born into Islam and have managed to fight their way free -- people such as Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, and many others. And what they say, the world of Islam that they depict, corresponds exactly to what we read about, what we see, what we have come, some slowly, some more rapidly, to comprehend. It is they whom the evidence of our senses and the workings of our reason confirm. It is not those Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque boys, in Denver or elsewhere, who think they can get away with telling us, with sweet smiles and pledges of feigned allegiance to an Infidel nation-state, that they are "as American as apple pie."
Not on your life. And take that last phrase very carefully indeed: not on your life.
The Guardian reporter in this article also says: "Their [Muslim American] community is still suffering from suspicion in an age of the war on terror..."
No, the reporter has it all wrong. It is not a case of "still suffering from suspicion" but rather, of growing suspicion, growing slowly and inexorably. It is growing even against the natural grain of so many who would prefer not to believe the evidence of their senses, and the correct workings of their reason. No, that suspicion grows because of what we read, what we see, what we learn, about the texts of Islam, the tenets of Islam, the attitudes and atmospherics that naturally suffuse Muslim societies, and of course the experience of dealing with Muslims in Iraq, seeing their mendacity and rapacity and the way they attempt to use the Americans for their own gain against their own enemies, and have no intention of changing their spots, or becoming advanced Democratic Man, despite the messianic sentimentalism of the Bush Administration.
Yes, that suspicion grows, despite the best efforts of our political and media elites, starting with George Bush -- who after the 9/11/2001 attacks instituted Iftar dinners and could hardly stop talking about how wonderful Islam is, was, always will be (and Tony Blair, carrying his Qur'an ostentatiously around with him, seconded the motion). Bush and those dutifully echoing him, such as Condoleezza, all find Islam swell. But the "extremists" and the "radicals" and the "radical extremists" and the "extremist radicals" among them -- god knows what texts they rely on for the strange version of Islam we're expected to believe that they've apparently made up out of whole cloth -- are the ones we are fighting. And in this fight we are so loyally aided by true-blue American Muslims. They are at the forefront of attacking, in thought, word, and deed, those "radical extremist Muslims" who are giving -- but we won't let them succeed, will we, fellow Americans, Americans all? -- Islam, kind Islam, forbearing Islam, tolerant Islam, peaceful Islam, an entirely unmerited bad name.
Pennsylvania Leftist useful idiot guilty of aiding Hamas
A member of the International Solidarity Movement. Left/Jihad Nexus Update: "York County native gets 31/2 years for helping Hamas," by Nichole Dobo for The Evening Sun, August 23 (thanks to Jeffrey Imm): A 33-year-old York County native was sentenced Thursday morning to prison for aiding a group the United States designated as a terrorist organization.
Richard David Hupper, originally from York Township, was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in federal prison for aiding Hamas, a Palestinian military and political organization.
Hupper faced up to 15 years in prison. He admitted to giving about $20,000 to Hamas while working in Israel with the International Solidarity Movement, a non-governmental organization....
Hupper, a Dallastown Area High School graduate, became involved with the conflict in the Middle East after watching international newscasts. The machinist watched the TV shows while recovering from a work-related injury at his Alabama home, his lawyer has said.
Hupper traveled to the Gaza Strip, where he worked with the International Solidarity Movement to aid Palestinians, according to court documents. He was eventually deported by Israeli authorities, according to court documents.
To return to Israel, Hupper applied for a passport in Florida using false information, according to court documents. He pleaded guilty to passport fraud charges more than two years ago. He is finishing his 24-month federal prison sentence for those charges.
Richard David Hupper, originally from York Township, was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in federal prison for aiding Hamas, a Palestinian military and political organization.
Hupper faced up to 15 years in prison. He admitted to giving about $20,000 to Hamas while working in Israel with the International Solidarity Movement, a non-governmental organization....
Hupper, a Dallastown Area High School graduate, became involved with the conflict in the Middle East after watching international newscasts. The machinist watched the TV shows while recovering from a work-related injury at his Alabama home, his lawyer has said.
Hupper traveled to the Gaza Strip, where he worked with the International Solidarity Movement to aid Palestinians, according to court documents. He was eventually deported by Israeli authorities, according to court documents.
To return to Israel, Hupper applied for a passport in Florida using false information, according to court documents. He pleaded guilty to passport fraud charges more than two years ago. He is finishing his 24-month federal prison sentence for those charges.
Saudis distribute anti-terror cartoons
Another chickens coming home to roost moment. Of course, if the Saudis were remotely serious about condemning terrorism, they wouldn't be teaching their children to hate non-Muslims and that jihad is a duty. "Saudi Anti-Terror Cartoons," from MEMRI, August 21 (thanks to AC)On June 25, 2008, the Saudi Interior Ministry reported the arrest of 520 Al-Qaeda operatives who had planned to strike oil facilities and economic centers in eastern Saudi Arabia. According to the report, the leader of the cell, who bore a message from Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri, was among those arrested, as were some 50 webmasters of websites that spread extremist ideas and encourage terrorism.
After the arrests were made public, Saudi papers focused on condemning terrorism and terrorist ideology, through articles and cartoons.
Thanks Jihad Watch
Economy of Words
Jonah Goldberg
Friday, August 29, 2008
The U.S. economy - yes, that economy - grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate last quarter. This no doubt caused consternation at the highest levels of the Democratic Party, perhaps forcing some to consider a new convention film at the last minute: "Dude, Where's My Recession?" To hear the Democrats at their convention this week, you would get the sense that a recession is merely a technical term for the worst human misery ever visited upon a once-great people. You'd think Americans were listening to the Democratic speeches as they huddled around their kitchen tables - if they hadn't already been used for firewood - deciding which of their children to pack off to the orphanage and how much tree bark they can afford to eat next week.
Thursday night, Barack Obama proclaimed: "Our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more." He went on to describe an America reminiscent of "The Grapes of Wrath" (if not "Mad Max").
But this was a weeklong theme. Over and over again, the Democrats insisted that the "American dream" is being snuffed out, crushed, beaten, stabbed and quite possibly dismembered in President Bush's West Wing bathtub, where Bush and Dick "The Cleaner" Cheney can dissolve the remains in sulfuric acid.
On Wednesday night, just in case some village waif somewhere hadn't already heard, Joe Biden reminded the world that he rides Amtrak home to Delaware from Washington. Apparently not since Gunga Din has there been a more heroic commute. And we've now learned that when he gazes out the window of his barreling locomotive, he can "almost hear" the conversations in the houses he sees whizzing by.
He "almost hears" things with an awful lot of specificity: "Should Mom move in with us now that Dad's gone? Fifty, sixty, seventy dollars just to fill up the gas tank? How in God's name, with winter coming, how are we gonna heat the home? Another year, no raise? Did you hear? Did you hear they may be cutting our health care at the company?" Super Joe even hears people asking him, "How are we gonna retire, Joe?"
Is there nobody between D.C. and Delaware talking about "American Idol" or their kids' school play or how they're sick of meatloaf?
Obviously, there is real economic pain out there. Food and energy costs are rising too fast and by too much. The mortgage crisis is real.
But while Americans don't like the direction the country is heading, and hate high gas prices, they're pretty satisfied with their lives. Some 94 percent of Americans polled by Harris Interactive this month said they were satisfied with the lives they lead. According to Gallup, only 9 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with their jobs and only 13 percent are dissatisfied with their job security. The unemployment rate is at a five-year high of 5.7 percent, but it wasn't long ago when that was considered close to full employment.
"Ladies and gentlemen ..." mourned Senator Biden, the "American dream feels like it's slowly slipping away. ... I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up."
Quick question: Was this the same Washington that oversaw the largest expansion of entitlements (a.k.a. the prescription drug benefit) since the Great Society? Was this the Washington that recently started doling out $168 billion in stimulus checks?
Biden's keen ability to hear only awful news is symptomatic of a Democratic Party that is not merely eager to return to the White House, but desperate to launch a new New Deal. The mind-set is on display in almost every speech. Hillary Clinton decried the policy of "giving windfall profits" to oil companies. Clinton seems to believe that all of the money, everywhere, is the government's, and your profits are a gift. Windfall profits are defined as too big a gift from government. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, borrowing a line from Obama, complained that John McCain wants to give "$4 billion in tax breaks for big oil?"
No. McCain wants to lower the corporate tax rate to make us more competitive with our rivals. Yes, oil companies are included, but by this logic (as my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru notes), Obama's middle-class tax cut will be a tax break for hookers and serial killers.
The greatest irony is that the one area where the Democrats are right about American pain - high gas prices - is the one area where they are most reluctant to do anything substantial. Why? Because global warming appears to be their best shot at finding a major crisis to justify a new New Deal.
The bad news for the throngs in Denver is that Americans aren't as miserable as the Democrats need them to be.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
The Most Popular Governor
Alaska's Sarah Palin is the GOP's newest star.
by Fred Barnes
Juneau
The wipeout in the 2006 election left Republicans in such a state of dejection that they've overlooked the one shining victory in which a Republican star was born. The triumph came in Alaska where Sarah Palin, a politician of eye-popping integrity, was elected governor. She is now the most popular governor in America, with an approval rating in the 90s, and probably the most popular public official in any state. Her rise is a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle--especially to transparency and accountability in government--can produce political success. And by the way, Palin is a conservative who only last month vetoed 13 percent of the state's proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, "may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history."
As recently as last year, Palin (pronounced pale-in) was a political outcast. She resigned in January 2004 as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after complaining to the office of Governor Frank Murkowski and to state Attorney General Gregg Renkes about ethical violations by another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, who was also Republican state chairman.
State law barred Palin from speaking out publicly about ethical violations and corruption. But she was vindicated later in 2004 when Ruedrich, who'd been reconfirmed as state chairman, agreed to pay a $12,000 fine for breaking state ethics laws. She became a hero in the eyes of the public and the press, and the bane of Republican leaders.
In 2005, she continued to take on the Republican establishment by joining Eric Croft, a Democrat, in lodging an ethics complaint against Renkes, who was not only attorney general but also a long-time adviser and campaign manager for Murkowski. The governor reprimanded Renkes and said the case was closed. It wasn't. Renkes resigned a few weeks later, and Palin was again hailed as a hero.
