Friday, February 29, 2008


by Andrew Bostom (Courtesy Atlasshrugs)

Apostasy is no laughing matter to your erstwhile negotiating partner

The intrepid Iranian ex-patriate Amil Imani has this stark warning for the terminally vain and naïve Barack “Barry” (Middle Name Which I Dare Not Utter Lest the PC-Police Cry “Racism” ) Obama:

Obama boasted that he would embark on a personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with countries such as Syria and Iran. He said that he would meet their leaders without any preconditions to settle our disputes.

Doesn’t that sound like change, a real change of great relief to us all? Never mind the fact that he has about zero experience in foreign policy matters, he is foolish enough to aim to negotiate with the ever-conniving Assad of Syria and masters of deceptions such as the Mullahs of Iran.

Okay Obama, don’t claim that no one warned you. If you get elected President and you receive an invitation from your fellow Muslim brother Ahmadinejad to make good on your promise and visit him in Tehran for a tête-à-tête, don’t you do it.

BBC’s recent report ought to be enough for you to recant your foolish and naïve promise:

“The European Union has criticized the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam…

Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia or “Islamic - law.”

But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code.

An EU statement expressed deep concern about what it calls the ongoing deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. It singled out Section Five of the draft penal code currently before the Iranian parliament, imposing the death penalty for apostasy. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law.

If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalized in the country’s criminal code.

Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life.

Islam is Ummehist. Islam doesn’t recognize nationalities and national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious and have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and they may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood, particularly for the blood of infidels and apostates.

My advice, Obama: Elected President or not, don’t you hazard a trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, don’t you go anywhere near where the crazed Islamists can get their hands on you. You don’t even rate a fatwa from one of the many bloodthirsty crafty Ayatollahs or Moftis, asking for your head.

Your fate is already sealed. You are on automatic, so to speak– a person who was given the gift of Islam and who ungratefully turned his back to the one and only faith of Allah, so the Muslims believe.

The punishment for this kind of betrayal is prescribed as haad (most severe), meaning death.You may protest that you are free to choose your religion and that you have chosen to be Christian. Nothing doing!

You are stamped as Muslim at conception because your father was Muslim. Further, you have been doubly-stamped by your middle name Hussein. Muslims name their sons Hussein in honor of one of Islam’s most revered saints.

Hence, the Muslims want what is theirs and you either repent and return to the fold or prepare yourself for the ultimate punishment: Death.

Sunday, February 24, 2008


By JR Dieckmann

On Tuesday night, Feb. 19, 2008, Barack Obama let the cat out of the bag for the first time, when he gave a 45 minute, off the cuff speech after his victory in Wisconsin. For the first time in his campaign, he talked to some extent on substance, rather than in just empty platitudes and feel good rhetoric. For the first time he talked of more than just “hope for change” and “change for hope” and leave the rest to the fantasies of his supporters‘ imaginations.

What he was proposing was pure socialism, correction - communism, straight out of the teachings of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx. It all centered around government control over everything from the energy industry, to home mortgages subsidized with our tax money, to government run healthcare. Some will say it was just extreme left wing liberalism but I call it what it is - communism. Take money from the rich and give it to the poor, not only within America but internationally, all in the interest of global equality, paid for by the American taxpayers.

Clinton's speech wasn't much different but she was cut off when Obama took the stage. Americans need to realize that what these two charlatans are trying to do is to lead America straight into communism. And they are no longer being subtle about it. Whenever questioned about it, they dance around it and divert the subject to something else, never answering the question, or giving two completely opposite answers in the same statement. Only liberal politicians being interviewed by the liberal media can get away with this. It’s like having a conversation with an automated phone tree.

The communist threat to America has been brewing for decades right here in our own country and now it’s coming to a head. It is now trying to take over the highest office in the land. It’s time we started calling it exactly what it is and stop this political correctness that has us referring to communism as simply “progressive” or harmless “liberalism.” Some call it American socialism but it has it’s roots in pure communism.

Clinton and Obama don't have a clue what America is all about. Their idea of America is everyone living on welfare with their lives supervised by government social workers, and all business regulated by a government that can’t even regulate itself in compliance with the Constitution. They see big government as the solution to America’s problems when, in fact, in most cases the government is the cause of them. When has the government ever solved a problem without creating three more, or solved a problem for one group by taking away the rights of another?

In Oxnard, California we now have 14 year old Brandon McInerney on trial not only for the murder of 15-year-old Lawrence King, but is also being punished for “wrong thinking.” Since King was gay, McInerney has had “hate crime” added to his charges. This is not the first time an American citizen has been charged with “wrong thinking.”

You can now go to jail for your thoughts if you have a problem with one of the left’s pet minority groups. I am not advocating the killing of gays, but what about our American right to freedom of thought and speech? The politically correct, socialists/communists have now taken that away and will punish you for your thoughts. Right thinking will be rewarded, wrong thinking will be punished. The ideal communist plan.

For the first time in my life I realized that as much as I dislike John McCain, I will have to vote for him in November. There has been much discussion between myself and my fellow writers and publishers over this as I contended that a vote for McCain would violate my principles and values, and validate the left turn of the Republican party. But the platforms of both Obama and Clinton make McCain almost look like a conservative. They are even worse than I had thought, once you get past the platitudes and rhetoric. Not that I would ever have considered voting for either one of them, but neither would I have considered voting for McCain.

Tuesday night I realized that nothing, not even McCain, could be as harmful to our country as those two "Democrats" still in the race for president, and perhaps even worse, their respective spouses. I use the term "Democrats" loosely for they are Democrats only in party registration. Philosophically, they are both communists.

Obama is a "Chicago Union Mafia" communist while Clinton is a Soviet Marxist communist.

Both would destroy American liberty and the free enterprise system, and laugh about it.

When have either of these two candidates ever spoken favorably about the free market, entrepreneurship, or American business and industry? When have they ever paid due respect to the U.S. Constitution, or praised it? To them, these institutions are evil and must be eradicated. All we ever hear from them is how poor Americans really are and how much they need government assistance from Democrats.

