SIEG HIEL! CAIR Nazis call, Department of ‘Islamic’ Justice snaps to attention

[Travis]

**
   New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
  SIEG HIEL! CAIR Nazis call,
Department of ‘Islamic’ Justice snaps to
attentionby
barenakedislam 
It's
barely a week since I reported on CAIR going after Apple Computers for
refusing to sell an i-Pad to an Iranian-American customer who was intending
to send it to Iran (an illegal act because of the official U.S. Embargo on
the export of goods to Iran) *But the legality of Apple's actions doesn't
seen to matter. When CAIR litigation jihadists, aided and abetted by the
Communist ACLU order the DOJ to attack an individual or company on behalf
of an action that CAIR considers 'Islamophobic,' the DOJ drops everything
to comply.*

*ORIGINAL POSTS HERE:*

*cair-thugs-demand-that-apple-sell-computers-for-export-to-iran
*

*
remember-the-story-posted-here-about-apple-refusing-to-sell-a-computer-to-an-iranian-american-who-wanted-to-send-it-to-iran
*


IB 
Times
Applesauce might be on the menu for Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL), if the
company doesn't take swift actions to ameliorate members of a coalition
representing Iranian-Americans and speakers of Farsi, the language of Iran,
who were allegedly denied sale of iPads and other merchandise by Apple
store employees in recent weeks. The coalition, which includes the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Georgia, Iranian American Bar Association,
Council on American-Islamic Relations and National Iranian American
Council, sent an open letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook on Tuesday requesting
that the company make public its nondiscrimination policy, retrain its
employees on export control regulations and investigate the alleged
incidents.


A copy of the letter was also forwarded by the ACLU to the U.S. Department
of Justice Civil Rights Division, with which the ACLU has been in
communication regarding the alleged incidents. While the coalition is
currently only calling for Apple to "do the right thing," according to ACLU
of Georgia National Security and Immigrants' Rights Director Azadeh
Shahshahani, the organization is in contact with the Department of Justice
and is keeping "all of our options open moving forward," including
potential legal proceedings against Apple. The open letter to Apple states
that the coalition expects the company to reply with specific actions to
"rectify the situation" within a week of receipt. The coalition also raised
the specter of increasingly probable damage to Apple's brand image if the
allegations continue to be ignored by the company. "This matter is of grave
concern to many of Apple's enthusiastic consumers," the letter said. "We
expect that Apple, a worldwide brand with global reach, would not
purposefully condone a culture of prejudice, discrimination and bias
against any consumer, particularly based solely on that consumer speaking a
foreign language." OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY WITH WHICH APPLE  MUST COMPLY:


 *barenakedislam * | July 8, 2012
at 4:34 pm | Categories: CAIR
Nazis| URL:
http://wp.me/p276zM-JAn

  
Comment
   See all 
comments

  Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
Subscriptions.


*Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://barenakedislam.com/2012/07/08/sieg-hiel-cair-nazis-call-department-of-islamic-justice-snaps-to-attention/

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Diagram of Tax/Spend/Welfare Clause

[MJ]

2012/07/08
Diagram of Tax/Spend/Welfare
Clause 
Jon
A useful exercise is to diagram the clauses of the U.S. Constitution
using the Reed-Kellogg method many of us learned in public school. Here
is the diagram for a slightly abbreviated version of the
Tax/Spend/Welfare Clause, 

[The] Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, [Duties,
Imposts and Excises,] to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
and general Welfare of the United States.
The omitted words are in square brackets [], omitted because they
don't contribute much to analysis of the sentence structure, and to keep
the size of the diagram small enough (990x480).
The key points are that "to pay and provide" don't modify
"Power", but "Taxes", and "for Defense and
general Welfare" modify "provide". Each modifying phrase
restricts the word it modifies.
The tricky part of the analysis is to recognize that there is a phrase
"to be spent" omitted after "Taxes". In the legal
jargon of 1787 a tax was almost always raised to be spent for something
that was typically specified when the tax was authorized. 
To reach the interpretation some seek to give to the Clause, "to pay
and provide" would have to modify "Power", and the Clause
would have to insert the word "and":

[The] Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, [Duties,
Imposts and Excises,] and to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
The lack of the "and" after "Taxes" is critical,
and it shows that "for common Defence and General Welfare" are
a restriction on spending, not a delegated power unto themselves.

At the time the Constitution was written, "general" meant
"not specific or special", and that "general" is a
restriction on "Welfare" makes the Clause a directive that
taxes and spending not be done for the benefit of some parts of the
country at the expense of others. It was a bar to intentional
redistribution.
That interpretation is further emphasized by the second clause in the
sentence:

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States; 

Sorry about the ads but we depend on people clicking on them to pay
our bills.




Posted by
Jon at

15:59




 

http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2012/07/diagram-of-taxspendwelfare-clause.html
 




-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

[MJ]

"People at the extremes are happier
than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race,
family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say
they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or
“extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the
nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent)."
Opinion
Why Conservatives Are Happier Than
Liberals
By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
Published: July 7, 2012 
WHO is happier about life ­ liberals or conservatives? The answer might
seem straightforward. After all, there is an entire academic literature
in the social sciences dedicated to showing conservatives as naturally
authoritarian, dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, fearful of threat and
loss, low in self-esteem and uncomfortable with complex modes of
thinking. And it was the candidate Barack Obama in 2008 who infamously
labeled blue-collar voters “bitter,” as they “cling to guns or religion.”
Obviously, liberals must be happier, right? 
Wrong. Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question
extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who
possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the
Pew Research Center in 2006

reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely
than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives.
This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this
is true, but why. 
Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle
differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most
conservatives are married; most liberals are not. (The percentages are 53
percent to 33 percent, according to my calculations using data from the
2004 General Social Survey, and almost none of the gap is due to the fact
that liberals tend to be younger than conservatives.) Marriage and
happiness go together. If two people are demographically the same but one
is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage
points more likely to say he or she is very happy than the unmarried
person. 
The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital
Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber
religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to
happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as
likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists
(43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education,
race, sex or age; the happiness difference exists even when you account
for income. 
Whether religion and marriage should make people happy is a question you
have to answer for yourself. But consider this: Fifty-two percent of
married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very
happy ­ versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without
kids. 
An explanation for the happiness gap more congenial to liberals is that
conservatives are simply inattentive to the misery of others. If they
recognized the injustice in the world, they wouldn’t be so cheerful. In
the words of Jaime Napier and John Jost, New York University
psychologists,

in the journal Psychological Science, “Liberals may be less happy
than conservatives because they are less ideologically prepared to
rationalize (or explain away) the degree of inequality in society.” The
academic parlance for this is “system justification.” 
The data show that conservatives do indeed see the free enterprise system
in a sunnier light than liberals do, believing in each American’s ability
to get ahead on the basis of achievement. Liberals are more likely to see
people as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether
individuals can climb without governmental help. My own analysis using
2005 survey data from Syracuse University shows that about 90 percent of
conservatives agree that “While people may begin with different
opportunities, hard work and perseverance can usually overcome those
disadvantages.” Liberals ­ even upper-income liberals ­ are a third less
likely to say this. 
So conservatives are ignorant, and ignorance is bliss, right? Not so
fast, according to a study
from the University of Florida psychologists Barry Schlenker and John
Chambers and the University of Toronto psychologist Bonnie Le in the
Journal of Research in Personality. These scholars note that liberals
define fairness and an improved society in terms of greater economic
equality. Liberals then condemn the happiness of conservatives, because
conservatives are relatively untroubled by a problem that, it turns out,
their political counterparts defined. 
Imagine the opposite. Say liberals were the happy ones. Conservatives
might charge that it is only because liberals are unperturbed by the
social welfare state’s monstrous threat to economic liberty. Liberals
would justifiably dismiss this argument as solipsistic and silly.

There is one other noteworthy polit

Corruption and the Supreme Court -- But I Repeat Myself

[MJ]

ust like him when we grew up (or we
croaked, whichever came first).
I will write, sometimes, of something being putrescently corrupt, but
that's actually a redundancy. To say that something shines with
corruption (which I will also do on occasion) is simply to point out that
bacterial activity is often accompanied by a peculiar kind of
luminescence.
However the word "corrupt" has also come to apply to an
individual or an act that is considered morally, economically, or
politically criminal, as with a judge who accepts a bribe or allows
himself to be intimidated into destroying a whole civilization with the
stroke of a pen.
My friend had lamented, "I'm afraid the rule of law is
over."
She was referring specifically to an editorial I'd written with regard to
Hillary Clinton, the so-called United Nations Small Arms Treaty she's
pimping, and the ultimate legal supremacy of the Bill of Rights over
every other law and treaty. What I'd said was that "Obama and his
orcish minions [which now include United States Supreme Court Chief
Justice John Roberts] can sign any damned thing they want to, and the
Senate can ratify their asses off. It still comes to nothing if enough
individuals ever get to see what I've written about the
matter."
To what she said about the rule of law, I replied, "I understand why
you would say that, believe me. But there are now millions of us out here
saying 'It isn't over until I say it's over'. There've been bleaker
moments in history, and we have more tools than our ancestors
had."
The law -- the very concept of the Rule of Law -- belongs to us, to the
people. It has been hijacked -- no, make that kidnapped and raped -- over
the course of 250 years by corrupt, dishonorable lawyers and judges.
United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, for all his
titled grandiosity, is nothing more than another corrupt, dishonorable
official in a decaying civilization presently commanded by corrupt,
dishonorable officials. But that condition is far from
irreversible.
The law must be taken back from them.
With prejudice. 

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle678-20120708-02.html





-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Heeere’s Health Care: ‘The Tax Man Cometh To Police YOU’

[MJ]

Heeere’s Health Care: ‘The Tax Man
Cometh To Police YOU’ 
by Ilana Mercer
Someone asserted in my presence the other day that

Obama Care would not affect his physician (and by extension,
his own medical care). 
The poster person for this mathematical improbability is Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi

promised

 (and she believes her own institutionalized stupidity) to expand
government through this enormous entitlement program, and drastically
reduce the deficit and debt at the same time. 
Pelosi math aside, call

Obama’s Affordable Care Act what you may­penalty, tax,
plunder, rape­it’ll affect you and your physician.
Via

The Washington
Examiner

:

The health care law “includes the largest set of tax law changes in
more than 20 years,” according to the Treasury inspector general who
oversees the IRS. The agency will have to hire thousands of workers to
manage it, requiring significant budget increases that already are being
targeted by congressional Republicans determined to dismantle the
president’s signature initiative.
“Knowing the complexity of the health law, there’s no question that
the IRS is going to struggle with this,” said Rep. Charles Boustany Jr.,
R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. “The
IRS wants more resources. Well, we need to start digging down into what
are they doing with the resources and personnel.”
Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui said, “The overwhelming
majority of funds used by the agency to implement the Affordable Care Act
go to administer the premium tax credits, which will be a tax cut
averaging about $4,000 for more than 20 million middle-class people and
families.
…an insurance company would send the taxpayer and the IRS forms each
year verifying that the taxpayer has qualified insurance. Taxpayers would
file the forms with the IRS along with their returns, and the IRS would
check them to make sure they match the information supplied by the
insurance companies.
The IRS says it is well on its way to gearing up for the new law but
has offered little information about its long-term budget and staffing
needs, generating complaints from Republican lawmakers and concern from
government watchdogs.
The IRS is expected to spend $881 million on the law from 2010
through 2013, hiring more than 2,700 new workers and upgrading its
computer systems. “

http://barelyablog.com/?p=53734 




-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Must America Embrace Empire to Be Safe?