Palin, 43, the mother of four, passed up a chance to challenge Republican senator Lisa Murkowski, the then-governor's daughter, in 2004. She endorsed another candidate in the primary, but Murkowski won and was reelected. Palin said then that her 14-year-old son talked her out of running, though it's doubtful that was the sole reason.
In 2006, she didn't hesitate. She ran against Gov. Murkowski, who was seeking a second term despite sagging poll ratings, in the Republican primary. In a three-way race, Palin captured 51 percent and won in a landslide. She defeated former Democratic governor Tony Knowles in the general election, 49 percent to 41 percent. She was one of the few Republicans anywhere in the country to perform above expectations in 2006, an overwhelmingly Democratic year. Palin is unabashedly pro life.
With her emphasis on ethics and openness in government, "it turned out Palin caught the temper of the times perfectly," wrote Tom Kizzia of the Anchorage Daily News. She was also lucky. News broke of an FBI investigation of corruption by legislators between the primary and general elections. So far, three legislators have been indicted.
In the roughly three years since she quit as the state's chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the "body count" of Palin's rivals. "The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah," says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called "Voice of the Times," which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct.
One of her first acts as governor was to fire the Alaska Board of Agriculture. Her ultimate target was the state Creamery Board, which has been marketing the products of Alaska dairy farmers for 71 years and wanted to close down after receiving $600,000 from the state. "You don't just close your doors and walk away," Palin told me. She discovered she lacked the power to fire the Creamery Board. Only the board of agriculture had that authority. So Palin replaced the agriculture board, which appointed a new creamery board, which has rescinded the plan to shut down.
In preserving support for dairy farmers, Palin exhibited a kind of Alaskan chauvinism. She came to the state as an infant, making her practically a native. And she is eager to keep Alaska free from domination by oil companies or from reliance on cruise lines whose ships bring thousands of tourists to the state.
"She's as Alaskan as you can get," says Dan Fagan, an Anchorage radio talk show host. "She's a hockey mom, she lives on a lake, she ice fishes, she snowmobiles, she hunts, she's an NRA member, she has a float plane, and her husband works for BP on the North Slope," Fagan says. Todd Palin, her high school sweetheart, is a three-time winner of the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snowmobile race from Wasilla to Nome to Fairbanks. It's the world's longest snowmobile race.
Gov. Palin grew up in Wasilla, where as star of her high school basketball team she got the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness. She led her underdog team to the state basketball championship. Palin also won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest, in which she was named Miss Congeniality, and went on to compete in the Miss Alaska pageant.
At 32, she was elected mayor of Wasilla, a burgeoning bedroom community outside Anchorage. Though Alaskans tend to be ferociously anti-tax, she persuaded Wasilla voters to increase the local sales tax to pay for an indoor arena and convention center. The tax referendum won by 20 votes.
In 2002, Palin entered statewide politics, running for lieutenant governor. She finished a strong second in the Republican primary. That fall, she dutifully campaigned for Murkowski, who'd given up his Senate seat to run for governor. Afterwards, she turned down several job offers from Murkowski, finally accepting the oil and gas post. When she quit 11 months later, "that was her defining moment" in politics, says Fagan.
Her campaign for governor was bumpy. She missed enough campaign appearances to be tagged "No Show Sarah" by her opponents. She was criticized for being vague on issues. But she sold voters on the one product that mattered: herself.
Her Christian faith--Palin grew up attending nondenominational Bible churches--was a minor issue in the race. She told me her faith affects her politics this way: "I believe everything happens for a purpose. In my own personal life, if I dedicated back to my Creator what I'm trying to create for the good . . . everything will turn out fine." That same concept applies to her political career, she suggested.
The biggest issue in the campaign was the proposed natural gas pipeline from the North Slope that's crucial to the state's economy. Murkowski had made a deal with the three big oil companies--Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips--which own the gas reserves to build the pipeline. But the legislature turned it down and Palin promised to create competition for the pipeline contract.
She made three other promises: to end corruption in state government, cut spending, and provide accountability. She's now redeeming those promises.
Palin describes herself as "pro-business and pro-development." She doesn't want the oil companies to sit on their energy reserves or environmental groups to block development of the state's resources. "I get frustrated with folks from outside Alaska who come up and say you shouldn't develop your resources," she says. Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on "federal dollars," as the state does today.
Her first major achievement as governor was lopsided passage by the legislature of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, which is designed to attract pipeline proposals this summer. The state is offering $500 million in incentives, but the developer must meet strict requirements. The oil companies have said they won't join the competition.
Palin's tough spending cuts drew criticism from Republican legislators whose pet projects were vetoed. But her popularity doesn't appear threatened. "It's not just that she's pretty and young," says Dittman. "She's really smart. And there's no guile. She says her favorite meal is moose stew or mooseburgers. It wouldn't shock people if that were true."
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
by Fred Barnes
Juneau
The wipeout in the 2006 election left Republicans in such a state of dejection that they've overlooked the one shining victory in which a Republican star was born. The triumph came in Alaska where Sarah Palin, a politician of eye-popping integrity, was elected governor. She is now the most popular governor in America, with an approval rating in the 90s, and probably the most popular public official in any state. Her rise is a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle--especially to transparency and accountability in government--can produce political success. And by the way, Palin is a conservative who only last month vetoed 13 percent of the state's proposed budget for capital projects. The cuts, the Anchorage Daily News said, "may be the biggest single-year line-item veto total in state history."
As recently as last year, Palin (pronounced pale-in) was a political outcast. She resigned in January 2004 as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after complaining to the office of Governor Frank Murkowski and to state Attorney General Gregg Renkes about ethical violations by another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, who was also Republican state chairman.
State law barred Palin from speaking out publicly about ethical violations and corruption. But she was vindicated later in 2004 when Ruedrich, who'd been reconfirmed as state chairman, agreed to pay a $12,000 fine for breaking state ethics laws. She became a hero in the eyes of the public and the press, and the bane of Republican leaders.
In 2005, she continued to take on the Republican establishment by joining Eric Croft, a Democrat, in lodging an ethics complaint against Renkes, who was not only attorney general but also a long-time adviser and campaign manager for Murkowski. The governor reprimanded Renkes and said the case was closed. It wasn't. Renkes resigned a few weeks later, and Palin was again hailed as a hero.
Palin, 43, the mother of four, passed up a chance to challenge Republican senator Lisa Murkowski, the then-governor's daughter, in 2004. She endorsed another candidate in the primary, but Murkowski won and was reelected. Palin said then that her 14-year-old son talked her out of running, though it's doubtful that was the sole reason.
In 2006, she didn't hesitate. She ran against Gov. Murkowski, who was seeking a second term despite sagging poll ratings, in the Republican primary. In a three-way race, Palin captured 51 percent and won in a landslide. She defeated former Democratic governor Tony Knowles in the general election, 49 percent to 41 percent. She was one of the few Republicans anywhere in the country to perform above expectations in 2006, an overwhelmingly Democratic year. Palin is unabashedly pro life.
With her emphasis on ethics and openness in government, "it turned out Palin caught the temper of the times perfectly," wrote Tom Kizzia of the Anchorage Daily News. She was also lucky. News broke of an FBI investigation of corruption by legislators between the primary and general elections. So far, three legislators have been indicted.
In the roughly three years since she quit as the state's chief regulator of the oil industry, Palin has crushed the Republican hierarchy (virtually all male) and nearly every other foe or critic. Political analysts in Alaska refer to the "body count" of Palin's rivals. "The landscape is littered with the bodies of those who crossed Sarah," says pollster Dave Dittman, who worked for her gubernatorial campaign. It includes Ruedrich, Renkes, Murkowski, gubernatorial contenders John Binkley and Andrew Halcro, the three big oil companies in Alaska, and a section of the Daily News called "Voice of the Times," which was highly critical of Palin and is now defunct.
One of her first acts as governor was to fire the Alaska Board of Agriculture. Her ultimate target was the state Creamery Board, which has been marketing the products of Alaska dairy farmers for 71 years and wanted to close down after receiving $600,000 from the state. "You don't just close your doors and walk away," Palin told me. She discovered she lacked the power to fire the Creamery Board. Only the board of agriculture had that authority. So Palin replaced the agriculture board, which appointed a new creamery board, which has rescinded the plan to shut down.
In preserving support for dairy farmers, Palin exhibited a kind of Alaskan chauvinism. She came to the state as an infant, making her practically a native. And she is eager to keep Alaska free from domination by oil companies or from reliance on cruise lines whose ships bring thousands of tourists to the state.
"She's as Alaskan as you can get," says Dan Fagan, an Anchorage radio talk show host. "She's a hockey mom, she lives on a lake, she ice fishes, she snowmobiles, she hunts, she's an NRA member, she has a float plane, and her husband works for BP on the North Slope," Fagan says. Todd Palin, her high school sweetheart, is a three-time winner of the 2,000-mile Iron Dog snowmobile race from Wasilla to Nome to Fairbanks. It's the world's longest snowmobile race.
Gov. Palin grew up in Wasilla, where as star of her high school basketball team she got the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness. She led her underdog team to the state basketball championship. Palin also won the Miss Wasilla beauty contest, in which she was named Miss Congeniality, and went on to compete in the Miss Alaska pageant.
At 32, she was elected mayor of Wasilla, a burgeoning bedroom community outside Anchorage. Though Alaskans tend to be ferociously anti-tax, she persuaded Wasilla voters to increase the local sales tax to pay for an indoor arena and convention center. The tax referendum won by 20 votes.
In 2002, Palin entered statewide politics, running for lieutenant governor. She finished a strong second in the Republican primary. That fall, she dutifully campaigned for Murkowski, who'd given up his Senate seat to run for governor. Afterwards, she turned down several job offers from Murkowski, finally accepting the oil and gas post. When she quit 11 months later, "that was her defining moment" in politics, says Fagan.
Her campaign for governor was bumpy. She missed enough campaign appearances to be tagged "No Show Sarah" by her opponents. She was criticized for being vague on issues. But she sold voters on the one product that mattered: herself.
Her Christian faith--Palin grew up attending nondenominational Bible churches--was a minor issue in the race. She told me her faith affects her politics this way: "I believe everything happens for a purpose. In my own personal life, if I dedicated back to my Creator what I'm trying to create for the good . . . everything will turn out fine." That same concept applies to her political career, she suggested.