Aren’t we all getting a little sick of hearing these isolated stories of the misery of the downtrodden, of how Americans are living hand to mouth and unable to pay for both food and medicine, and how they’re losing their homes (that they couldn‘t afford to buy in the first place)?

Do you know anyone who fits these descriptions? I don’t. They attempt to create a false picture of America, then offer their socialist solutions for it. It’s the same old propaganda game of creating a false premise, then a solution to fix it.

The only people who relate to this hysteria are the people who show up at Obama and Clinton rallies simply because they have no place better to be, like at a job.

In the case of Obama, he seems to be advocating for only the poor black community without actually saying so, but that is where you find the conditions he describes. His solution to the problem is to keep them dependent on big government with the taxpayers’ money and somehow, that will lead them to the American dream.

The fact is that there are some poor people in America. We call them “the homeless.” These people that the Democrats are talking about would be considered middle class in most other countries, even rich in some. In America they are called “poor” because they have only one large screen color TV, one car per family instead of two, perhaps one computer with a dial-up connection to the Internet in their two bedroom household, and their cellphones are not the latest model that include the Internet.

They are poor only when compared to the living standards of the Obamas and the Clintons, but they are far from digging in dumpsters for their next meal.

(As even people with jobs have to do in Islamic Iran because they have not been paid for as long as a YEAR BY THE GOVERNMENT! Which provides BILLIONS to terror organizations to destroy us).

I understand that it’s hard to raise 3 or 4 children on the wages of one unskilled single mother, but who created that problem in the first place?

It wasn’t the average American taxpayer. So why should they have to pay for the excesses and indulgences of others so that they can live a lifestyle beyond their means without taking personal responsibility for their own actions and the lives of their own children?

People who want to live in America need to learn what it means to be an American, and accept that responsibility, if they want the benefits America offers. There is no “free lunch” in America and the hard working citizens shouldn’t have to pay for it.

On National Defense, Obama proposes the immediate withdrawal of troops from the “war on terror” (which is also improperly named due to political correctness - is actually the “war against Islamic aggression” or the “war on Islamofascism“).

He would replace the fight against Islamic terrorist organizations and their sponsors in Iran with “negotiations” and “diplomacy.” He is so ignorant on foreign policy and affairs that he doesn’t even understand that the enemy we face today has no interest in, and nothing to gain from, negotiating with the U.S. other than the forestallment of their own demise.

Negotiations will produce no advantage for the U.S. but only give the enemy more time to conquer us which is their only real interest and objective in this war. What is there to negotiate over?

Will Obama offer them one million detached heads instead of 300 million? Will he approve of Iran building nuclear weapons in exchange for their word not to use them on us? Will he sell out Iraq to al Qaeda in exchange for no more threatening videos from bin Laden?

I do not make the decision to poke the hole (or “pull the lever” in some states) next to McCain’s name lightly. I would rather poke him in the eye. At least McCain is not a communist, and fighting this war against communism in America is just as important as fighting the war against Islamofascism.

But in exchange for my vote for McCain, I want something in return. I want McCain's solemn oath to the American people that if elected, he will:

1. Never sign any legislation that grants amnesty, or anything like it, to illegal aliens. That he will not only secure the borders and crack down on employers who would consider employing illegals, but also conduct serious efforts with DHS and ICE to eliminate the illegals already living in our country. That he would support the cutting off of federal funds to "sanctuary cities" for illegals. America has 17 legal guest worker programs that can be used instead of employing illegal aliens. We don’t need them in our country in spite of the pro illegal propaganda some people are promoting.

2. Get his head on straight about "global warming" and learn the facts that disprove the myths he believes in. That he will work toward energy independence for America and promote domestic oil, coal, and nuclear development as a major priority, including drilling in ANWR, and put a stop to this insane biofuel subsidizing with our money. Recognize that corn is needed food, not fuel. We can become energy independent within a decade if we can only find the political will to do it. We have the resources right here in our own country. We need only to exploit them and use them. McCain must not allow the environmental organization to dictate our energy policies and hamper American energy independence. McCain must denounce the socialist “global warming” swindle and expose it for what it is.

3. Work with Republicans in Congress as hard as he has been working with Democrats over the past decade. In one of his victory speeches after "super Tuesday," he said he would reach out to work with Democrats. I want to hear him say he will reach out to work with Republicans. If he doesn’t want to do that, then I would suggest he switch parties right now and run against Obama and the Clintons in the Democrat primaries, and open up the field for a real Republican candidate.

4. Not try to micromanage the Islamic War and let the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff do their jobs. Allow intelligence interrogators to do what is necessary to protect the country from terrorism, including waterboarding, and keep captured terrorists away from our country and out of our civilian courts. Acknowledge that Guantánamo Bay is the best place to keep them and is necessary for the defense of America.

5. Keep his campaign promise to veto any and all pork barrel legislation that may come out of Congress, cut government waste and unconstitutional spending programs, and significantly reduce the size of the federal government. Don’t wait until his second term to find his veto pen as Bush did. He may not get a second term.

These are the conditions I want from McCain in exchange for my vote. Will I get them? Of course not. But these are the things all conservatives should demand from McCain before we enter the voting booth in November if he wants to win the election. Otherwise he risks many of us not showing up at the polls at all.

As I sit here on election night next November watching the election returns come in, there will be no excitement, no anticipation, no pulling for my candidate for president, only a sick and sorrowful feeling in the pit of my stomach. If the Democrat candidate should win, it will be a great loss for the for the country and for Republican party, but they asked for it.

If the Republican candidate, John McCain, wins, it will only validate the "big tent" Republicans strategy of moving the party to the left, and will be a great loss to conservatives for years to come. Either way we lose.

If McCain should manage to pull off a win, we can, at least, take comfort in knowing that the road to Communism will have some bumps in it and the fight against Islamofascism will continue rather than end in surrender. I will hold my nose and cast a vote for McCain, but not as a vote “for” McCain, but rather as a vote against communism.

It’s time the rest of us who love this country do the same, not only in this election, but in all elections to come because if the country keeps moving in the direction it has been, it won’t be too long before elections will mean nothing at all and, in fact, may no longer exist in America.