[MJ]

Must America Embrace Empire to Be
Safe? 
Wednesday, June 27, 2012 
by David
Gordon 
[
American Empire: A Debate • By Christopher Layne and Bradley
A. Thayer • Routledge, 2007 • Xii + 153 pages]
Christopher Layne and Bradley Thayer both specialize in
international-relations theory, in particular what they term "grand
strategy," but they hold very different views on what foreign policy
the United States ought to pursue. "Distilled to its essence, grand
strategy is about determining the state's vital interests -- that is,
those that are important enough for which to fight -- and its role in the
world" (p. x).
Despite their differences, they are friends, and

American Empire is a debate between them. Each author begins
with a long chapter presenting his conception of grand strategy: these
chapters were written independently. After this, each responds to the
other in a shorter chapter. Layne has much the better of the argument,
though he has not fully broken from one of the dubious claims of what is
misleadingly called "realist" theory.
Both authors agree on a fundamental fact. America is at the present time
an empire, despite the facts that our leaders disclaim imperial
ambitions.

Is America an empire? Yes, it is. An empire is a state that surpasses
all others in capabilities and sense of mission … an empire has worldwide
interests … empires always have a mission they seek to accomplish ­ this
is usually creating, and then maintaining, a world order. (p. 3)
True, our political leaders refuse to use the word
"empire," but this is understandable:

They choose not to use it because it does not help to achieve the
grand strategic goals of the United States.… For an American president or
senior official to state that America is an empire would only help to
organize resistance to it. (p. 4)
A better objection to thinking that America is an empire is that we
do not have very many colonies, in the style of the empires of old. This
however is a matter of form rather than substance.

A great power also can establish an informal empire by using its
military and economic muscle ­ and its culture and ideology … to install
and maintain compliant, friendly regimes in foreign territories. By
ruling indirectly through local elites, an imperial power can forego the
burdens of direct colonial rule. (p. 59, emphasis in original)
Thayer defends the current order, in which America seeks to dominate
the world, but it is not altogether clear why he does so. He devotes the
bulk of his essay to a description and celebration of American power,
arguing that we can, if so minded, continue for a long time to impose our
will on the rest of the world.

The United States has the ability to dominate the world because it
has prodigious military capability, economic might, and soft power.
["Soft power," roughly, is cultural and ideological
influence.]… Will it be able to do so in the future? The answer is yes,
for the foreseeable future ­ the next thirty to forty years. (p.
12)
No doubt America also has the power to blow up the world, but it
hardly follows that we should do so: "can" does not imply
"ought." If, as Thayer thinks, we need to undertake the very
costly task of imposing order on the rest of the world, must there not be
some nation, or group of nations, that would otherwise pose a grave
danger to our safety? If no such danger impends, why should we undertake
the Herculean task of dictating and enforcing the terms of international
order?
Thayer fails utterly to show that the United States stands in peril from
any other country. To the contrary, he shows that each of the two most
likely challengers to American hegemony -- China and the European Union
-- faces significant obstacles to an attempt to become the world's
dominant power.

Although its continued economic growth is impressive, China faces
major problems that will hinder its ability to replace the United States
as the world's hegemon … unlike China, the EU [European Union] does nor
pose a danger to the American Empire for two major reasons -- political
and economic. (pp. 32, 34)
Thayer argues to this effect in order to show that the United States
can maintain world dominance, but he does not see that he has at the same
time undermined the case for doing this. Unless we face some powerful
global antagonist, what is the point of the enterprise Thayer
recommends?
Thayer might reply to our objection in this way. We face no imminent
danger from others only if we maintain our hegemonic position. Should we
abandon this, other nations, China in particular, might supplant us and
hence threaten our security.
This response exposes the most basic objection to the line of thought
that Thayer pursues. He takes for granted that a world power, at least
one with a different political system from our own, poses a threat to us.
Why need this be so? To take his example of China, in what way would even
a vastly expanded and more powerful China pose an existential threat to
the United States? Wha

Reality Check: Paul Ryan Is a Product of the Bush Era

[MJ]

"Ryan’s voting record is a perfect
example of Republican support for the expansion of the size and role of
government when their party is in power. His voting record is typical of
a Bush-era Republican. He is a product of the Bush era. Nothing would be
easier than to link Ryan to the Bush era, because he actively contributed
to all of its greatest mistakes."
Reality Check: Paul Ryan Is a
Product of the Bush Era
By

Daniel Larison •

July 6, 2012, 4:15 PM 
Jeffrey Anderson’s claims about

Paul Ryan on foreign policy weren’t very persuasive, but his
concluding remarks in his Ryan-for-VP argument are entirely
wrong:

What’s more, Ryan went to college in Ohio, and Wisconsin borders both
Iowa and Michigan. In fact, given his widespread appeal, it’s quite
feasible that Ryan could give Romney a bigger boost throughout the
Midwest than any other running mate -- even in the Buckeye State.
Finally, and perhaps most important, picking Ryan would clearly
connect Romney to the post-Bush era of Republicans. It would be awfully
hard to talk constantly about Bush-Cheney when running against
Romney-Ryan [bold mine-DL].
These are remarkable statements. Bush was in the White House for
most of Ryan’s thirteen years in the House. For six of those years, Ryan
belonged to a Republican majority that was closely aligned with the Bush
administration on both domestic and foreign policy issues, and Bush and
Ryan’s careers overlapped for eight years. Ryan voted for every major
piece of legislation that the Bush administration favored that came
before the House. He voted for the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, the
Iraq war, Medicare Part D, and the TARP. Ryan’s voting record is a
perfect example of Republican support for the expansion of the size and
role of government when their party is in power. His voting record is
typical of a Bush-era Republican. He is a product of the Bush era.
Nothing would be easier than to link Ryan to the Bush era, because he
actively contributed to all of its greatest mistakes.
Let’s also think a bit more about Ryan’s “widespread appeal.” He is
apparently not all that popular statewide in his own state. I have no
idea why he would be very popular anywhere else in the Midwest. Portman
probably wouldn’t move many votes in Ohio into the Republican column on
his own, but he would presumably be more appealing to Ohio voters than a
Congressman from Wisconsin. Ryanmaniacs consistently

overestimate Ryan’s appeal because they find him extremely appealing.
They never attempt to check their assumptions that a nationally obscure
wonkish House member with a lot of Bush-era baggage is a major political
sensation.
Update: Michael Walsh describes Paul Ryan in a very strange way:

The first is that he speaks in the cadences of a younger America;
he’s like a Quentin Tarantino character come to life, minus the
profanity.
I confess that I don’t really know what this means. I am several
years younger than Ryan, and there’s nothing in his “cadences” that I
recognize as being all that similar to the way that I and other people in
my generation speak. Which character would Ryan be? Mr. Orange? If he
isn’t using profanity, I don’t think he can be a Tarantino
character.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/reality-check-paul-ryan-is-a-product-of-the-bush-era/
 




-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Mr. President, don't salute the troops this 4th of July

[MJ]

Mr. President, don't salute the
troops this 4th of July
Posted By Stephen M. Walt 
Tuesday, July 3, 2012


By Michael C. Desch 
The Fourth of July is one of the most patriotic of holidays and nothing
arouses national passions more than the opportunity to pay tribute to the
men and women of the armed forces. The urge to do so is especially ardent
given that the country has been at war continuously for the last ten
years and these soldiers have made many sacrifices for the country, from
spending long periods of time away from their families in
less-than-hospitable climes to the ultimate sacrifice of their health and
even their lives.  
Gratitude for their service is also tinged by a sub-text of guilt, given
that fewer and fewer of us have joined them around the colors. This is
true not only for Americans in general, but even for our elected leaders.
Where once, veterans of military service were over-represented in elected
office, today they are under-represented, as William T. Bianco and Jamie
Markham

document. 
This trend is also manifest at the very highest level of the executive
branch. For much of the Cold War, there was an unbroken line of
presidents who served in uniform, (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush) but the post-Cold War
era has seen one president whose state-side Vietnam-era military service
was questioned and two presidents with no military service whatsoever. No
matter what the outcome in November, our next commander-in-chief will not
be a veteran. 
Ironically, now that we are increasingly electing individuals with little
or no military service these presidents are returning the hand salute of
members of the armed services more often. While one can find pictures of
presidents before Ronald Reagan (who perfected it) returning the hand
salute, an admittedly unscientific Google image search turns up
relatively few examples of them doing so, and often it is not always
clear whether they are actually "throwing the high-ball," as my
late father-in-law a career air force officer used to put it, or

just waving. 
Conversely, after Reagan it has become de rigueur for presidents
to return the hand salute. Bill Clinton, who "loathed" the
military and avoided serving in it during the Vietnam War, got off to a
rocky start, saluting like Hawkeye Pierce in a M*A*S*H* rerun.
Conversely, Barack Obama, who also did not serve in uniform, but was
obviously a quicker study, or at least coached sooner, rendered a snappy
salute from the get-go. George W. Bush, whose Vietnam-era service was
shaky, not surprisingly returned some pretty shaky

salutes. Still, it seems that the "militarization" of the
presidency is accelerating precisely at the time in which its occupants
have the flimsier military credentials. The cynic in me wonders whether
they aren't related?  
The real question is whether this emerging custom is appropriate? The
salute, according to The Air Force Officer's Guide is "an
exchange of greeting" among "men of arms." No one knows
for sure how it began but many believe that it originated in the need for
armor-clad knights to have a reliable means of recognizing their
comrades. According to lore, upon meeting a comrade, a knight would use
his right hand -- with which he might otherwise wield a sword -- and lift
his visor, simultaneously making a friendly gesture and also revealing
his identity. In the post-armor world, the custom continued of using the
hand that might otherwise use a weapon to greet other friendly soldiers.
Today this custom reinforces the hierarchy of the chain of command, with
lower ranking officers and enlisted rendering the salute, which is then
returned by the more senior officer.  
It is certainly befitting that all uniform members of the military to
render a salute to the president by virtue of his (or her) role as
commander-in-chief. But I find the trend among presidents -- either
bona fide war heroes like Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush -- or
those with less distinguished war records, or none at all, of returning
hand salutes discomfiting. My reservations are grounded in military
custom and the constitutional role of our presidents as
Commander-in-Chief. 
In terms of military protocol, while it is true that the practice of
rendering and returning salutes while not in uniform is not completely
absent among the services, it is pretty rare. The air force advises
officers in civilian clothes to use a different form of salute,
"placing the right hand (and hat) over ‘the left breast'" when
the occasion demands a sign of respect. The army also stipulates that
"salutes are not required to be rendered or returned when the senior
and subordinate are both in civilian attire." The navy's (and
presumably also the marine corps) usage is similar: Salutes
"received when in uniform and covered shall be returned." If
the senior officer is not in uniform, the expectation is that he or she
"shall not salute" but rather acknowledge the salute

Establishment Enraged At Its Candidate, Romney

[MJ]

Establishment Enraged At Its
Candidate, Romney 
written by Ilana Mercer on
07.05.12 @ 1:13 pm

“…for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in
Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming
President,” the WSJ

editorializes.
The editors have objected to Mitt Romney’s lack of objection to Obama and
the gang’s framing of The un-Afforable Care Act as a tax.

Capiche? 
Romney is not remotely as coherent as the WSJ thinks he is in his most
confused moments.

Mr. Romney should use the Supreme Court opinion as an opening to say
that now that the mandate is defined as a tax for the purposes of the
law, he will work to repeal it. This would let Mr. Romney show voters
that Mr. Obama’s spending ambitions are so vast that they can’t be
financed solely by the wealthy but will inevitably hit the middle
class.
On the other hand, it is just possible that the WSJ is upset with
the Romeny campaign for failing to hire as campaign adviser the
ubiquitous Stephen Moore, popular commentator on Fox New and beyond, and
author of

“Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America
Richer.”
“We’re on its email list,”

they whine, “and the main daily message from the campaign …[simply
won't cut it].”
Hint, hint.

http://barelyablog.com/?p=53665 




-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Separation of School and State

[Wes]

I didn't really read your post but I'd like to say this. There's a a funny 
quote that comes on the radio sometimes, "Are we the people our parents 
warned us about?" Looks like that's a Jimmy Buffet quote - see here - 
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/27359.html  My comment is, "Are we the 
secular/non-religious people our parents warned us about?" So many people 
that are crazy are religious, makes you wish there was there was something 
besides secular and religious to choose from. 
 