The biggest issue in the campaign was the proposed natural gas pipeline from the North Slope that's crucial to the state's economy. Murkowski had made a deal with the three big oil companies--Exxon, BP, ConocoPhillips--which own the gas reserves to build the pipeline. But the legislature turned it down and Palin promised to create competition for the pipeline contract.
She made three other promises: to end corruption in state government, cut spending, and provide accountability. She's now redeeming those promises.
Palin describes herself as "pro-business and pro-development." She doesn't want the oil companies to sit on their energy reserves or environmental groups to block development of the state's resources. "I get frustrated with folks from outside Alaska who come up and say you shouldn't develop your resources," she says. Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on "federal dollars," as the state does today.
Her first major achievement as governor was lopsided passage by the legislature of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, which is designed to attract pipeline proposals this summer. The state is offering $500 million in incentives, but the developer must meet strict requirements. The oil companies have said they won't join the competition.
Palin's tough spending cuts drew criticism from Republican legislators whose pet projects were vetoed. But her popularity doesn't appear threatened. "It's not just that she's pretty and young," says Dittman. "She's really smart. And there's no guile. She says her favorite meal is moose stew or mooseburgers. It wouldn't shock people if that were true."
Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
A Victim at the Democratic Convention
Robert Spencer
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), took part in the Democratic Convention in Denver.
As a brief aside, the ISNA is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (its stated purpose is to destroy the West from inside) and is also included as an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism financing conspiracy. All of the armed force's Muslim chaplain's and prison chaplains have to take Dr. Mattson's course on Islam. In the course she supports Sharia law to replace our Constitution in order to achieve an "ethical" government. Like Obama, she believes that poverty and social oppression caused the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Neither one will speak of any basis for the attack in Islamic doctrine.
There are four kinds of jihad-sword, pen, mouth and money. Dr. Mattson is a jihadist of the pen and mouth version. Some people call it soft jihad.
At the Convention she spoke of Muslims as being victims in America. Poor Muslim immigrants have to leave their Islamic earthly paradises and come to a mean America where they are victims of the cruel kafirs.
But in Islam it is Sunna. Mohammed was a victim of oppression, so Muslims are always victims and never oppressors.
Examine the record. In Medina Mohammed sent out his jihadists eight times before they were able to kill their first kafir and steal the kafirs' wealth. They had their success in a holy month. The Arabs had rules of war and one of those rules was that there were holy months when no Arab was to attack another. So the Arabs complained that Mohammed had broken the rules of war and was oppressing other Arabs.
Mohammed was troubled by the charge of being a war criminal, but Allah came to his rescue:
Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not. When they ask you about fighting in the holy month, say: Fighting at this time is a serious offense, but it is worse in Allah's eyes to deny others the path to Him, to disbelieve in Him, and to drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque. Idolatry is a greater sin than murder.
The way of life for the kafir Arabs that included their religion (idolatry is a greater sin than murder) made them fair game for jihad. The kafir Arabs had only one fault-they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah. What the kafir Arabs had done by telling Mohammed to leave town (drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque) was worse than war.
In short, the poor Muslims were the victims, and the dead kafirs were the oppressors. It has been ever thus for 1400 years.
All jihad is defensive. The kafirs make the first offensive move against Islam by not believing in the prophet-hood of Mohammed.
Dr. Mattson follows the doctrine of political Islam to the letter when she declares that Muslims are victims in America. And there is only one way that Muslims will stop being oppressed in America. Only when we live under Sharia law will the oppression stop. It would seem that Obama and the Democrats are doing what they can at this time to assure that no Muslim will be a victim.
Bill Warner
Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/a-vicitim-at-the-democratic-convention/
Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), took part in the Democratic Convention in Denver.
As a brief aside, the ISNA is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (its stated purpose is to destroy the West from inside) and is also included as an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism financing conspiracy. All of the armed force's Muslim chaplain's and prison chaplains have to take Dr. Mattson's course on Islam. In the course she supports Sharia law to replace our Constitution in order to achieve an "ethical" government. Like Obama, she believes that poverty and social oppression caused the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Neither one will speak of any basis for the attack in Islamic doctrine.
There are four kinds of jihad-sword, pen, mouth and money. Dr. Mattson is a jihadist of the pen and mouth version. Some people call it soft jihad.
At the Convention she spoke of Muslims as being victims in America. Poor Muslim immigrants have to leave their Islamic earthly paradises and come to a mean America where they are victims of the cruel kafirs.
But in Islam it is Sunna. Mohammed was a victim of oppression, so Muslims are always victims and never oppressors.
Examine the record. In Medina Mohammed sent out his jihadists eight times before they were able to kill their first kafir and steal the kafirs' wealth. They had their success in a holy month. The Arabs had rules of war and one of those rules was that there were holy months when no Arab was to attack another. So the Arabs complained that Mohammed had broken the rules of war and was oppressing other Arabs.
Mohammed was troubled by the charge of being a war criminal, but Allah came to his rescue:
Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not. When they ask you about fighting in the holy month, say: Fighting at this time is a serious offense, but it is worse in Allah's eyes to deny others the path to Him, to disbelieve in Him, and to drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque. Idolatry is a greater sin than murder.
The way of life for the kafir Arabs that included their religion (idolatry is a greater sin than murder) made them fair game for jihad. The kafir Arabs had only one fault-they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah. What the kafir Arabs had done by telling Mohammed to leave town (drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque) was worse than war.
In short, the poor Muslims were the victims, and the dead kafirs were the oppressors. It has been ever thus for 1400 years.
All jihad is defensive. The kafirs make the first offensive move against Islam by not believing in the prophet-hood of Mohammed.
Dr. Mattson follows the doctrine of political Islam to the letter when she declares that Muslims are victims in America. And there is only one way that Muslims will stop being oppressed in America. Only when we live under Sharia law will the oppression stop. It would seem that Obama and the Democrats are doing what they can at this time to assure that no Muslim will be a victim.
Bill Warner
Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/a-vicitim-at-the-democratic-convention/
Friday, August 29, 2008
“The fleecing of the Middle-Class”
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.
If you listen to the Democrats, the so-called Middle Class in America is being taken to the cleaners. Of course, it is all George Bush’s fault and the mean spirited Republican Party. After the Democratic Convention it is apparent what their economic political strategy is: wordsmith how horrible the economy is; inform the Middle Class that they are suffering while the rich continue to prosper and live the “life of Riley”; only the government can CHANGE this social inequity. Say this often enough, repeat it eloquently with emotional sound bites and people will ignore the facts and come to believe it to be true. Play to our citizens’ weaknesses (emotions) thus preparing them to accept you as their rescuer! There is power in numbers so make sure you keep throwing out the 100 million-description and it is certain your message will resonate. Never mind that the numbers (facts) do not support the message, “soon to be President Obama” is looking out for those in the middle.
Accept as fact that as an American middle class citizen you are entitled to the following: cars for each adult family member, television (preferably flat screen) in every room, a family vacation each year, dining in local restaurants each week, cable or satellite television, brand name apparel, 3 extended weekends every year, paid health plans, inexpensive public education beyond high school, and all of the latest technology from phones to entertainment devices. The key word is “entitled” and should fortune not shine upon you, then you cannot possibly be happy with what you do have. No worries, the government is on its way to save you. Do I exaggerate-I think not! If you don’t have the preceding it must be that the economy has “gone to hell in a bread basket”-this is the only possible explanation!
As an intelligent, informed voter, let’s examine the data to see “which truth” is being shared. Lets begin with whether or not you have a job. As of the beginning of September 2008, 94.3% of Americans wanting a job, have one. Comparing Mr. Bush’s years to Mr. Clinton’s (The Misery Index), we discover that the Bush plan produced less unemployment than did the Clinton plan as measured by percent unemployed1. This is an example of a poor economy? Countries around the world are envious of this rate-we should be so lucky …! I hear the “yeah buts… already. Poverty is up in the “richest country in the world”-no, another Democratic myth. The average poverty rate for all Americans for the first seven years of the Reagan terms was 14.2%. For the first seven years of Bill Clinton’s terms, it was 13.6%. Under George Bush, the average poverty rate for 2001-2007 is 12.4%. In 1981, 30% of Americans earned under $25,000 a year, and 41% earned over $50,000 per year. In 2007, 25% earned under $25,000 and 50% earned over $50,000 a year.2
“We are in a recession and I cannot make ends meet.” Notice the connection between recession and an individual’s ability to pay the bills. How often have we provided the justification and/or excuse for overspending on an economy that is in a recession? It is as though the concept of recession has the ability to control our actions therefore we are not responsible. Let’s correct the first idea-we are not in a recession-fact is The economy grew by a very respectable 3.3% in the second quarter of this year.3 It appears that the following statement was neither mentioned nor addressed at the Dem Convention “Gross domestic product, or GDP, grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter, its fastest pace in nearly a year, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The revised reading was much better than the government's initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists' expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.”3 So, if one were looking for cause and effect for one’s bills, perhaps turning inward would be more helpful. There is no denying the fact that many individuals are not able to pay all of their bills. Perhaps it is time to tell the truth to some Americans-you are not guaranteed a specific lifestyle-you are provided the possibility and the opportunity to make the life you always dreamed bout-it takes hard work, perseverance and effort. Untold numbers of Americans have “lost” their way financially; rather than expecting the government to “rescue them”, they realized it was on their personal shoulders and backs to seek a new path. This has meant giving up a home, the cars, the annual vacations and the like-it meant returning to school to re-tool or moving to another line of work. You do not hear about these individuals, you do not see them protesting for more benefits-they are too busy changing their lives as they seek the possibilities provided by this country.
It is most interesting that the Democrats didn't want former President Bill Clinton to speak on the economy. Some delegates might have had the temerity to wonder: Hey, why did we experience all that prosperity in the '90s?
It certainly wasn't due to populism, or isolationism, or more government dependency, or any of the hard-left economic policies being preached nightly by speakers at the Democratic National Convention.4
No, it was capitalism — more of it, not less of it.