With the dissatisfaction that exists today with the candidates on both sides of the aisle, rather than asking whom did you vote for in the election, we will soon be asking each other, “Whom did you vote against?” We can only hope that in the next election, we will have someone to vote “for.”

Friday, February 22, 2008


NATO says 2 Taliban commanders killed Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 7:10am
Afghan and NATO-led troops killed two regional Taliban commanders in southern Afghanistan, and an explosion in the same province claimed the life of a British soldier, officials said Thursday. Full Story

Chad rebels deny negotiations with government Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 7:11am
Rebels opposed to Chad's President Idriss Deby on Thursday denied they were holding talks with the government, contradicting a claim by the foreign minister that negotiations were underway. Full Story
U.S. missile strikes spy satellite Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 7:12am
A missile interceptor launched from a U.S. Navy warship struck a dying American spy satellite orbiting 130 miles over the Pacific Ocean, the Pentagon announced. Full Story
Iraq's Sadr expected to extend militia truce: sources Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 7:22am
Powerful Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is expected to extend a six-month ceasefire by his Mehdi Army militia, two senior officials in his movement confirmed for the first time on Thursday. Full Story
Pakistans Victors May Lack Strength to Oust Musharraf Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 7:33am
This weeks election will leave President Pervez Musharraf weakened in his post, but continuing returns and haggling over the new government on Wednesday showed his opponents likely to fall short of the numbers needed to impeach him. Full Story
Angry Serbs plan Kosovo protest Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 8:08am
Hundreds of thousands of Serbs are expected to join a rally in Belgrade to protest Kosovo's declaration of independence over the weekend. Schools are closed for the day and the rail network is providing free travel. A large stage has been erected outside parliament for an address by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. Full Story
Britain says U.S. rendition flights used base Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 9:05am
Two U.S. planes carrying terrorism suspects refueled at a U.S. base on British-ruled Diego Garcia in 2002, Britain said on Thursday, contradicting earlier assurances. Full Story
Sri Lanka says kills 92 Tiger rebels in push north Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 9:55am
Sri Lankan troops have killed 92 rebels in the latest offensive into their northern stronghold, the island's defence ministry said on Thursday. Full Story
E Timor govt asks for emergency extension Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 10:11am
East Timor's Government has asked the acting president to extend by 30 days a state of emergency triggered by attacks on the nation's top two leaders. Full Story
30 Taliban killed in joint operation Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 10:52am
Thirty Taliban militants were killed in a joint Afghan and foreign special forces operation backed by air support in southern Helmand province, the defence ministry said on Thursday. Full Story
332 Die in Custody Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:25am
More than 330 people have died in police custody in the Indian portion of Kashmir since the outbreak of an Islamic insurgency 18 years ago, according to official police figures released for the first time. Full Story
UK apology over rendition flights Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:35am
David Miliband has admitted two US 'extraordinary rendition' flights landed on UK territory in 2002. The foreign secretary said in both cases US planes refuelled on the UK dependent territory of Diego Garcia. He said he was "very sorry" to have to say that previous denials made in "good faith" were now having to be corrected. Full Story
Canada says south Afghan mission will end in 2011 Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:43am
Canada's minority Conservative government, bowing to a key opposition demand, said on Thursday its military mission in southern Afghanistan would end in 2011 and would not be extended. Full Story
Call to scrap children's database Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:44am
The government faces calls to scrap a database containing the details of every child in England after a report said it could never be secure. The report, by accountants Deloitte and Touche, was ordered after last year's missing data discs crisis. Ministers say they accept its call for "further controls" on the #224m ContactPoint child protection system. Full Story
Spain on high alert ahead of poll Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 11:48am
Spain has been placed on maximum terror alert ahead of official campaigning for the general election scheduled for 9 March, the interior ministry said. Security forces have been mobilised to protect rallies, party headquarters, shopping centres and other sites. Full Story
Protesters attack U.S. embassy in Belgrade Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 12:55pm
More than 300 protesters attacked the U.S. embassy in Belgrade with sticks and metal bars on Thursday, trying to break down windows and doors in protest against independence for Kosovo. Full Story
Magnitude-6.2 quake hits Norway Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 2:38pm
A magnitude-6.2 earthquake, the largest ever recorded on Norwegian territory, hit off the Arctic Svalbard islands early Thursday, the national seismic monitoring center said. No casualties or damage were reported. The quake could have been catastrophic if it had hit a more densely populated area, said Conrad Lindholm, senior researcher of the seismic institute NORSAR. Full Story
Sarkozy's son running for office Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 2:47pm
President Nicolas Sarkozy's 21-year-old son Jean, whose voice, vernacular and glad-handing verve eerily resembles those of his father, took a big step in that direction Wednesday by launching a bid for local office. Jean Sarkozy is running for a seat in the chic Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine, the same town where his father launched his political career more than three decades ago  at age 22  and later served as mayor for 19 years. Full Story
PML-N, PPP to form coalition govt in Pakistan Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 5:05pm
Ending the suspense on government formation in Pakistan, the two main opposition parties on Thursday night announced they would form a new ruling coalition but did not name any Prime Ministerial candidate. The announcement of the two parties formally joining hands was made after a hectic two-hour negotiations between PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif after they overcame differences on some key issues. Full Story
New South Korean Leader Cleared in Fraud Inquiry Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 5:05pm
A special prosecutor on Thursday cleared President-elect Lee Myung-bak of South Korea of fraud accusations, four days before his inauguration. President-elect Lee Myung-bak will be sworn in Monday. The investigation had tainted Mr. Lees landslide victory on Dec. 19. Full Story
FBI Joins East Timor Probe Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 5:05pm
Three FBI agents arrived in East Timor on Wednesday to join the investigation into attacks last week on the tiny nation's president and prime minister. Other international police officers are already investigating the assassination attempts, which left President Jose Ramos-Horta, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, critically injured. Full Story
Muslims Protest Cartoons of Muhammad in Indonesia Posted on Thursday, February 21, 2008 at 5:06pm
Around 200 Muslims rallied outside the Danish embassy in Indonesia on Wednesday to protest the reprinting of a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammad in Danish newspapers. Full Story
Courtesy Terrorism Research Center, Inc.