A few distortions to this passage makes it seem like there is kind 
of another option. - 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4&version=KJV
 
JOH 4:20  Our [parents] worshipped in this [church]; and ye say, that 
in [school] is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, 
Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this [church], 
nor yet at [school], worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we 
know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, 
and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit 
and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: 
and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+4&version=KJV

On Friday, July 6, 2012 3:40:36 PM UTC-5, MJ wrote:

>  
> Thursday, 5 July 2012
> [Guest Post] 
> *Separation of School and State 
> *Terry McIntyre
>
> [*Terry McIntyre is a software developer, homeschooler and libertarian 
> campaigner from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, currently living in North 
> Carolina. You can visit his blog at papalibertarian.blogspot.com]
>
> *We in the Western World have become accustomed to a wide spread of 
> "free" education provided by the government, with results which range from 
> barely tolerable to severely inadequate, and costs which are shockingly 
> high whenever one pulls back the curtains and looks at the government's 
> books. Is there a better way? Should the government be involved at all?
>
> Let us compare American schools and churches. Who determines whether you 
> should attend church? Who determines which church? How are churches funded? 
> Who determines what is preached, and for how many hours? In America, these 
> decisions are all made voluntarily by you, your fellow churchgoers, 
> ministers, and so forth. How did we come to have such separation of church 
> and state, when many European churches are still funded by the government?
>
> The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious 
> Freedom, written 
> in 1786 by Thomas Jefferson, provides some clues. I shall 
> paraphrase the archaic language in modern English and expand somewhat.
>
> Our minds could be so built that every decision is already hard-wired, but 
> this is not the case; we are free to act according to our own conscience or 
> values. Attempts to compel us to behave morally tend toward hypocrisy; 
> outward forms may be kept, but private behavior is often shockingly 
> different. 
>
> Those who presume to govern our morals are not angels, but ordinary people 
> with ordinary failings; they cannot be trusted to tell us -- by force of 
> law -- what to believe. 
>
> To compel people to pay for the propagation of ideas in which they do not 
> believe would be tyrannical. To compel them to support state-selected 
> teachers would be tyrannical even if those teachers were nominally of the 
> same persuasion, because it deprives people of the liberty of making a free 
> choice, and deprives the teacher of the feedback offered by those choices. 
> Teachers learn to respond to the preferences of politicians rather than 
> those of voluntary customers with the power to "just say no."
>
> It is dangerous to permit agents of the government to make decisions about 
> moral conduct, since they will tend to forcibly substitute their own flawed 
> judgement for ours.
>
> The rightful purpose of government (if any) is to interfere when overt 
> acts against peace and good order arise.
>
> Truth itself is great enough to prevail, and is the proper and sufficient 
> antagonist to error; there is nothing to fear from conflicting ideas, 
> unless truth is deprived of its natural weapons, free argument and debate. 
> Errors cease to be dangerous when it is permissible to contradict them.
>
> Reviewing this paraphrase with education in mind, it is difficult to 
> justify treating education in one way, and churches in another. One may try 
> to assert that schools are value-free, and open to all, but this is not at 
> all the case. Any school must assert some set of values, lest it degenerate 
> into a Lord of the Flies environment. Nor are these values confined merely 
> to questions of overt acts against peace and good order. Government schools 
> teach something about the proper role of government, for example; is it too 
> cynical to expect a certain bias toward the interest

Re: Pics and toons 7/8/12 (4)

[Wes]

makes me think of this song, see here - 
https://www.google.com/search?q=cartoo+in+a+cartoon+gravyerd&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en#hl=en&pwst=1&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Don%27t+want+to+end+up+a+cartoon%2C+In+a+cartoon+graveyard+&oq=Don%27t+want+to+end+up+a+cartoon%2C+In+a+cartoon+graveyard+&gs_l=serp.12..0i8i30l4.443183.443183.0.447332.1.1.0.0.0.0.312.312.3-1.1.0...0.0.OyZTK6z4YJM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=1e26c57afb852faf&biw=1220&bih=560

On Sunday, July 8, 2012 1:50:28 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

And now you know

[Bruce Majors]

--
**



Third whistle blower confirms Obama’s participation in CIA jump room
program of early
1980’s

[image: 
BERNARD.ALFRED.6.1.2012-4]
*1980s CIA jump room program participants Bernard Mendez (left) and Andrew
D. Basiago (right at microphone), with Alfred Lambremont Webre (center)
moderating ExoUniversity  seminar*

*Third whistle blower confirms Obama’s participation in CIA jump room
program of early 1980’s*

By Alfred Lambremont Webre

VANCOUVER, B.C. – A third whistle blower has confirmed that U.S. President
Barack H. Obama was a participant in the CIA’s teleportation "jump room"
program of the early 1980’s.

Bernard Mendez made this allegation during a seminar held in Vancouver,
British Columbia on June 1st under the auspices of the B.C.-based
ExoUniversity.org .

During the seminar, Mr. Mendez stated that he, Mr. Obama, former DARPA
director Regina E. Dugan, Andrew D. Basiago, and William B. Stillings
attended a jump room training class taught by Maj. Ed Dames at College of
the Siskiyous in Summer 1980.

Bernard Mendez also stated that he teleported with Mr. Obama and Mr.
Basiago in jumps that took place from 1981 to 1983, when Obama and Basiago
were college students.

At the time, Mr. Mendez, who once served as a special assistant to
President Richard M. Nixon, was investigating the jump room program for the
US intelligence community.