Perception is reality-for many of us. You are lead to believe that the difficulties you may be having are due to the poor economy here in the states. Furthermore these same people want to return to the “golden years of the 1990’s-well how many of us remember the following as shared by a popular pundit:
“ Do you know what the January '01 -- that would be the first quarter -- GDP rate was? First quarter of '01, when Bush took office, 0.49, minus 0.4.
Clinton handed off -- and we all remember this except the Drive-Bys won't remind anybody of it -- Clinton handed off an economic growth rate of -0.49% to George W. Bush, and then here came 9/11 shortly thereafter because of inadequacies of Clinton's foreign policy during his own eight years as president of the United States, and I have to listen to Biden reprise the 1992 BS that this is the worst economy he's ever seen, portraying this country as a soup line country. So trash the country, trash the economy, and then put themselves up as the people to fix it.” 5
The strength of the USA economy weathered the 911 crises and by the end of 2001, the fourth quarter GMP was 2.6%-a remarkable recovery given what had occurred on our soil. Our economy has time and again proven its resiliency and yes, today it has slowed down, as is the historical record of any nation’s economy. However, to intentionally misrepresent the status of our economy in order to put fear into Middle Class voters hoping they will vote for the Change man is unethical, immoral and obviously misleading the very public they have given an oath to serve!
I find it disingenuous for the Democrats to indicate that the Middle Class has been “fleeced” when it comes to tax relief. Again the rhetoric is not supported by the facts. I guess the Dems believe in the old adage, “don’t let the facts get in the way of the truth.”
Who does carry the tax burden? : The IRS provides the information: 6
· Top 5% of age earners pay 54.365 of federal taxes
· Top 10% of wage earners pays 65.84%
· Top 50% of wage earners pays 96.54%
Mr. Limbaugh offers an explanation: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans, who want to be continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%), and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.
To suggest that the Middle Class is being treated unfairly is another misrepresentation of the data. The so-called rich are basically keeping the tax revenues “afloat”-they raise over half of the entire tax income for the USA.
It is crucial that one understand who pays what taxes if you are going to make substantial changes in the tax code. It is equally important to understand how income has been impacted by the economy and its natural changes. The mantra is that the rich are getting richer and the Middle Class and all others are getting poorer. Yet another myth the Democrats are pummeling into your head. The problem is that this is not true! It is often said that statistics don’t lie, statisticians do lie! Income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.
The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent. Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.7
Certainly this information runs contrary to the numbers the media uses. Why? Primarily due to the number source used-I just gave you IRS numbers while others use Census bureau data. You might ask, “so what?”
Dr. Sowell explains: “There are wild cards in such data that need to be kept in mind when you hear income statistics thrown around -- especially when they are thrown around by people who are trying to prove something for political purposes.
One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.
What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.
That is why the IRS data, which are for people 25 years old and older, and which follow the same individuals over time, find those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.
That is also why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts.
Unfortunately, most income statistics, including those from the Census Bureau, do not follow individuals over time. The Internal Revenue Service does that and so does a study at the University of Michigan, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Following trends among income brackets over the years creates the illusion of following people over time. But the only way to follow people is to follow people.
Another wild card in income statistics is that many such statistics are about households or families -- whose sizes vary over time, vary between one racial or ethnic group and another, and vary between one income bracket and another.
That is why household or family income can remain virtually unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up by very large amounts. The number of people per household and per family is declining.
Differences in the number of people per household from one ethnic group to another is why Hispanics have higher household incomes than blacks, while blacks have higher individual incomes than Hispanics.”7
This entire debate ultimately comes down to the role of government particularly when it comes to our economy. If you believe that it is time for us to abdicate our personal responsibility for our own livelihood then you agree with Mr. Obama. If you understand how our economy works, how we must individually work the economy and if you believe it is each citizen’s responsibility to earn his or her way, then you might support those who want less government intervention into our financial world. Having dreams and desires are important and I think mandatory. To believe that you are entitled to each dream without putting in the work, the effort and the perseverance required to become successful, separates you and me. I am entitled only to have the opportunity to make my way in the world-it is up to me and I must be willing to accept this responsibility and challenge.
End Notes
1. US unemployment rate: Clinton vs. Bush
2. Americas North shore Journal- http://northshorejournal.org/poverty-in-america-2008-overview
3. Yahoo finance. Spring's economic rebound unlikely to last. August 28, 2008
4. David Harsanyi, Denverpost.com, August 28,2008.
5. Rush Limbaugh radio program, August 28, 2008
6. IRS records 2005
7. Sowell, Thomas, Income confusion, Nov 21, 2007
If you listen to the Democrats, the so-called Middle Class in America is being taken to the cleaners. Of course, it is all George Bush’s fault and the mean spirited Republican Party. After the Democratic Convention it is apparent what their economic political strategy is: wordsmith how horrible the economy is; inform the Middle Class that they are suffering while the rich continue to prosper and live the “life of Riley”; only the government can CHANGE this social inequity. Say this often enough, repeat it eloquently with emotional sound bites and people will ignore the facts and come to believe it to be true. Play to our citizens’ weaknesses (emotions) thus preparing them to accept you as their rescuer! There is power in numbers so make sure you keep throwing out the 100 million-description and it is certain your message will resonate. Never mind that the numbers (facts) do not support the message, “soon to be President Obama” is looking out for those in the middle.
Accept as fact that as an American middle class citizen you are entitled to the following: cars for each adult family member, television (preferably flat screen) in every room, a family vacation each year, dining in local restaurants each week, cable or satellite television, brand name apparel, 3 extended weekends every year, paid health plans, inexpensive public education beyond high school, and all of the latest technology from phones to entertainment devices. The key word is “entitled” and should fortune not shine upon you, then you cannot possibly be happy with what you do have. No worries, the government is on its way to save you. Do I exaggerate-I think not! If you don’t have the preceding it must be that the economy has “gone to hell in a bread basket”-this is the only possible explanation!
As an intelligent, informed voter, let’s examine the data to see “which truth” is being shared. Lets begin with whether or not you have a job. As of the beginning of September 2008, 94.3% of Americans wanting a job, have one. Comparing Mr. Bush’s years to Mr. Clinton’s (The Misery Index), we discover that the Bush plan produced less unemployment than did the Clinton plan as measured by percent unemployed1. This is an example of a poor economy? Countries around the world are envious of this rate-we should be so lucky …! I hear the “yeah buts… already. Poverty is up in the “richest country in the world”-no, another Democratic myth. The average poverty rate for all Americans for the first seven years of the Reagan terms was 14.2%. For the first seven years of Bill Clinton’s terms, it was 13.6%. Under George Bush, the average poverty rate for 2001-2007 is 12.4%. In 1981, 30% of Americans earned under $25,000 a year, and 41% earned over $50,000 per year. In 2007, 25% earned under $25,000 and 50% earned over $50,000 a year.2
“We are in a recession and I cannot make ends meet.” Notice the connection between recession and an individual’s ability to pay the bills. How often have we provided the justification and/or excuse for overspending on an economy that is in a recession? It is as though the concept of recession has the ability to control our actions therefore we are not responsible. Let’s correct the first idea-we are not in a recession-fact is The economy grew by a very respectable 3.3% in the second quarter of this year.3 It appears that the following statement was neither mentioned nor addressed at the Dem Convention “Gross domestic product, or GDP, grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter, its fastest pace in nearly a year, the Commerce Department reported Thursday. The revised reading was much better than the government's initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists' expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.”3 So, if one were looking for cause and effect for one’s bills, perhaps turning inward would be more helpful. There is no denying the fact that many individuals are not able to pay all of their bills. Perhaps it is time to tell the truth to some Americans-you are not guaranteed a specific lifestyle-you are provided the possibility and the opportunity to make the life you always dreamed bout-it takes hard work, perseverance and effort. Untold numbers of Americans have “lost” their way financially; rather than expecting the government to “rescue them”, they realized it was on their personal shoulders and backs to seek a new path. This has meant giving up a home, the cars, the annual vacations and the like-it meant returning to school to re-tool or moving to another line of work. You do not hear about these individuals, you do not see them protesting for more benefits-they are too busy changing their lives as they seek the possibilities provided by this country.
It is most interesting that the Democrats didn't want former President Bill Clinton to speak on the economy. Some delegates might have had the temerity to wonder: Hey, why did we experience all that prosperity in the '90s?
It certainly wasn't due to populism, or isolationism, or more government dependency, or any of the hard-left economic policies being preached nightly by speakers at the Democratic National Convention.4
No, it was capitalism — more of it, not less of it.
Perception is reality-for many of us. You are lead to believe that the difficulties you may be having are due to the poor economy here in the states. Furthermore these same people want to return to the “golden years of the 1990’s-well how many of us remember the following as shared by a popular pundit:
“ Do you know what the January '01 -- that would be the first quarter -- GDP rate was? First quarter of '01, when Bush took office, 0.49, minus 0.4.
Clinton handed off -- and we all remember this except the Drive-Bys won't remind anybody of it -- Clinton handed off an economic growth rate of -0.49% to George W. Bush, and then here came 9/11 shortly thereafter because of inadequacies of Clinton's foreign policy during his own eight years as president of the United States, and I have to listen to Biden reprise the 1992 BS that this is the worst economy he's ever seen, portraying this country as a soup line country. So trash the country, trash the economy, and then put themselves up as the people to fix it.” 5
The strength of the USA economy weathered the 911 crises and by the end of 2001, the fourth quarter GMP was 2.6%-a remarkable recovery given what had occurred on our soil. Our economy has time and again proven its resiliency and yes, today it has slowed down, as is the historical record of any nation’s economy. However, to intentionally misrepresent the status of our economy in order to put fear into Middle Class voters hoping they will vote for the Change man is unethical, immoral and obviously misleading the very public they have given an oath to serve!
I find it disingenuous for the Democrats to indicate that the Middle Class has been “fleeced” when it comes to tax relief. Again the rhetoric is not supported by the facts. I guess the Dems believe in the old adage, “don’t let the facts get in the way of the truth.”
Who does carry the tax burden? : The IRS provides the information: 6
· Top 5% of age earners pay 54.365 of federal taxes
· Top 10% of wage earners pays 65.84%
· Top 50% of wage earners pays 96.54%
Mr. Limbaugh offers an explanation: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans, who want to be continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%), and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.