Thursday, February 21, 2008


By William J. Federer


In addition to the Qur’an, Muslims respect the “Hadith” - sayings of Mohammed recounted by his wives, relatives and warriors. Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari states:

No Muslim should be killed for killing a kafir (a disbeliever). (Volume 1, Book 3, No. 111)


The Qur’an and the Hadith are complimented by the Biography of Mohammed, written by Ibn Ishaq, who was “the first to collect the accounts of the expeditions of the
Messenger of Allah and record them.” Ibn Ishaq, whose name means “son of Issac,” died in 768 AD. His Biography of Mohammed was edited by Ibn Hisham (died 834 AD), and contains the story of Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man called Umru and told him, “I indeed invite you to Islam.”

Umru said, “I do not need that.” Ali said, “Then I call you to fight.” Umru answered him, “What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you.” Ali said, “But, by God, I love to kill you.” (The Biography of the Prophet, part 3, p. 113; see also al-Road al-Anf part 3, p. 263.)


America’s lack of knowledge of Islam is understandable, as Newsweek Magazine (Sept. 2005) reported Americans identify themselves as: 85 percent Christian, consisting of: 58 percent Protestant; 22 percent Catholic; 5 percent other Christian; 2 percent Jewish; 1 percent Atheist; 0.5 percent Buddhist; 0.5 percent Hindu; 10 percent other/non-reporting; and only 1 percent Muslim.

Most Americans know of Islam from news stories of: suicide bombings; terrorist attacks; women wearing burkas; men’s faces covered with scarves; militants with machine guns; shouting in Arabic; death penalty for leaving Islam; video tapes of hostages beheaded; riots over Dutch cartoons; burning cars in Paris; threats on the Pope; wanting to destroy Israel; cheering when Twin Towers fell on 9/11.

Americans are in disbelief that some Muslim sects practice honor-killing of daughters who “dishonor” their family by dating non-Muslims, men having four wives, stoning of adulteresses, court-ordered gang rapes, cutting off hands of thieves, female circumcision and impalements.


The word “Islam” means submission to the will of Allah. A “Muslim” is someone who has submitted. A “dhimmi” is a non-Muslim forced to submit. Mohammed divided the world into two parts: those who have submitted and those yet to submit. He called these the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-harb). Whereas “world peace” to a Westerner means peaceful coexistence, “world peace” to a faithful Muslim means the world submitting to the will of Allah.


Moderate Muslims think the world will submit to Allah figuratively or in the distant future, maybe at the Hour of Judgment. Therefore, since it is so far off, it is acceptable to get along with non-Muslims in the present. Fundamental violent Muslims think the world is submitting to Allah now and feel they are fulfilling Islam’s “manifest destiny” by making it happen. They would just as soon fight moderate Muslims, considering them backslidden from obeying the commands of Mohammed.

Moderate Muslims hesitate to speak out against fundamental violent Muslims, as occasionally one does and they are threatened, intimidated, change their names for protection, have fatwas put on them and even killed. So there could, in a sense, be three groups of Muslims: a minority of fundamental violent ones, a majority of moderate ones who are afraid of the fundamental violent ones, and the courageous dead ones who were not afraid of the fundamental violent ones.

Stanely Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote in his article “Tribes of Terror” (Claremont Review of Books, Winter 2007/2008, p. 41): A given theologian’s “true” Islam is one thing; “actual existing” Islam on the ground is another.


Moderate Muslims receive death threats from fundamental violent Muslims and are criticized by CAIR, Council on American-Islamic Relations, a front group whose leaders are connected with supporting terrorism (Randall Todd “Ismail” Royer indicted for training terrorists on American soil, June 27, 2003; Bassem K. Khafagi arrested for funneling money to terrorists, January, 2003; Siraj Wahhaj alleged co-conspirator to blow up New York City monuments in the 1990s). Moderate Muslims attended the Secular Islam Summit in St. Petersburg, Florida, and released “The St. Petersburg Declaration, “ March 5, 2007:

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience.

We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called “Islamaphobia” in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence; reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims; and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine; to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha’is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens; and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a membe, in Sura 19:30-35, of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must choose for themselves.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008


Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.

Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency.

We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America.

We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc.

We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization.

We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions.

We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property.

Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum.

Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.
May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.

Jim Robinson

Sunday, February 17, 2008


A new sharia law controversy erupted last night over Government plans to issue special "Islamic bonds" to pay for Gordon Brown's public-spending programme by raising money from the Middle East.

Britain is to become the first Western nation to issue bonds approved by Muslim clerics in line with sharia law, which bans conventional loans involving interest payments as "sinful".

The scheme would mark one of the most significant economic advances of sharia law in the non-Muslim world.

It will lead to the ownership of Government buildings and other assets currently belonging to British taxpayers being switched wholesale to wealthy Middle-Eastern businessmen and banks.

The Government sees sharia-compliant bonds as a way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community.

But critics say the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain's financial and legal systems.

Senior Conservative MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said: "I am concerned about the signal this would send – it could be the thin end of the wedge.

"British Common Law must be supreme and should apply to everyone."

A spokesman for the National Secular Society said: "There are lots of different ways to arrange financing.

"Constructing financial instruments to be sharia-compliant
seems to me to involve a lot of unnecessary complication, which will serve only to make a lot of lawyers very rich."

The attempt to embrace Islamic financing would also appear to be at odds with Mr Brown's promise to promote Britishness and British values and institutions.

The Treasury has already faced heavy criticism for removing Britannia from 50p coins.

Other Western nations have been reluctant to issue Islamic bonds.

In the United States the bonds are banned partly as a result of claims that the money could be linked to terrorism.

Uproar: The new row comes hot on the heels of Archbishop Rowan Williams's claim that the spread of sharia law to Britain was 'inevitable'

The Treasury proposal follows the heated debate over the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams's claim that the spread of elements of sharia law in parts of Britain was "inevitable".

Downing Street distanced Gordon Brown from Dr Williams's comments.

A spokesman said: "The Prime Minister is very clear that British laws must be based on British values and that religious law, while respecting other cultures, should be subservient to British criminal and civil law."