On November 8, 2011, this reporter  was the first to
report revelations made by Basiago and Stillings that Obama served with
them in the jump room program of the early 1980’s.

The two chrononauts then appeared on late night talk radio’s Coast-to-Coast
AM  with Laura Magdalene
Eisenhower, the great-granddaughter of US President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
to discuss their involvement in the US secret space program.

Maj. Dames called the show to deny his involvement in the jump room program.

Then, in January 2012, through National Security Council spokesperson Tommy
Vietor , Mr. Obama
also denied that he was part of the 1980-83 CIA jump room program.

Mr. Mendez’ statements confirming the existence of the CIA’s jump room
program and the roles played by Maj. Dames and Mr. Obama in it directly
refute these denials.

Other jump room program participants identified by Mr. Mendez and Mr.
Basiago, including Dugan [who is now an executive with Google], as well as
a female program participant who is a member of a Presidential family, have
neither confirmed nor denied their involvement in the CIA’s jump room
program as of this writing.

Asked for comment on Obama’s silence in the face of confirmation of his
participation by three jump room participants, Mr. Basiago stated,
“President Obama campaigned for president pledging that his administration
would be one of transparency.  He must now fulfill that promise and
acknowledge that he served with us in the jump room program.”

*1980-83 CIA jump room program*

During the ExoUniversity.org seminar, Mr. Mendez explained that his mission
to evaluate the CIA’s jump room program originated from discrepancies being
reported by the jump rooms on the U.S. east and west coasts, respectively.
The east coast jump room was located in New York City, the west coast jump
room in El Segundo, CA.

According to Mendez, the jump room technology had been transferred from a
species of Grey extraterrestrials to the U.S. government. The west coast
and east coast jump rooms were reporting up to 40 incidents of participant
injuries per month occurring during jump room “teleportation” to unknown
environments in space. Yet, several days after each teleportation jump, the
reported injuries to participants had disappeared.

Both the east coast and west coast CIA jump rooms experienced losing power
at times when their control room in Ohio was reporting normal operation of
both jump rooms.  The speculation was that the source of the jump room
technology – Grey extraterrestrials – may have been covertly interfering
with the functioning of the jump room teleportation technology, unbeknownst
to control room operators in Ohio.

The U.S. government deployed Mr. Mendez, along with an evaluation team that
included several prominent U.S. astronauts, to determine the causes of
these discrepancies and determine the true destinations of the jump rooms.

Mr. Basiago and Mr. Stillings have confirmed that Mr. Mendez was both one
of their fellow chrononauts taking jumps with them and a federal
investigator whose primary function was investigating questions like where
the jump rooms were going.

*Synthetic Quantum Environments (SQEs)*

Upon arriving at the jump room training cla

Clinton names Afghanistan major ally, as crowd cheers public execution of woman

[Travis]

[[ this would be such a terriffic article if only the first and last words
of the subject live were switched. ]]

**
   New post on *Creeping Sharia*
  Clinton names
Afghanistan major ally, as crowd cheers public execution of
womanby
creeping 

With allies like this who needs enemies. via Woman accused of adultery
publicly executed in Kabul, crowd cheers | WTKR.com A man Afghan officials
say is a member of the Taliban shot dead a woman accused of adultery in
front of a crowd near Kabul, a video obtained by Reuters showed, a sign
that the [...]

Read more of this
post
 *creeping * | July
8, 2012 at 10:00 AM | Tags:
clinton,
Creeping Sharia ,
dhimmi ,
islam,
law ,
Legal,
Life ,
Media,
Muslim ,
News,
Politics ,
Random,
Religion ,
Sharia,
terrorism ,
travel| Categories:
Alerts , Creeping
Sharia,
Legal ,
Media,
Middle East ,
News,
Politics ,
Religion,
Sharia  | URL:
http://wp.me/pbU4v-c01

  
Comment
   See all 
comments

  Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
Subscriptions.


*Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/clinton-names-afghanistan-major-ally-as-crowd-cheers-public-execution-of-woman/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com 

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Saint Nancy Pelosi

[Bruce Majors]

--
**


**
  ST. NANCY PELOSI

Last Saturday afternoon, in Washington, D.C. , an aide to the former House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited the Bishop of the Catholic cathedral in D.C..
He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's
Mass, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the
congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.

The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are
issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's
views." Pelosi's aide then said, "Look, I'll write a check here and now for
a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation
you see Pelosi as a saint."

The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the
money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon." As Pelosi's aide
promised, Nancy Pelosi appeared for the Sunday worship and seated herself
prominently at the forward left side of the center aisle.

As promised, at the start of his sermon, the Cardinal pointed out that
Nancy Pelosi was present. The Cardinal went on to explain to the
congregation, "While Nancy Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some,
the woman is not numbered among my personal favorite personages. Some of
her most egregious views are contrary to tenets of the Church, and she
tends to flip- flop on many other issues. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self
-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a
serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. I must say, Nancy Pelosi is the worst
example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. She married for
money and is using her wealth to lie to the American people. She also has a
reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington ,
and in California . The woman is simply not to be trusted." The Cardinal
concluded, "But, when compared with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi is a
saint.








 __._,_.___
  Reply to sender  | Reply
to group |
Reply
via web 
post|
Start
a New 
Topic
Messages in this
topic(
1)
 Recent Activity:

   - New 
Members
   1

 Visit Your 
Group

Have a great peaceful DAY!
 [image: Yahoo!
Groups]
Switch to: Text-Only ,
Daily Digest •
Unsubscribe •
Terms
of Use 
   .

__,_._,___

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Project Proposal, Child Literature & Forex

[Mukunda Lohani]

Project Proposal : Sample Format

How to write a Project Proposal

A Project Proposal on Human Rights & World Peace

Background:-

The institute named " Human Rights & World Peace" has been established
with the intention of mobilizing project proposal for eliminating
anarchism and guaranteeing human rights in the universal level
according to the Institution Registration Act 2034. Specially, it has
been activating as a non-profitable social organization. The central
office of this institute is located at Putalisadak, KT M, Nepal. Its
branch office is also situated at Pulchowk, Lalitpur. It has aimed to
open branch offices all over the world later.