To suggest that the Middle Class is being treated unfairly is another misrepresentation of the data. The so-called rich are basically keeping the tax revenues “afloat”-they raise over half of the entire tax income for the USA.
It is crucial that one understand who pays what taxes if you are going to make substantial changes in the tax code. It is equally important to understand how income has been impacted by the economy and its natural changes. The mantra is that the rich are getting richer and the Middle Class and all others are getting poorer. Yet another myth the Democrats are pummeling into your head. The problem is that this is not true! It is often said that statistics don’t lie, statisticians do lie! Income tax data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service seem to show the exact opposite: People in the bottom fifth of income tax filers in 1996 had their incomes increase by 91 percent by 2005.
The top one percent -- "the rich" who are supposed to be monopolizing the money, according to the left -- saw their incomes decline by a whopping 26 percent. Meanwhile, the average taxpayers' real income increased by 24 percent between 1996 and 2005.7
Certainly this information runs contrary to the numbers the media uses. Why? Primarily due to the number source used-I just gave you IRS numbers while others use Census bureau data. You might ask, “so what?”
Dr. Sowell explains: “There are wild cards in such data that need to be kept in mind when you hear income statistics thrown around -- especially when they are thrown around by people who are trying to prove something for political purposes.
One of these wild cards is that most Americans do not stay in the same income brackets throughout their lives. Millions of people move from one bracket to another in just a few years.
What that means statistically is that comparing the top income bracket with the bottom income bracket over a period of years tells you nothing about what is happening to the actual flesh-and-blood human beings who are moving between brackets during those years.
That is why the IRS data, which are for people 25 years old and older, and which follow the same individuals over time, find those in the bottom 20 percent of income-tax filers almost doubling their income in a decade. That is why they are no longer in the same bracket.
That is also why the share of income going to the bottom 20 percent bracket can be going down, as the Census Bureau data show, while the income going to the people who began the decade in that bracket is going up by large amounts.
Unfortunately, most income statistics, including those from the Census Bureau, do not follow individuals over time. The Internal Revenue Service does that and so does a study at the University of Michigan, but they are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Following trends among income brackets over the years creates the illusion of following people over time. But the only way to follow people is to follow people.
Another wild card in income statistics is that many such statistics are about households or families -- whose sizes vary over time, vary between one racial or ethnic group and another, and vary between one income bracket and another.
That is why household or family income can remain virtually unchanged for decades while per capita income is going up by very large amounts. The number of people per household and per family is declining.
Differences in the number of people per household from one ethnic group to another is why Hispanics have higher household incomes than blacks, while blacks have higher individual incomes than Hispanics.”7
This entire debate ultimately comes down to the role of government particularly when it comes to our economy. If you believe that it is time for us to abdicate our personal responsibility for our own livelihood then you agree with Mr. Obama. If you understand how our economy works, how we must individually work the economy and if you believe it is each citizen’s responsibility to earn his or her way, then you might support those who want less government intervention into our financial world. Having dreams and desires are important and I think mandatory. To believe that you are entitled to each dream without putting in the work, the effort and the perseverance required to become successful, separates you and me. I am entitled only to have the opportunity to make my way in the world-it is up to me and I must be willing to accept this responsibility and challenge.
End Notes
1. US unemployment rate: Clinton vs. Bush
2. Americas North shore Journal- http://northshorejournal.org/poverty-in-america-2008-overview
3. Yahoo finance. Spring's economic rebound unlikely to last. August 28, 2008
4. David Harsanyi, Denverpost.com, August 28,2008.
5. Rush Limbaugh radio program, August 28, 2008
6. IRS records 2005
7. Sowell, Thomas, Income confusion, Nov 21, 2007
Israel Has Decided: Iran Will Not Have Nukes
Gil Ronen and Hillel Fendel
Israel's leadership resolved, in top-level strategic discussions three months ago, to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from having nuclear bombs. This is Maariv's front-page headline on Friday. Maariv's veteran political reporter Ben Caspit stops short of detailing the precise solution Israel will implement to put an end to Iran's nuclear program, but writes, "Preparations for an Israeli military option intended to stop Iran's nuclear program are underway."
The results of the series of highest-level discussions are thus clear: "The debate between those who believe in doing everything, including a military operation, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and those who think we can live with Iranian nukes, has been settled."
Not only that, but "if the ayatollahs' regime does not fall in the next year, if the Americans do not strike militarily, and if the international sanctions do not break the Iranian nuclear plan, Israel will have to act forcefully."
Olmert: Home Front and Air Force
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert gave a strong hint of Israel's intentions when he said in a closed forum last week that the IDF has only two truly important commands: the Home Front Command and the Air Force.
Caspit writes that at present, the U.S. is refusing to cooperate with the Israeli plan and will not give Israel the necessary permission and codes it needs to overfly Iraq in order to attack Iran. "We'll help you defend yourselves," the Americans say, offering special radar systems, "but we won't let you attack."
A security source put it this way: "The Americans have accepted the fact that Iran will be a nuclear power, and are trying to get us to accept it too." But we will not, says Caspit.
Sneh's Bloodless Plan
Former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh proposes a third option: A total international embargo on spare parts for Iran's oil industry and a complete international boycott of Iran's banks.
Others have called for an end to investments and an international divestment capaign from Iran and countries doing business with Iran, including Opposition Leader Binyamin Netanyahu and U.S. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.
Sneh sent an eight-clause memo to both McCain and his challenger, Sen. Barack Obama, outlining the plan that he says will be the "most rational and cheap, and will not cause bloodshed." If the U.S. recruits all of Europe to take part in these "genuine" sanctions, Sneh says, Iran's regime will be toppled from within. The time to implement this program is within the next 18-24 months; otherwise, Sneh warns, the only alternative will be an Israeli military strike.
Sneh, who recently resigned from the his Labor Party Knesset seat to form a new party, visited last week in Switzerland and Austria - two countries that have announced plans for huge oil and gas investments in Iran in the coming years.
Hearing his hosts describing their future investments, Sneh said he told them quietly, "What a shame, because Ido will set it all on fire." Ido is Maj.-Gen. Ido Nehushtan - Commander of the Israel Air Force that would carry out the air strikes on Iran.
"Investing in Iran in 2008," Sneh told the Austrians, "is like investing in Germany's Krups plant in 1938; it's a high-risk investment." The Austrians turned pale, Sneh said.
"Unrest"
Arlene Kushner
Since Rice's visit earlier this week, there are suggestions that the pace of our negotiations with the PA have accelerated and that something secret is being cooked. Rice apparently proposed "new ideas" before she left, that included some notion of giving the Palestinians part of Jerusalem but allowing us to remain for up to five years -- which simply delays and does not solve the problems inherent in any division of our city. That our government is not to be trusted in this regard -- that Olmert would like to go out in what he imagines to somehow be a blaze of glory because of what he will have managed to "achieve" in spite of his legal difficulties -- I do not question for a moment.
The issue is what is realistically possible. My take remains that the sides are in great likelihood simply too far apart to achieve a comprehensive agreement. Abbas has rejected out of hand a partial agreement that, for example, tables the issue of Jerusalem for later. And Barry Rubin has pointed out that Abbas "is not moderate on the Palestinian refugees' right of return, which is very close to his heart." This is an issue, says, Rubin, on which neither side is ready to comprise.
There are some concessions that Olmert or Livni might make in secret that would not even play with the government -- would not garner the approval of the Cabinet, never mind the Knesset. The question is at what point Olmert might sign something and what the legality of it would be if there were no Cabinet approval.
Right now it seems that this is a time for extreme vigilance and appropriate action, such as is deemed most effective, without hysteria.
Olmert is scheduled to meet with Abbas again on Sunday.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like to share one statement by Livni from the press conference she held with Rice, which demonstrates clearly Livni's deviousness:
"...we need to also remind ourselves where we stood only a year ago, when we faced terror attacks, when the situation in Gaza Strip led to a kind of an understanding that there was no hope for peace.
"We launched Annapolis process. We are now -- there is a dialogue between Israel and diplomatic leaders on the Palestinian side. There is hope for peace...And I think that sometimes there is a need to remind ourselves that we changed the situation, the atmosphere, the situation on the ground."
How far afield she has gone with this, mixing apples and oranges with essential dishonesty. The cessation of terror attacks from Gaza has nothing whatsoever to do with our negotiations with the PA. While she might like to give this impression, most clearly Annapolis didn't bring relative quiet to the people of Sderot and environs.
What changed "the situation on the ground"? A very questionable and very tenuous ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza. Does this increase hope for peace? Quite the contrary. Hamas is stockpiling weapons toward the day when they intend to hit us. Hard. No "hope" here, but rather our failure to respond effectively and a weakening of our deterrence.
So, here we see why Olmert and Livni support this foolish ceasefire: It provides a semblance of quiet that they expect will give them a political advantage: See what we have achieved!
Contemptible.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would suggest that Livni -- who is now the solid frontrunner over Mofaz for position of Kadima leader in polls -- would like to give the impression of doing something that increases our possibility of peace, but would not want to actually reach the stage of having signed something. For this would mean that her concessions -- which would be unpalatable to many -- would be made public. If you remember, when there was a proposal for an interim document that would show what each side had agreed to so far, she was pushed for not putting anything in writing too quickly, for this very reason.
Similarly, it suits Abbas to give the appearance of working productively towards "peace." This not only keeps Rice happy, it garners him additional financial support from the Europeans. But signing off on an agreement that includes concessions by the PA is something else all together. Not only is Hamas on the edge of taking him over, large parts of his own Fatah party would not be on board.
~~~~~~~~~~
More after Shabbat.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Since Rice's visit earlier this week, there are suggestions that the pace of our negotiations with the PA have accelerated and that something secret is being cooked. Rice apparently proposed "new ideas" before she left, that included some notion of giving the Palestinians part of Jerusalem but allowing us to remain for up to five years -- which simply delays and does not solve the problems inherent in any division of our city. That our government is not to be trusted in this regard -- that Olmert would like to go out in what he imagines to somehow be a blaze of glory because of what he will have managed to "achieve" in spite of his legal difficulties -- I do not question for a moment.
The issue is what is realistically possible. My take remains that the sides are in great likelihood simply too far apart to achieve a comprehensive agreement. Abbas has rejected out of hand a partial agreement that, for example, tables the issue of Jerusalem for later. And Barry Rubin has pointed out that Abbas "is not moderate on the Palestinian refugees' right of return, which is very close to his heart." This is an issue, says, Rubin, on which neither side is ready to comprise.
There are some concessions that Olmert or Livni might make in secret that would not even play with the government -- would not garner the approval of the Cabinet, never mind the Knesset. The question is at what point Olmert might sign something and what the legality of it would be if there were no Cabinet approval.
Right now it seems that this is a time for extreme vigilance and appropriate action, such as is deemed most effective, without hysteria.
Olmert is scheduled to meet with Abbas again on Sunday.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would like to share one statement by Livni from the press conference she held with Rice, which demonstrates clearly Livni's deviousness:
"...we need to also remind ourselves where we stood only a year ago, when we faced terror attacks, when the situation in Gaza Strip led to a kind of an understanding that there was no hope for peace.
"We launched Annapolis process. We are now -- there is a dialogue between Israel and diplomatic leaders on the Palestinian side. There is hope for peace...And I think that sometimes there is a need to remind ourselves that we changed the situation, the atmosphere, the situation on the ground."
How far afield she has gone with this, mixing apples and oranges with essential dishonesty. The cessation of terror attacks from Gaza has nothing whatsoever to do with our negotiations with the PA. While she might like to give this impression, most clearly Annapolis didn't bring relative quiet to the people of Sderot and environs.
What changed "the situation on the ground"? A very questionable and very tenuous ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza. Does this increase hope for peace? Quite the contrary. Hamas is stockpiling weapons toward the day when they intend to hit us. Hard. No "hope" here, but rather our failure to respond effectively and a weakening of our deterrence.
So, here we see why Olmert and Livni support this foolish ceasefire: It provides a semblance of quiet that they expect will give them a political advantage: See what we have achieved!
Contemptible.
~~~~~~~~~~
I would suggest that Livni -- who is now the solid frontrunner over Mofaz for position of Kadima leader in polls -- would like to give the impression of doing something that increases our possibility of peace, but would not want to actually reach the stage of having signed something. For this would mean that her concessions -- which would be unpalatable to many -- would be made public. If you remember, when there was a proposal for an interim document that would show what each side had agreed to so far, she was pushed for not putting anything in writing too quickly, for this very reason.
Similarly, it suits Abbas to give the appearance of working productively towards "peace." This not only keeps Rice happy, it garners him additional financial support from the Europeans. But signing off on an agreement that includes concessions by the PA is something else all together. Not only is Hamas on the edge of taking him over, large parts of his own Fatah party would not be on board.
~~~~~~~~~~
More after Shabbat.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Syria and Iran: an alliance of convenience
Daily News Egypt
Alon Ben-Meir
Syria’s relationship with Iran, though largely asymmetrical, tends to be viewed as a robust alliance that many political observers believe is only getting stronger. Underneath the showmanship, Iran’s ties to Syria are largely based on perception rather than reality. Both countries have been systematically engaged in mutual deception to create a myth of a solid alliance that rests on economic, political and military collaboration when in fact much of it exists on paper only. Syria is hardly benefiting from its relations with Iran while it is in dire need for economic reforms and massive capital investments that only the West can provide. The new American administration will be in a strong position to lure Damascus out of Iran’s orbit and dramatically improve the political climate in the Middle East which could lead to regional stability and even peace.
For all intents and purposes, Iran and Syria have very little in common: whereas Syria is a secular state, Iran’s regime is theocratic, and there is also Persian culture versus Arab culture with two entirely different national identities. Although Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad is an Alawite — an offshoot of Shiism — the Sunnis make up the majority in Syria while the Shia are predominant in Iran. The two nations also have no shared border to foster great trade or security relations. Their economies differ in that Iran is overwhelmingly oil-based while Syria is by and large an agrarian society.
Furthermore, Iran needs advanced technology that Syria is unable to provide and Syria needs capital investment that Iran cannot offer.
And on a crucial policy matter, Syria is supportive of the Arab Peace Initiative with Israel, whereas Tehran continues to oppose any peace talks with Israel, including the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations it is actively trying to undermine. Moreover, Syria views itself as the intellectual center of the Arab nation in quest of rejoining the Sunni Arab fold and reinstates its position as an independent leading Arab state. Iran seeks regional hegemony and nuclear weapons while trying to subordinate the Sunni Arab states. The gulf between these two nations is deeply reflected in their day-to-day relationship, but their political collaboration and the tentative nature of their strategic objectives creates a smoke screen that covers the precariousness of their alliance.
It is clear that the main catalyst behind Syria and Iran’s close political collaboration is the Bush administration’s campaign to isolate both nations.
The imposition of American and some Western sanctions against Syria and the accumulative international sanctions against Iran have provided further impetus for their political alliance. In addition, their mutual disdain for Israel’s policies has brought them further together. Adding to this mix, both countries feel threatened by United States’ professed intention of regime change. As a result, Tehran and Damascus sought each other for political support and agreed, at least from a tactical perspective, to join hands by actively opposing American and Israeli interests in the region. Iran skillfully used Syria to buttress its position in Lebanon by supporting Hezbollah and aiding Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, while Damascus benefited from the political and limited financial support that Iran provided.
That being said, Damascus and Tehran have yet to translate political and strategic convenience into a meaningful economic and security cooperation.
While Iran is boasting to have invested and concluded deals worth billions of dollars in Syria and dozens of agreements have been signed covering tourism, banking, health, the environment, agriculture, and education, most of these agreements are effectively collecting dust. The trade between the two countries is minuscule reaching a mere $200 million in 2007, nearly $180 million of which was Iranian exports to Syria.
In fact, the U.S.-Syrian trade for the same period, even under the constraints of American sanctions, was more than double that amount while Syrian-Turkish trade exceeded $1.6 billion for the same year. A CIA report from March of 2008 indicates that while “The Syrian economy grew by 3.3% in 2007 nevertheless, the economy remains highly controlled by the government. Long-run economic constraints include declining oil production, high unemployment and inflation, rising budget deficits, and increasing pressure on water supplies caused by heavy use in agriculture, rapid population growth, industrial expansion and water pollution.” Moreover, billions are needed to improve infrastructure, education, health care, social services and housing.
Regardless of an apparent political collaboration, the lack of compelling economic relations, absence of shared ideological fervor and the divergent long-term strategic interests have rendered the alliance between Syria and Iran basically empty of real substance. Based on what I know first-hand and supported by the current negotiations, it is clear that Syria has made peace with Israel a strategic choice. Not only because the Syrians want to recover the Golan but because Damascus seeks to normalize relations with the United States.
Damascus is fully aware that only normal relations with the U.S. will bring Western and especially American capital investments, trade, new technology and over time even the prospect of procuring modern military equipment.
Damascus, however, no longer hopes that the Bush administration will normalize relations in its waning days. This, to a large extent, explains why Syria refuses to conduct direct talks with Israel and prefers to continue to negotiate through Turkey as an intermediary. Direct talks with Israel are Syria’s trump-card and it does not want to use it without getting something in return. As one Syrian official told me recently, only through direct involvement will the United States have stakes in the success of the negotiations and only then will the peace be solidified and Syria can expect to benefit financially as well as politically.
As the Russians have started to flex their mussels again, Damascus, perhaps out of necessity or as a warning to the U.S., is renewing its flirtation with Moscow. The new American administration should waste no time signaling to Syria that it is willing to start a new chapter in their relationship. As the international pressure continues to mount against Iran due to its nuclear program, President Assad realizes that his alliance of convenience with Tehran is becoming increasingly less convenient and less useful. He also knows the price he must pay for the Golan and for normal relations with the U.S. which in one form or another must result with the following: a substantial reduction in cooperation with Tehran, efforts to weaken and eventually disarm Hezbollah, a cessation of support for Palestinian militants Hamas and Islamic Jihad, full support of American efforts in Iraq, and finally cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
Syria is eager to change course and the new American administration must make this possible. The fact that Assad has made the peace talks with Israel public attests to his willingness to shift alliances. A realistic plan of engagement coupled with incentives by the next U.S. president will deal a major blow to Iran’s regional ambitions which explains why Tehran was and still is so alarmed about the Israeli-Syrian peace talks.
Alon Ben-Meir is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, New York. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. Alon@alonben-meir.com www.alonben-meir.com
Alon Ben-Meir
Syria’s relationship with Iran, though largely asymmetrical, tends to be viewed as a robust alliance that many political observers believe is only getting stronger. Underneath the showmanship, Iran’s ties to Syria are largely based on perception rather than reality. Both countries have been systematically engaged in mutual deception to create a myth of a solid alliance that rests on economic, political and military collaboration when in fact much of it exists on paper only. Syria is hardly benefiting from its relations with Iran while it is in dire need for economic reforms and massive capital investments that only the West can provide. The new American administration will be in a strong position to lure Damascus out of Iran’s orbit and dramatically improve the political climate in the Middle East which could lead to regional stability and even peace.
For all intents and purposes, Iran and Syria have very little in common: whereas Syria is a secular state, Iran’s regime is theocratic, and there is also Persian culture versus Arab culture with two entirely different national identities. Although Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad is an Alawite — an offshoot of Shiism — the Sunnis make up the majority in Syria while the Shia are predominant in Iran. The two nations also have no shared border to foster great trade or security relations. Their economies differ in that Iran is overwhelmingly oil-based while Syria is by and large an agrarian society.
Furthermore, Iran needs advanced technology that Syria is unable to provide and Syria needs capital investment that Iran cannot offer.
And on a crucial policy matter, Syria is supportive of the Arab Peace Initiative with Israel, whereas Tehran continues to oppose any peace talks with Israel, including the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations it is actively trying to undermine. Moreover, Syria views itself as the intellectual center of the Arab nation in quest of rejoining the Sunni Arab fold and reinstates its position as an independent leading Arab state. Iran seeks regional hegemony and nuclear weapons while trying to subordinate the Sunni Arab states. The gulf between these two nations is deeply reflected in their day-to-day relationship, but their political collaboration and the tentative nature of their strategic objectives creates a smoke screen that covers the precariousness of their alliance.
It is clear that the main catalyst behind Syria and Iran’s close political collaboration is the Bush administration’s campaign to isolate both nations.