However, The Mail on Sunday has established that Chancellor Alistair Darling is ready to give the go-ahead to sharia-compliant bonds – known as "sukuk", an early Arabic form of cheque.

Treasury officials have been working behind the scenes for months on the plan.

The deadline for responses to Mr Darling's consultation document setting out how the bonds will work expires on Thursday.

The Islamic bonds proposal was devised by Mr Brown's former Treasury adviser Ed Balls, now Schools Secretary and the Premier's most powerful Cabinet ally.

He claims it is a vital way of improving relations with Muslims in Britain as well as helping the UK to obtain vast sums from Middle-East banks in oil-rich nations such as Dubai and Qatar.

Sharia-compliant bonds have been issued by the governments of Pakistan and Malaysia and private banks but never by a Western government.

Architect: former Treasury adviser Ed Balls, the Premier's most powerful Cabinet ally, devised the Islamic bonds proposal
Treasury officials say the aim is to attract big investors as well as making it easier for British Muslims to invest in National Savings products at banks and post offices.

The Government has already backed Islamic car loans and mortgages.

Sharia-compliant bonds were designed to get round the ban on paying interest – "riba" in Islamic law.

The Koran says it is sinful to make money from money.

Unlike a conventional bond which is debt-based, a "sukuk" is asset-based. Instead of receiving interest, bond holders receive "rent" on the asset, thereby complying with sharia law.

The Treasury consultation document says Government assets such as "buildings or a piece of infrastructure" would be switched to a "special-purpose vehicle" set up to administer the bond.

This would be carried out by a contract known as an "ijara".
The asset would then be leased back by the Government, generating rental payments for the Islamic bond holders.

When the "sukuk" matured, the Government would guarantee to buy back the asset, allowing the bond-holders to get their redemption payments.

"Sukuk are akin to Islamic investment certificates," the document says.

"They are designed to be in compliance with sharia law, the divine law in Islam which is based on the Quran."

Concerned: Senior Tory MP Edward Leigh warned today, 'This could be the thin end of the wedge'

Islamic bonds are slightly more expensive than Western-style bonds, mainly because they require extensive legal and religious advice.

The Treasury initiative has been given added impetus by the worldwide credit squeeze, which is making it harder for all governments to raise money.

The Government says the bonds will also help London retain its position ahead of New York and Frankfurt as the world's leading financial centre.

Global Islamic finance assets, including private equity and bonds, are now said to be worth up to £150 billion. Sukuk volumes have soared from almost nothing to £35 billion in the past ten years.

Maurice Fitzpatrick, a senior tax partner at accountants Grant Thornton, said: "The Treasury wants to borrow money from as wide a range of sources as possible.

"Sharia bonds might well prove to be more expensive, but we would not know for sure until it was put into practice."

Special rules for Islamic finances have been challenged by Mahmoud El-Gamal, chairman of Islamic economics at Rice University, Houston.

"The main beneficiaries are lawyers, multi-national banks and self-styled religious scholars retained as consultants to certify the Islamicity of re-engineered financial products," he said.

Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: "This is a positive step for Muslims in Britain but the main reason for doing it is to attract money to the UK from Middle-East investors. Claims that it is connected to terrorist funds are absurd."


If you want to hear more about the Iranian nuclear scientists, wait until you hear the long history of Mansour Habashizadeh, an extremely interesting person who began his professional career 30 years ago.

But if you think he is professionally qualified for his important and sensitive position – you will judge for yourselves.

Mansour Habashizadeh is a metallurgy engineer, and one of the veteran scientists in the AEOI. He has a masters degree in nuclear studies. He does not have a PhD.

He worked in France for about three years before the Revolution. After the revolution, he started work at the ENTC.

This May he will celebrate his 55th birthday. Habashizadeh considers himself one of the few scientists in Iran who deal with metals. His area of expertise is metal quality control at the nuclear reactor. He is responsible for ensuring that the metals meet ISO9000 standards.

It is also his job to make sure that the core of the reactor is built of suitable materials so as to prevent malfunctioning like at Chernobyl. He speaks three languages – Farsi, English and French. He was born on 24 May 1953.

He is married to Nasrin Eghbali. They have two daughters Niloufar and Elmira. During his career he traveled abroad often for various courses – to Slovakia, Italy, China, Russia, France, the UK and Germany.

In his last position – until early 2006, he was head of the ENTC (Esfahan Nuclear Technology Center). The ENTC is an important and leading center in reactors and fuel cycles.

Later, he went on to manage the ZPP before his planned retirement. He was appointed to this position because of his intimate knowledge of the set up process of the facility with Chinese assistance. >From 1971-1974 Habashizadeh earned a BA in Materials Engineering from the Sharif University.

During his studies he also went to Belgium. In 1978-1979 he studied for his masters degree at an academy called F.A.R Research Center in France, in metallurgy and corrosion (the effects of corrosion on metals as a result of chemical reactions).

Later he also studied nuclear technology at the MOL Institute (Center D\Etudes Nuclearies) – the nuclear research center in Belgium.His jobs over the years point to a career that would not embarrass any nuclear scientist. From 1974-1976 he worked at the Iranian Steel Mill Corporation as Head of ROLLING MIILI FURNACES.

Afterwards, from 1977 he worked in IRAN GENERAL MOTORS as a metallurgist in the QC Lab. In 1977 he began his career at the AEOI. In November 1984 he went on a year’s study course at the S.C.K. Research Center MOL in Belgium, to study for a doctorate in Physics, Metallurgy.

His thesis was on De Fusion: Experience Fatigue des Materiaux .

In July 1994, Habashizadeh was head of the mechanical engineering department at the ENTC, in the Materials Engineering Division. The Center, headed by Rassouly, was divided at the time into four departments:a. Research and Engineeringb. Engineering and Developmentc. Materials Engineering Department (headed by Habashizadeh)d.

Procurement Directorate

That same year it was also learned that Habashizadeh was responsible for the Zirconium project (ZPP) – the plant that produces the zirconium coating for the rods and control for the Arak and Bushehr reactors. At the end of 1988 Habashizadeh was appointed head of the ENTC by Aghazadeh after Rassouly resigned.