Context and Rationale : -

The concept of this institute has been adopted in context of
preserving human rights and eliminating terrorist activities in the
universal level. especially, the rationale of establishing this
institute is to arouse public awareness for the actual implementation
of human rights and maintain tranquility.

 Planning Process : -

This institute will go forward on the basis of the following planning
processes:-

To assemble grant and cooperation in national and international level
for the great mission of universal tranquility.

To mobilize people's participation all over the world so as to
guarantee human rights in true sense.

 Goal : -

The main goal of this institute is as follows:-

To minimize terrorism universally.

To run an important campaign throughout the world for the actual
implementation of human right and peace.

Objectives : -

The major objectives of this institute are the following:-

To manipulate various informative seminars for the guarantee of human
rights universally.

To conduct prominent programs based on public awareness in every
sector as a perpetual and responsible self- governing agency for the
universal tranquility.

To formulate innovative and scientific procedures for systematizing
the peace and human rights in the universal level.

To remain selflessly active in the direction to guarantee universal
declaration of peace and human rights in true sense.

Strategy : -

The major strategies of this institute are as follows:-

To establish reliable contact with social organizations of native and
foreign lands with common target for guaranteeing actual universal
peace.

To encourage persons and organizations in order to abolish universal terrorism.

To initiate different groups for world peace and progress.

Major Activities : -

On the basis of above-mentioned strategies, this institute will do the
following major activities:-

To give special priority for the development and conservation of
those factors as universal peace and human rights are complementary
with each other.

To cause to support in the development of world peace, relationship
and brotherhood by issuing commitment against the discriminatory
behavior and deprivation of human rights to be happened in any part of
the world.

To run the effective programs based on the innovative thinking for the
sustainable development of universal human rights and tranquility.

To organize trainings, workshops and orientated classes for this great campaign.

 Co-ordination : -

This institute will formulate and apply effective schemes all over the
world for this deep work by coordinating and cooperating with N Gos,
activated in national and international sector. Furthermore, it will
also go forward on the basis of the coordination of various native and
foreign social organizations, working in the field of social service.
Thus, it has aimed to raise coordination with diverse groups in
universal level for making this project successful.

 Program Area and Duration : -

The program area and duration of this institute are as following:-

To maintain the program area throughout the world.

To institutionalize peace and human rights in universal level as its main scope.

To determine the duration of five years for this great project.

Anticipated Results : -

This institute will anticipate the following results from the actual
implementation of this project:-

Minimization of terrorism in the world.

Guaranteeing human rights universally.

Maintaining peace and order over-ally.

Raising the feeling of universal unity and brotherhood.

For achieving above-mentioned expected results, this institute will go
forward in the direction of its terms and references by considering
various probable risks and potential dangers like heavy rain, storm,
flood and landslide as natural calamities.

Along with this, it will anticipate high level of co-operation and
favor from every sector for the successful implementation of this
challenging project.

Program Management : -

Indeed, skilled human power is needed for the successful
implementation of any project. For this purpose, this institute needs
competent personalities. So, the structure of program management will
be as follows:-

Chief Executive Director

Assistant Director

Manager

Assistant Manager

Assistant Administrative Officer

Internet freedom: UN forum backs Web freedom

[Bear Bear]

*Has the U.N. finally gotten something right? The criticism from Cuba is
ripe. Considering how much they restrict the internet. Hotel's for
foreigners and party officials.

My mother sent me an email from Cuba a few years ago. I recieved it 3 weeks
later. Had been held up because it contained pictures that had to be vetted.

Bear



*

Stephanie Nebehay, REUTERS

First posted: Thursday, July 05, 2012 09:49 AM EDT | Updated: Thursday,
July 05, 2012 09:56 AM EDT
[image: U.S. ambassador Eileen Donahoe] U.S. ambassador Eileen Donahoe.
REUTERS/Valentin Flauraud

   - Change text size for the
story
   - Print this
story

Report an error 
Related Stories

   - Web is a blossoming cultural
tool

GENEVA - The United Nations’ main human rights body has for the first time
backed people’s right to freedom of expression on the Internet in the wake
of the massive role that social media networks played in the Arab Spring.

In a landmark resolution, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s 47 members states
agreed on Thursday that this right should be protected by all states and
access to the Internet should also be guaranteed.

Both China and Cuba have tried to limit access to the Internet and voiced
some reservations but joined the consensus recognising “the global and open
nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating progress towards
development”.

“This outcome is momentous for the Human Rights Council,” said U.S.
ambassador Eileen Donahoe, whose country co-sponsored the Swedish-led
motion with countries including Brazil and Tunisia.

“It’s the first ever U.N. resolution affirming that human rights in the
digital realm must be protected and promoted to the same extent and with
the same commitment as human rights in the physical world,” she told
reporters.

Tunisia’s envoy Moncef Baati said the Internet had played a vital role in
mobilising people in his country’s “revolution“ last year.

U.N. officials said it was the first U.N. resolution on the issue, but
noted that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a U.N. agency,
had affirmed the principle since 2003.

China’s envoy backed the motion but said Internet users, especially youth,
also needed to be protected from harmful websites.

“We believe that the free flow of information on the Internet and the safe
flow of information on the Internet are mutually dependent,” Xia Jingge
told the Geneva forum, which ends a three-week session on Friday.

“As the Internet develops rapidly, online gambling, pornography, violence,
fraud and hacking are increasing its threat to the legal rights of society
and the public.”

*'GREAT FIREWALL OF CHINA'*

China’s blocking of websites and censorship of search results for
politically sensitive terms is known colloquially as the “Great Firewall of
China”, though some Internet users have skirted restrictions by using code
words.

Bloomberg’s news websites remained blocked in China on Wednesday five days
after it issued a story about the finances of the extended family of the
country’s vice president, highlighting how Beijing is trying to shape
public opinion ahead of a leadership transition.

Donahoe said China has had “difficulty” in joining consensus on civil and
political rights linked to freedom of association.

“The fact that they found a way to be part of this is a significant,
important move in their thinking,” she told Reuters. “It must reflect an
awareness that the Internet is here to stay, is an essential part of
everyone’s economy and will be a linchpin of development for all countries
and they have to be part of it.”

Cuba said the text failed to address the fact that most people in the world
lack access to information technology.

“Only 30% of the world population currently has access to this form of
technology,” Cuban diplomat Juan Antonio Quintanilla said in a speech.

In a thinly-veiled reference to its longtime foe, the United States, he
added: “Nor in the text is anything said about Internet governance. When we
all know that this tool is controlled by a single country globally and this
is something which hampers free access to this very important tool.”

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Belinda Goldsmith)

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: FYI: America’s First And Only Dirty Cop Registry, Welcome To The Future Of Dirty Cops!

[Travis]

I got it from a friend in NY.

On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Keith In Tampa wrote:

> Actually, after reviewing this site a little bit,  I have decided that
> this is A GREAT SITE!
>
> Thanks for sharing Travis!   I hope that this is a successful venture!
> They have my support!
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Keith In Tampa wrote:
>
>> If this site is well maintained, it could be a useful tool.  I hope it
>> does well and prospers!
>>
>> (I note that the organization is changing its name to
>> "PoliceOffenderRegistry.org"   which is a good thing!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Travis  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://dirtycopsmustregister.com/
>>>
>>> --
>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>
>>> * Visit our other community at 
>>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at 
> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

GREAT NEWS! Coming soon to the UK, the first Sharia-compliant toy set

[Travis]

**
   New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
  GREAT NEWS! Coming soon to the
UK, the first Sharia-compliant toy
setby
barenakedislam 
Sorry, girls, it will only be sold in the 'boys" edition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbDpepYwqp8
 *barenakedislam * | July 8, 2012
at 3:31 am | Categories: Children
| URL:
http://wp.me/p276zM-JzH

  
Comment
   See all 
comments

  Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
Subscriptions.


*Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://barenakedislam.com/2012/07/08/great-news-coming-soon-to-the-uk-the-first-sharia-compliant-toy-set/

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

HOORAY! ‘HAGS IN BAGS’ TV comes to Egypt

[Travis]

**
   New post on *Bare Naked Islam*
  HOORAY! ‘HAGS IN BAGS’ TV comes
to 
Egyptby
barenakedislam 
Nothing
says democracy like Sharia-compliant TV. I wonder if the $1.5 billion
Barack Obama just gave the Muslim Brotherhood is helping to fund this first
ever Egyptian TV channel featuring full face-covered women only? Even
better, it's due to launch on July 20th, the first day of Ramadan. I guess
we won't be seeing any cooking segments for awhile.
Ahram
 (H/T Susan K)  The channel will be named "Mariya" after one of Prophet
Mohamed's wives, who was a Coptic Egyptian slave. A full niqabi film crew
will manage and operate the channel, including TV presenters, producers,
directors and correspondents. The channel will air its programmes through
the ultra-conservative Islamic Umma Channel for six hours every day. The
majority of the programming will focus on the niqab (full-face veils) and
married life. The channel will be exclusively managed by women. Men will be
prohibited from working in or appearing on Mariya, and even participating
in phone-ins during live programmes.

El-Sheikha Safaa Refai, a preacher who will head the channel, said that
Mariyaprogrammes aim to educate Muslim women about their religion. "Our
message will be directed at Muslim women, to teach them the Sunna
(practices) of the Prophet Mohamed," Refai told Al-Ahram Arabic news portal
Thursday. *She insisted that the niqab is the proper Muslim attire as
stipulated by Islamic Sharia law. **Refai went on to label any woman who
does not wear the full face veil as "uncovered," stressing that the niqab
is a "red line" that cannot be crossed. * She indicated that Mariya plans
to feature only niqabi pundits. However, *if the channel airs a programme
about an issue and cannot find a niqabi expert, they will host a
non-niqabiand give them two options: either to wear the niqab temporarily
during the programme, or have their faces blurred out while the programme
is being broadcast. *
**
However,
Refai added that this does not mean that they will be "excluding anyone"
explaining that Mariya aims to bring back the dignity of niqabi women who
were oppressed and fired from their jobs over the past few decades. Among
the programmes that will be featured on Mariya is "Memoires of a woman,"
which will discuss marital infidelity, with the focus on women cheating on
their husbands. The channel currently has 30 niqabi TV presenters. They
also have a temporary male director, Mohamed Dunia, who will be replaced
with a niqabi woman soon, according to Refai. Similarly, the "uncovered"
camerawomen Mariya has hired for the timebeing will also soon be replaced.


*The head cover (hijab), the more common hair-covering Islamic attire in
Egypt, was banned on Egyptian TV channels during the Mubarak era.  News
about Mariya caused shockwaves across the Egyptian media sector. * *Even
Al-Jazeera TV anchor Mona Salman, who is also Egyptian, says that facial
expressions are an important tool used by TV presenters* when programmes
are being aired. "They are vital tools in connecting with your audience,
including eye contact," Salman said. She added that Mariya's concept seems
more appropriate for radio. *Since the fall of Hosni Mubarak in February
2011, Egypt has witnessed an ongoing Islamist ascendency. During the
Mubarak regime there were heavy crackdowns on Islamists, with the Muslim
Brotherhood, the largest opposition group, officially banned, though
tolerated. * Members of the Brotherhood were routinely detained, their
properties regularly confiscated, and they were often banned from running
for political office. Islamists have since enjoyed a predominent presence
in the political sphere, with the Brotherhood and the Safafist El-Nour
Party winning 47 and 23 per cent of parliament seats respectively.


 *barenakedislam * | July 8, 2012
at 3:10 am | Categories: Women  |
URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-Jzq

  
Comment
   See all 
comments

  Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
Subscription