The imposition of American and some Western sanctions against Syria and the accumulative international sanctions against Iran have provided further impetus for their political alliance. In addition, their mutual disdain for Israel’s policies has brought them further together. Adding to this mix, both countries feel threatened by United States’ professed intention of regime change. As a result, Tehran and Damascus sought each other for political support and agreed, at least from a tactical perspective, to join hands by actively opposing American and Israeli interests in the region. Iran skillfully used Syria to buttress its position in Lebanon by supporting Hezbollah and aiding Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, while Damascus benefited from the political and limited financial support that Iran provided.
That being said, Damascus and Tehran have yet to translate political and strategic convenience into a meaningful economic and security cooperation.
While Iran is boasting to have invested and concluded deals worth billions of dollars in Syria and dozens of agreements have been signed covering tourism, banking, health, the environment, agriculture, and education, most of these agreements are effectively collecting dust. The trade between the two countries is minuscule reaching a mere $200 million in 2007, nearly $180 million of which was Iranian exports to Syria.
In fact, the U.S.-Syrian trade for the same period, even under the constraints of American sanctions, was more than double that amount while Syrian-Turkish trade exceeded $1.6 billion for the same year. A CIA report from March of 2008 indicates that while “The Syrian economy grew by 3.3% in 2007 nevertheless, the economy remains highly controlled by the government. Long-run economic constraints include declining oil production, high unemployment and inflation, rising budget deficits, and increasing pressure on water supplies caused by heavy use in agriculture, rapid population growth, industrial expansion and water pollution.” Moreover, billions are needed to improve infrastructure, education, health care, social services and housing.
Regardless of an apparent political collaboration, the lack of compelling economic relations, absence of shared ideological fervor and the divergent long-term strategic interests have rendered the alliance between Syria and Iran basically empty of real substance. Based on what I know first-hand and supported by the current negotiations, it is clear that Syria has made peace with Israel a strategic choice. Not only because the Syrians want to recover the Golan but because Damascus seeks to normalize relations with the United States.
Damascus is fully aware that only normal relations with the U.S. will bring Western and especially American capital investments, trade, new technology and over time even the prospect of procuring modern military equipment.
Damascus, however, no longer hopes that the Bush administration will normalize relations in its waning days. This, to a large extent, explains why Syria refuses to conduct direct talks with Israel and prefers to continue to negotiate through Turkey as an intermediary. Direct talks with Israel are Syria’s trump-card and it does not want to use it without getting something in return. As one Syrian official told me recently, only through direct involvement will the United States have stakes in the success of the negotiations and only then will the peace be solidified and Syria can expect to benefit financially as well as politically.
As the Russians have started to flex their mussels again, Damascus, perhaps out of necessity or as a warning to the U.S., is renewing its flirtation with Moscow. The new American administration should waste no time signaling to Syria that it is willing to start a new chapter in their relationship. As the international pressure continues to mount against Iran due to its nuclear program, President Assad realizes that his alliance of convenience with Tehran is becoming increasingly less convenient and less useful. He also knows the price he must pay for the Golan and for normal relations with the U.S. which in one form or another must result with the following: a substantial reduction in cooperation with Tehran, efforts to weaken and eventually disarm Hezbollah, a cessation of support for Palestinian militants Hamas and Islamic Jihad, full support of American efforts in Iraq, and finally cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
Syria is eager to change course and the new American administration must make this possible. The fact that Assad has made the peace talks with Israel public attests to his willingness to shift alliances. A realistic plan of engagement coupled with incentives by the next U.S. president will deal a major blow to Iran’s regional ambitions which explains why Tehran was and still is so alarmed about the Israeli-Syrian peace talks.
Alon Ben-Meir is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, New York. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. Alon@alonben-meir.com www.alonben-meir.com
The Islamic Credit Card Controversy!
Asharq Alawsat
However, the prevalence and popularity of Islamic credit cards is also accompanied by customer complaints about the expensive costs charged by some Islamic banks that offer them. In fact; such credit cards have become even more expensive than the ones offered by conventional banks. Riyadh, Asharq Al-Awsat - In recent years, the competition between Islamic banks has increased over offering Shariah-complaint credit cards – once a controversial subject among Islamic jurists. However, the prevalence and popularity of Islamic credit cards is also accompanied by customer complaints about the expensive costs charged by some Islamic banks that offer them. In fact; such credit cards have become even more expensive than the ones offered by conventional banks.
Customers have reported that they were surprised to learn about the charge fees required to obtain the credit cards offered by some banks as ‘Shariah-compliant’ and which have been approved by the Shariah committees of the banks in question. Many of the complaints revolve around the fact that despite the cards being Shariah-compliant, they end up deceiving and exploiting customers in Saudi Arabian banks and those who prefer to undertake usury-free transactions.
Some people reported falling victim to bank advertisements after being lured in by the promise of advertising campaigns and the fact that the credit cards were Shariah-compliant only to realize that they would continue to pay the accumulated monthly charges for a long time. Add to that the issuance fees which banks deduct upon issuing cards to customers.
An Islamic banking researcher who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity stated that the credit cards currently offered by banks entail usury and even resort to interest in some transactions. He added that this practice sometimes meant that charges exceed the interest rates employed by conventional banks for traditional credit cards.
The expert and researcher also added that banks practice a concept known as ‘Tawaruq’* and sell commodities in global markets on behalf of the customer, receive payment for them and pay the accrued interest on cards – provided that customers continue to pay the remaining installments on the card.* He also stressed that the Islamic Fiqh Academy (IFA) launched a sharp attack against the banks that had approved and endorsed these cards during its recent session held in Muscat.
The so-called interest received by Islamic banks or conventional banks that have Islamic banking divisions or branches comes through charging 60-100 Saudi Riyals (SAR) (US $16-26) or more according to the card type, aside from the annual fees – which means that the banks receive that ‘interest’ whether the customer uses the card or not.
According to the expert, the credit cards that are indeed Shariah-compliant are a limited. An example is the ‘charge card’ on which the issuing bank grants the cardholder a loan with within certain limits – depending on whether it’s a gold or silver card etc. – for a certain amount of time. However, the amount must be paid in full at the agreed upon time and in the case of overdue payments, no usury-related payments are charged. Usually the term of installment payments is between 45-54 days after which the payment is taken in full from the account.
Another expert in Islamic banking also agrees; he said that some Islamic banks offer credit card policies that are misleading and that resort to usury in their practices and that it causes great injustice to the customers and does not comply with Islamic religious provisions.
The expert, who specializes in Islamic law and transactional jurisprudence, believes that the burden of the responsibility belongs to the banks’ Shariah committees that encourage banks to offer such products which are unanimously prohibited by the majority of contemporary Muslim scholars. He added that most banks offering credit cards do so with the objective of acquiring interest – which is strictly and unequivocally prohibited by Islam.
The expert went on to warn people against falling into the trap of the so-called Shariah-compliant cards which launch effective advertising campaigns around this time of the year. Moreover, he stressed that the only Shariah-compliant credit cards are the charge cards which only a limited number of banks offer.
Meanwhile, the Shariah committees in banks have issued their defenses in the face of the accusations leveled against them and the debate is still ongoing. The expert also explained that credit cards represent a guarantee by the bank to the customer, particularly in places such as hotels which rely more on credit cards than they do on cash.
However, the Shariah committees believe that the administrative fees charged by banks are their right since they need to make a profit and thus do so without resorting to usury like conventional banks – but he agrees that most of the local banks [in Saudi Arabia] charge exorbitant fees.
Some believe that there is no such thing as non Shariah-compliant cards and uphold that customers have a choice to either accept the terms and authorize the bank to sell commodities through Tawaruk on their behalf, also paying the credit card’s interest through that, or not.
Today, the advertising campaigns of many banks can be seen throughout the cities with the advent of the summer holidays and they particularly target the women. These campaigns employ terminology and tactics and are devised in a manner that is both suggestive and convincing to lure potential customers into thinking that these credit cards are Shariah-compliant, and easy to possess and repay.
* Tawaruq: Shariah-compliant of finance through which loan finance is raised by buying installments in local commodities that are owned by the bank.
* Credit cards within the Islamic banking framework are linked to personal lines of credit to ensure that users only ‘borrow’ money from themselves and not the issuing bank. The banks, in turn, make money by charging fees.
Democrats debate the Middle East
Sarah Brown in Denver
Al Jazeera
"Nothing has worked."
That was the blunt assessment of one contributor at a policy forum at the Democratic convention in Denver on the US record in the Middle East. On Wednesday the New America Foundation, a public policy think tank, sponsored a forum dedicated to answering one question: How can the next president make the Middle East irrelevant?
Unsurprisingly, the consensus amongst those attending was that should the Democrats win the White House in November a major overhaul in policy and strategy is needed.
Greg Craig, the senior national security adviser on Barack Obama's campaign, told the forum that Obama's background would prove a strength when dealing with Iran, whose nuclear program has sparked a stand-off with Western powers.
"How will Iran deal with Obama? They will find him hard to demonise or put in a convenient box. I think we would come out in good shape to engage with the situation," he said.
In focus
In-depth coverage of the US election
As for Iraq, Craig reiterated the Obama camp line of strategic withdrawal, arguing "what is needed is energy and intelligence to get out in such a fashion that we don’t leave chaos behind".
John Kerry, senator for the state of Massachusetts and the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, echoed Craig's sentiments in his own keynote speech.
"I have never seen our [US] position this compromised, our credibility tarnished … and a situation as complex as it is now," he said, in a reference to the perceived attitudes of the Bush administration.
"We have a singular capacity to see other countries and their problems through our lens alone. We cannot tell people what to do."
'Global counter-insurgency'
Kerry, who is reported to be angling for a role as secretary of state under Obama, was quick to dismiss the Bush administration's entire concept of the "war on terror", calling it a "gross misnomer" which did not define what he called a "global counter-insurgency".
The US faces a new challenge
from Iran [GALLO/GETTY]
He called for understanding in three key areas – encouraging and fostering religious understanding, understanding the tribal underpinnings of the Middle East, and assuaging the economic crisis gripping the region as unemployment surges and disaffection gives rise to extremism.
Obama, he said, understood the need for a foreign policy "based on values...and to reach out in way that defuses the tinderbox that has been created by this administration".
"We have to be viewed as a fair broker," he said.
But he sounded a note of caution, warning against "exaggerated expectations and naivete" and said a strong stand should be adopted against Iran.
"[We cannot have] namby pamby do-goodism," he said regarding Iran. "There is a standard to be held and there are tougher sanctions to be put in place.
Of course this is nothing new, and many question whether an Obama administration can really offer anything new over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran and the political situation in Lebanon
Out of ideas?
The issue of military action remains thorny for Democrats, many of whom fear they will be perceived as weak or unpatriotic if they do not support such moves in the event of a crisis.
However, Ann-Marie Slaughter, dean of the Woodrow Wilson school of public and international affairs at Princeton university in New Jersey, told the forum that the US should embrace "non-violent dispute resolution" and reaffirm their commitments to both international law – such as the Geneva conventions – and the UN, arguing that US authority was compromised when redress was not sought through legitimate international channel.
However, despite such weighty promises, the question of whether Obama will deliver on such matters should he win office remains.
Obama's choice of Biden as a vice-presidential running mate was seen by some critics as a tacit admission that he lacked sufficient experience in the area.
And while speakers at Wednesday’s forum were fulsome with grand ideas, bestowing praise for Obama and expressing confidence in a better foreign policy in a Democratic administration, there was a distinct lack of solid, detailed strategy.
Whether or not they are being kept under close wraps for any new administration remains to be seen.
A Snapshot of Joe Biden's Foreign Policy Judgment
Lorie Byrd
Friday, August 29, 2008
Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as running mate hasn’t helped him in the polls, and it has highlighted Obama’s lack of experience in matters of foreign policy and national security, but more than that it has given Republicans additional grounds to question Obama’s judgment. At first glance the addition of the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a man with 35 years in the Senate, might seem the perfect balance to a ticket headed by a candidate with very little experience. The fit might look perfect on paper, but the reality does not quite live up to the promise. A look at Joe Biden’s recent foreign policy judgment says a lot more about a possible Obama presidency than the fact that Biden has been in the Senate for 3 ½ decades.
The Hill reported of Biden’s speech at the Democratic National Convention this week: Biden “got confused about some very simple military terminology” stating that Obama advocated for “two additional battalions in Afghanistan” when “in fact, Obama called for two extra brigades – a small verbal slip, but a significant numerical one. A brigade is composed of a varying number of battalions.” Although an embarrassing mistake for a man hailed for his national security knowledge, that slip of the tongue was probably just that, a verbal slip. The same cannot be said for some of Biden’s past statements.
October 2001: Shortly following the September 11 attacks, Michael Crowley reported of Biden in The New Republic: “At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: ‘I'm groping here.’ Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. ‘Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,’ Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.”
And more recently:
April 2007: Biden told reporters “"The surge is not succeeding, and the president refuses to see that."
July 2007: Biden said he had been “shot at” in the Green Zone in Iraq, but later had to “revise” that claim .
September 2007: Just before Gen. David Petraeus was scheduled to report to Congress, Joe Biden said President Bush's war strategy is failing and that Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes. "The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence.” Biden claimed that Bush’s purpose for the surge was to buy time long enough to push the burden of the war onto the next president. Biden said, "I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out.”
September 9, 2007: From an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what you said in Iowa last week. “If we do not change course in Iraq soon, you’re going to see, two years from now, helicopters hovering over our embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad with people hanging” onto “the ladders just like Vietnam. Mark my words.”
SEN. BIDEN: Absolutely, positively, unequivocally, I believe that. Look, let me tell you, Tim, there is no possibility—no possibility—of a central government governing Iraq in any near term…
MR. RUSSERT: General Petraeus said in a letter to his troops that we have not had the political reconciliation we thought we would have at this time. It’s been much slower, but there is some hope. And then he added this: “My sense is that we have achieved tactical momentum and wrested the initiative from our enemies in a number areas of Iraq. We are, in short, a long way from the goal line, but we do have the ball and we are driving down the field.” Is that what you expect him to say tomorrow?
SEN. BIDEN: I expect him to say that. And I really respect him. And I think he’s dead flat wrong. The fact of the matter is that there is—that this idea of these security gains we’ve made have had no impact on the underlying sectarian dynamic. None. None whatsoever… And can anybody envision a central government made up of Sunni, Shia and Kurds that’s going to gain the trust and respect of 27 million Iraqis? It’s not going to happen.
…
MR. RUSSERT: Your presidential campaign is on the air with a political ad about Iraq. Let’s watch it for a second.
(Videotape)
NARRATOR: (From Biden political ad) In a world this dangerous, with a crisis as tough as Iraq, hard truths need to be told. Joe Biden says this war must end now.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: This war must end now. In, in ‘05, this is what Joe Biden was saying: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out—equally a mistake.” You’ve changed your mind.
SEN. BIDEN: Well, I have changed my mind, but I haven’t changed my mind in any fundamental way…
September 26, 2007: The Senate passed Biden’s amendment "calling for creation of a federal system of government in Iraq with regions divided along ethnic lines."
On the result of Biden’s statements and actions, Michael Rubin recently wrote:
“The November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate …found that Iran had pursued a nuclear weapons program until 2003. Although Biden's embrace of engagement coincided with Iran's nuclear warhead work, he acknowledged no error. He told reporters on Dec. 4 that Bush had "misrepresented" the intelligence in a drive to war and declared the same day, "You cannot trust this president." Such poor judgment was not lost on Iranian leaders. Indeed, one of Khatami's top aides suggested that they came to count on it…Biden’s political games have made him Tehran’s favorite senator. As Gen. David Petraeus struggled to unite Iraqis across the ethnic and sectarian divide, Iran’s Press TV seized on Biden’s plan for partitioning Iraq and featured his statements with the headline “US plans to disintegrate Iraq.” Biden’s attack-dog statements about U.S. policy failures emboldened Iranian hard-liners to defy diplomacy. In the Dec. 7, 2007, official sermon, Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani speaking on behalf of Iran’s supreme leader, declared, “This Senator [Biden] correctly says Israel could not suppress Hizbullah in Lebanon, so how can the U.S. stand face-to-face with a nation of 70 million? This is the blessing of the Guardianship of the Jurists [the theocracy] . . . which plants such thoughts in the hearts of U.S. senators and forces them to make such confessions.” The crowd met his statement with refrains of “Death to America.”
In April 2008 Biden remained convinced the surge was a failure. As an early rebuttal to upcoming testimony by Gen. David Petraeus Biden said, "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically… Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together." He later added, "There is little evidence the Iraqis will settle their differences peacefully any time soon."
By July 2008, Iraq had “met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” According to a report this week, “The U.S. military will hand over responsibility for the security of Anbar Province, once a stronghold of the Sunni insurgency and one of the most violent regions in Iraq, to the Iraqi government as early as Monday, Iraqi and U.S. officials said.”
Many have recently pointed to comments Biden made about Barack Obama in August of 2007: "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. It's awful hard, with only a little bit of experience to have a clear sense of what you would do on the most critical issues facing us today." That is very true, but Obama’s choice of Biden to be his foreign policy expert gives us a good idea of how an Obama-Biden administration would handle such matters if elected.
.
Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserve
Crying Wolf on the Economy While Ignoring Real Pains
Linda Chavez
Friday, August 29, 2008
America is in its darkest hour -- again. It happens every four years when the Democrats take center stage for their national convention. In 2004, we heard that we were in the midst of another Great Depression. For the last week, we've heard more economic doom and gloom. It must have been disappointing news to Dems to read on Thursday that the U.S. economy grew 3.3 percent in the second quarter. It's hard to turn those numbers into a recession, much less a depression. But if the Democrats see disaster on every domestic front, they seem oblivious to the real threats to the United States. There was hardly a word about terrorism, and scant mention of national security during the weeklong gabfest. Wednesday's proceedings, which convention organizers had promised was going to be devoted to national security themes, barely touched on the issue. That is unless you think Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks are experts on national security. The Spielberg film tribute to American soldiers, narrated by Hanks, was an interesting take on America's mission in Iraq. Apparently we sent soldiers there not to liberate the country and take down a brutal dictator but to see how many young Americans we could maim or send home in caskets.
The most glaring omission, however, was in Sen. Joe Biden's speech. Barack Obama picked Biden as his running mate largely because Biden's strength on foreign policy issues balanced Obama's obvious weakness in this arena. Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spent most of his time spinning folksy stories about his working-class background and making digs at his "friend" John McCain. Biden devoted less than a paragraph of his long, rambling speech to national security and foreign policy.
He was quick to blame the Bush administration for failing "to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China, and India as great powers … and the emergence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front in the war on terror." But he offered no inkling of what Barack Obama and he would do differently. And what we know of Obama's thoughts on these issues isn't comforting. To date, Obama has waxed both belligerent and timid on Pakistan and Russia.
A year ago, Obama said that he'd be willing to attack targets in Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistan government, "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets." Pretty bellicose rhetoric aimed at a U.S. ally. But when Russia invaded Georgia, Obama suddenly became more reticent -- except to suggest that maybe it was George Bush's fault (isn't everything). After first suggesting that Russia and Georgia ought to sit down to negotiate their differences, as if the two countries were equally to blame for Russia's invasion, Obama later said: "We've got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies. They can't charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point."
But what are the Democrats' plans to keep the country safe from the very real peril of international terrorism? During Bill Clinton's eight years in office, al-Qaida was plotting an even more spectacular attack on the World Trade Center than its first bombing in 1993. But the past seven years under President Bush have seen the dismemberment of al-Qaida and its diminishing influence even among Islamist radicals. The Democrats want to downplay the success of the war on terror, but how will they ensure that Americans will be as safe under a President Obama?
And how will the Obama-Biden team confront Russia? The Russians seem intent on sparking a new Cold War. We won the last one by building a military force with which the Soviets couldn't compete. But Democrats are traditionally loathe to invest in new weapons systems and want to raise taxes for domestic spending, not to insure the finest military in the world. Are Democrats really up to the task of keeping the Russian Bear in check?
Democrats had a week to describe how Barack Obama would step into the role of commander in chief come January. They failed to do so. Now it's up to American voters to decide whether they're willing to make a leap of faith that Obama's up to the job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)