However, Habashizadeh continued to present himself as the deputy head of the ENTC. With his appointment a big problem was created. His predecessor was sent away to Vienna as AEOI representative to the IAEA. What problem are we alluding to?

Why then, did they for several months conceal Habashzadeh’s appointment from the other managers and employees at the Center?

With Habashizadeh’s appointment to the ENTC, a situation was created in which the department managers had no professional or managerial authority above them, and they acted as they saw fit, in terms of their professional judgment, religious, political and other pressures on them.

According to nuclear experts, Habashizadeh was not seen as understanding the nuclear issues which the center dealt with, and their assessment at the time was that Habashizadeh would not last long in the position.

The influence of religion is seen in a variety of daily activities, and managers at the center are required to show ideological identity and participate in activities that set a ‘personal example’ to the workers, even though some of them do not believe in it.

But in fact, Habashizadeh was officially appointed to this position only in April 2000 in place of Rassouly. Since the appointment the same old policies and the same old trends continue. The appointment was a political one!!

In late 1999-early 2000, the name of the ENTC was changed to the Center for Research and Production of Nuclear Fuel in Esfahan. The intention was that the nuclear center in Esfahan would serve as a center for nuclear fuel production and focus on projects in this field.

The projects meeting this definition are: the UCF and the ZPP, and the 40 MW capacity reactor. Habashizadeh left all the managers in their positions.

Habashizadeh did not live in the ENTC staff compound, but in an apartment in Esfahan where he moved after his appointment. Needless to say, the ENTC workers accepted his appointment and did not object.

However, the workers are always disgruntled mainly because of their work conditions and low pay. Thus there is constant criticism of the management.

In May 2005 Habashizadeh planned to retire? Did this happen? Why did he take his time?

It was then learned that he went to manage the ZPP zirconium plant, before his retirement. Despite this appointment, most of his attention was diverted elsewhere.

Why did Habashizadeh not retire in 2005 and make way for his successor? If one tries to answer this question, well then it is not so complicated.

As early as 1999 Habashizadeh was earning about 700 dollars a month, when the average wage at the time was about 200 dollars a month. This salary enabled him to live in a good apartment in town and not in the ENTC compound.

In such a situation, it is no wonder then that the workers are dissatisfied with the management. Money is a main component of nuclear scientists’ motivation.
If it wasn’t for the high salary they receive, it is doubtful whether they would have chosen to engage in developing nuclear technology, or would have found their way out of the country.

More articles will deal with another nuclear scientist.

Saturday, February 16, 2008


Georgetown professor John Esposito, director of the Saudi-financed Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding has a reputation as an apologist for radical Islam. And it's one he lived up to with a Stanford University speech last week titled, "Dying for God? Suicide Terrorism and Militant Islam."

Esposito claimed that Islamic terrorism grows primarily out of a sense of political and economic grievance and, of course, "occupation" on the part of "neo-colonial powers." This spin allowed him to deflect responsibility for Islamic terrorism to the West while negating the need for self-reflection among Muslims.

When an attendee asked him why no other impoverished or oppressed group around the world resorts to suicide bombings, Esposito stonewalled for several minutes before giving one of the few straight answers of the night: "I don't know."

Esposito displayed contempt for anyone calling for the theological and cultural reform of Islam. He described Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes and Princeton professor Bernard Lewis as "among the Darth Vaders of the world," and Pipes and Islam scholar Robert Spencer as "Islamophobes."

Others on the receiving end of Esposito's vitriol included Martin Kramer, Fouad Ajami, V.S. Naipaul, Max Boot, and Steven Emerson. Esposito has a penchant for laying into his opponents, but this juvenile behavior fails to answer the substance of his detractors' points.

The Islamic Society of Stanford University and the Muslim Student Awareness Network at Stanford University (MSAN), co-sponsors of the Islamic Awareness Series 2008, seem to share Esposito's views. Despite calling this year's offering, "Our Jihad to Reform: The Struggle to Define Our Faith," MSAN makes clear in an op-ed on the subject that such "reform" has its limits.

As they put it:

Our reform will not be dictated by the likes of Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and David Horowitz, according to their desires to subvert our tradition, but by Islamic scholars according to the Islamic notion of reform.

Apparently, Esposito fit the bill.

Esposito's leadership of a center dedicated to "Muslim-Christian understanding" failed to mitigate his hostility towards Christians.

He referenced the Crusades three times in the first ten minutes, each in the false context of acts of purely Christian aggression.

In a relativistic attempt to paint all religions as equally problematic, Esposito compared Islamic terrorists to "Christian militants," and referred repeatedly to "Christians blowing up abortion clinics" and the "Christian Right."

He reserved particular enmity for evangelist Pat Robertson who, according to Esposito, is on par with "Muslim extremists" and should be put "in prison" for publicly expressing a desire to see Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez assassinated.

Yet Esposito has no qualms about calling for the release of Sami al-Arian, the former University of South Florida professor currently serving time in prison for terrorism-related charges.

Esposito's treatment of two self-described Arab Christian students in the audience further revealed this bias. When asked about the well-documented violence against Christians in Iraq and the persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim world,

Esposito resorted at first to obfuscation and then bullying.

After trying to chalk up the violence merely to "primitive" behavior, he cut off one young woman angrily, telling her that it was "an absurd question."

Esposito's standard answer to this line of questioning was that "all religions produce violence," followed by a litany of talking points in which he compared random and universally condemned acts of violence among Christians and Jews to the routine and often sanctioned bloodshed emanating from the Muslim world.

Moreover, he peddled the usual apologist fare on the definition of jihad. Like many of his contemporaries in the world of Middle East studies, Esposito downplayed violent jihad or holy war in favor of the "personal struggle" interpretation.

Esposito spoke hopefully about the results contained in his upcoming book, Who Speaks For Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Citing statistics from the book, Esposito declared that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world is not based on hatred, but on "disappointment" that the U.S. isn't "living up to its ideals."

Furthermore, Muslims, according to Esposito, admire the U.S., but believe that "Islam is denigrated."

It was this denigration that, according to Esposito, somehow justified the outrage in the Muslim world surrounding the Danish cartoon controversy. Esposito decried the current atmosphere in the West whereby, as he sees it, Jews and Christians are protected, but anything "anti-Islam" goes.

Somehow Esposito managed to miss the death threats, imprisonment, lawsuits, firings, and condemnation meeting those who dare critique Islam these days.

Thanks to Esposito's equivocation, the Stanford students, both Muslim and otherwise, who came to take part in a series based on "awareness" and "reform" walked away with little prospect for either. But perhaps that was the intention all along.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the Northern California Representative for Campus Watch. She can be reached at

Tuesday, February 12, 2008


Muslim in-laws seize his wife, kill his young son. Religion of "peace" shows its true colors and the extent of fanatical belief.

ZALANGA, Nigeria, February 7 (Compass Direct News) –

A little over a year after becoming a Christian in Ngudungudu, Chad in December 1995, Jeje Nehamiah Baki left the town to meet up with his nomadic family in the wilderness.

His wife had already returned to her parents and their nomadic lifestyle, and Baki, a former Muslim and nomadic Fulani of the Bororo dialect in Chad, was looking forward to reuniting with her and their two children.

But he said his father-in-law, having learned of his conversion, seized his wife and would allow her to go back with him only if Baki renounced his Christian faith.

“When I returned to take my wife and children away, my father-in-law told me point blank that he would not allow his daughter to stay with me, an infidel,” Baki told Compass. “In spite of all entreaties, my father-in-law refused to allow me to take my wife and children.”

For one year, Baki faced threats from family members to renounce his Christian faith. He refused, moving with them in their lives as nomadic cattle people. For about 30 minutes daily, he said, he would sit under a tree reading the Bible and praying as the cows grazed.

Threatened by his in-laws’ hostilities, Baki eventually left without his family. A few years later, he returned to try to convince his father-in-law to allow him to retrieve his wife and children. In the course of this confrontation, his father-in-law killed Baki’s young son on August 18, 2002.

“At the end of it all, he murdered my first son, Joshua, by poisoning him,” Baki said. “Having lost my first child, and with threats to my life, I had to leave without my wife, but [returning later] only succeeded in taking away our second son.”

Assurance of Divine Presence

Strengthening and protecting his faith during this period of hostility from his in-laws, Baki said, were several dreams in which Jesus Christ appeared to him, assuring him of his presence with him.

Baki’s journey toward Christ did not come without advance warning.

The journey began, he said, after listening to a gospel message on a cassette in the fulfulde (Fulani) language. An evangelist known as Pastor Musa played the tape for him and others at his home one day in December 1995.

“I, my father, one Abakar, and a cousin and brother were at home in the evening,” he said. “The message in the cassette said anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ will not have salvation. I had never heard such a message while I was a Muslim, as in Islam there is no guarantee that one can be saved.”

The message of salvation assurance kept him thinking, he said.
“When I heard this message that night, I decided that I had to accept Jesus Christ as my savior,” he told Compass. “I told Pastor Musa that I had decided to give my life to Christ. He urged me to think about it before I made a decision.”

That night, Baki summoned the courage to tell his father that he wanted to become a Christian. Shocked, his father warned him that he would not be able to withstand the persecution that would follow.

He told me it was impossible to leave Islam, as that would mean I am committing suicide,” he said. “But I insisted that I must become a Christian. He looked up at me in the face and told me that he would not stop me, but that I should be prepared to face the consequences of my decision.”

Baki said he left his wife and two children and trekked for two days in the wilderness in search of Pastor Musa, who had left their Fulani settlement after playing the Christian message on tape for them. He finally found Pastor Musa in Ngudungudu town.

“I met Pastor Musa at Ngudungudu town, and I told him of my desire to leave Islam and become a Christian,” Baki said. “He led me in prayer to receive Jesus, and I stayed back there with him, listening to Christian messages on cassettes, since I could not read.”

In January 1996 Baki was baptized at the local congregation of Ngudungudu, which he simply calls Eglise Evangeligue (evangelical church).

After hostilities forced him to leave most of his family in Chad in 2002, Baki went back to Pastor Musa, who linked him with a western missionary in his country, Oscillia Geffelle.

She took him to a mission station in Chad where he was trained in health basics. While the training helped Baki to treat patients and share the gospel, he had to leave his second son at an orphanage.

The once illiterate nomad who knew no other activity than tending cattle was now a health assistant in a Christian clinic, sharing the gospel with others.

Concerned about Baki’s safety in Chad, though, Geffelle sent him to a Bible school, Ecole Bibligue, in Tibarti, near Yaoundé in Cameroon in 2003. After finishing studies at the Bible school, Baki went to Nigeria in 2006 and spent one year studying the Hausa language.

Last year, he enrolled in a four-year diploma program at the Zalanga Bible College, a theological institution of the Evangelical Church of West Africa in Bauchi state. Zakariya Zwahu, principal of Zalanga Bible College, said Baki is doing well in the school.

Baki said God has been faithful but that he relies on the support of other Christians to remain in school to complete his studies.

Though he has been a fugitive from family threats for more than 11 years for becoming a Christian, Baki said he looks back with joy that he opted receive Jesus.

“Trials and sufferings should not discourage anyone from following Jesus Christ,” Baki told Compass. “But then, Muslims who have made the decision to follow the true path, Jesus Christ, must remain steadfast.”


Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:

1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963

2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after

3. Jack Ruby-who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years coincidence

On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day)

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants.

That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas.

According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding.

Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.

The average patient in Parkland is maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child. She is also an illegal immigrant.

By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay.

OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital , they do.

" Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. NINE.

The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland .

Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost$200 to have them in Mexico .

This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.)

"How long has this been going on? What are the long-term effects?

Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after her mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. (That's right, she's technically a US citizen.)

These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.

Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.

Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income.

An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.

Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not refuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans.)

There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them!

Illegals get it all free! But U. S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued!

How stupid is this?

As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish.

In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her.

In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish.

Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum.

No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multicultural) requirement.

( Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation particularly to our "employees" in Congress.)

Remember that this is about only ONE hospital in Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that must also deal with this.

Sunday, February 10, 2008



I call myself a 9/13 Republican. I grew up a liberal New York Jew; you don't get much more liberal than that--although it was lower-case "l," not what's considered Liberal today.

I graduated from high school knowing only one thing about politics: that Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. I tell a story. It's not a true story, but it helps crys­tallize my thinking that brought me to become a conservative.

I say: Imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and you're catching up, and suddenly he blurts out, "I hate my wife."

You chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together, and you know he doesn't hate his wife; they've been together for 35 years.

He loves his daughters, and they're just like her. No, he doesn't hate his wife. So you're having dinner, and you look out the window and spot his wife, and she's being beaten up right outside the restaurant.

You grab your friend and say, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help your wife," and he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it."

At that moment, it dawns on you: He really does hate his wife.

That's what 9/11 was to me. For years and years I'd hear my friends from the Left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is, and I'd chuckle to myself and think, "Oh, they always say that; they love America."

Then on 9/11, we were beaten up, and when I grabbed them by the collar, and I said, "Come on, let's help her. Let's help America," and they said, "Nah, she deserves it." At that moment, I realized: They really do hate America.


Friday, February 08, 2008


As the David Horowitz Freedom Center unveils its Declaration Against Genocide in Washington on February 9, we are inviting campus groups of all types to join us in condemning the genocidal impulse within Islamo-Fascism.

This Symposium discussion of the term “Islamo-Fascism” takes on a new urgency in light of that Declaration and of the upcoming second Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which will hit campuses nationwide the week of April 7.

The usefulness and accuracy of this term, and the general necessity of naming the enemy properly as a prerequisite for defeating it, became a subject of national debate during the first Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, and that debate is certain to continue this April.

This Symposium is dedicated to many of the issues involved.


Sunday, February 03, 2008


Husbands living in a "harem" with multiple wives have been cleared to claim state benefits for all their different partners.

A Muslim man with four spouses - which is permitted under Islamic law - could receive £10,000 a year in income support alone.

He could also be entitled to more generous housing and council tax benefit, to reflect the fact his household needs a bigger property.

Ministers have decided that, even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, polygamous marriages can be recognised formally by the state - provided they took place overseas, in countries where they are legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife.

Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

Potentially, the benefits bill for income support could reach £10m.

New guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) state: "Where there is a valid polygamous marriage the claimant and one spouse will be paid the couple rate (£92.80).

"The amount payable for each additional spouse is presently £33.65."

Income support for all of the wives may be paid directly into the husband's bank account, if the family so choose.

Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said that the decision was "completely unjustifiable".

He added: "You are not allowed to have multiple marriages in the UK, so to have a situation where the benefits system is treating people in different ways is totally unacceptable and will serve to undermine confidence in the system.

"This sets a precedent that will lead to more demands for the culture of other countries to be reflected in UK law and the benefits system."

Mr Grayling also accused the Government of trying to keep the ruling quiet because the topic is so controversial.

Corin Taylor, research director for the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "British taxpayers are paying a record amount of tax so the Government has a duty to make sure that every penny is spent properly.

"Polygamy is not something which British law allows and therefore British taxpayers should not have to pay for extra benefits for second or third wives.

"If other countries sanction polygamy that is fine but the British taxpayer should not have to fund it."

Ministers launched a review of the benefit rules for polygamous marriages in November 2006, after it emerged that some families had benefited financially.

The review concluded in December last year with agreement that the extra benefits should continue to be paid. But the decision was not publicly announced.

Four departments - the Treasury, the DWP, HM Revenue and Customs, and the Home Office - were involved in the review, which concluded that recognising multiple marriages conducted overseas was 'the best possible' option. In Britain, bigamy is punishable by up to seven years in prison.

Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them.

The DWP believes the number of people in polygamous marriages entering Britain has fallen since the 1988 Immigration Act, which makes it harder to bring more than one wife to the UK.

But, while a married man cannot obtain a spouse visa to bring a second wife into Britain, some multiple partners may be able to enter the country via other legal routes such as tourist visas, student visas or work permits.

Officials have also identified a potential loophole by which a man can divorce his wife under British law while continuing to live with her as his spouse under Islamic law, and obtain a spouse visa for a foreign woman who he can legally marry.

Immigration rules say entry clearance may not be withheld from a second wife where the husband has divorced his previous wife, and the divorce is thought to be one of convenience.

This is so, even if the husband is still living with the previous wife and to issue the entry clearance would lead to the formation of a polygamous household.

Muslim couples are only married in the eyes of the British state if they undergo a register office wedding as well as a Nikah, or religious ceremony.

Muslim groups say it is quite common for men here to undergo more than one Nikah with different wives. This does not count as bigamy since only the first marriage is legally recognised.

A DWP spokesman said: 'There are fewer than 1,000 polygamous marriages in the UK and only a small percentage of these are claiming social security benefit.

"We recently reviewed the rules regarding benefit payments to customers in a polygamous marriage, which conclude that the rules in place since 1987 provide the necessary safeguards to ensure there is no financial advantage for claimants in a valid polygamous marriage."


Muslim women working at U.K. medical facilities are increasingly refusing to comply with the basic hygiene standard of rolling up their sleeves when their washing hands, it was reported. According to the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph, female workers are ignoring Britain's Department of Health rules requiring medics to be "bare below the elbow" because they consider showing any skin — outside the hands and face — immodest.

The guidelines were put into place to stave off the spread of infectious killer bugs like MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have been implicated in the deaths of hundreds of hospital patients, according to the paper.

Hygiene experts said the standard should hold for all workers— even if it goes against their religion. "I don't think it would be right to make an exemption for people on any grounds.

The policy of bare below the elbows has to be applied universally," Dr. Mark Enright, professor of microbiology at Imperial College London told the Telegraph. Some fear the enforcing the rules will open the door to lawsuits charging discrimination against female Muslims working within the medical professions.

The Islamic Medical Association, for one, has issued a statement that "no practicing Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," according to paper.

Click here to read more in the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph.