Deportação massiva de imigrantes muçulmanos

Aguarda-se os protestos dos progressistas em geral, dos defensores dos direitos humanos e dos imigrantes em particular. Sentado.

Amplify’d from sheikyermami.com

In Dubai, Bangladeshi workers, who build those skyscrapers and scrub those toilets and drive those trucks and generally keep the place humming, went on strike.  They talked about organizing themselves and starting a union.  The government of Dubai responded by immediately starting deportation proceedings against them.

The fact that they are fellow Sunni Muslims is not as important as the fact that they are not ethnic Arabs.  In the eyes of their overlords, they are inferior and they are easily replaceable.  A dime a dozen, or more accurately $200 a month per worker on average.

The Bangladeshis had the temerity to ask for an additional $50 a month, and without even a “fine how do you do,” they will be immediately thrown out on the next flight.  Next!

There will be no enraged Muslims marching in protest.  There will be no denunciation from the UN or the “human rights organizations.”  There will be no case filed at the International Court of Justice at the Hague.  There will be no newspaper headlines, nor man-on-the-street interviews on television.

How many times have we seen a Muslim immigrant who makes speeches openly calling for the overthrow of our government, and who is not deported?  Or, is convicted of rape or other serious felonies, or spends their entire life here collecting welfare and health insurance, or in many other ways drains the resources of the kuffar while providing no concomitant benefit, and yet is immune to deportation?

We are told that the deportation of Muslim immigrants back to their ancestral homelands, to the lands where they spent their childhood, to the lands where the local language is their primary language and the local customs are their own familiar customs, would be a warcrime akin to genocide.  We are told that everyone has a right to come here, that our borders must remain open and immigration must remain unfettered.   To place any sensible limits on immigration is to be xenophobic and racist.

Read more at sheikyermami.com


Conhecer a Irmandade Muçulmana

Amplify’d from bigpeace.com

Suddenly, Washington is consumed with a question too long ignored:  Can we safely do business with the Muslim Brotherhood?

The reason this question has taken on such urgency is, of course, because the Muslim Brotherhood (or MB, also known by its Arabic name, the Ikhwan) is poised to emerge as the big winner from the chaos now sweeping North Africa and increasingly likely to bring down the government of the aging Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

In the wake of growing turmoil in Egypt, a retinue of pundits, professors and former government officials has publicly insisted that we have nothing to fear from the Ikhwan since it has eschewed violence and embraced democracy.

One reason we might be misperceiving the MB as no threat is because a prime source of information about such matters is the Muslim Brotherhood itself.  As the Center for Security Policy’s new, best-selling Team B II report entitled, Shariah: The Threat to America found:  “It is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the MB or a derivative organization. Consequently, most of the Muslim-American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.”

In fact, for much of the past two decades, a number of these groups and their backers (including, notably, Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal) have cultivated extensive ties with U.S. government officials and agencies under successive administrations of both parties, academic centers, financial institutions, religious communities, partisan organizations and the media.  As a result, such American entities have been subjected to intense, disciplined and sustained influence operations for decades.

Unfortunately, the relationships thus developed and the misperceptions thus fostered are today bearing poisonous fruit with respect to shaping U.S. policy towards the unfolding Egyptian drama.

An important antidote to the seductive notions being advanced with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – and, for that matter, in Western nations like ours – by the Ikhwan’s own operatives, their useful idiots and apologists is the Team B II report.  It should be considered required reading by anyone who hopes to understand, let alone to comment usefully upon, the MB’s real character and agenda.

For example, Shariah: The Threat to America provides several key insights that must be borne in mind in the current circumstances especially:

  • “The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate).
  • “Therefore, Al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.
  • “The Brotherhood’s creed is: ‘God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.’”
  • It is evident from the Creed, and from the Brotherhood’s history (and current activities)…that violence is an inherent part of the MB’s tactics. The MB is the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today.
  • The Muslim Brotherhood is the ‘vanguard’ or tip-of-the-spear of the current Islamic Movement in the world. While there are other transnational organizations that share the MB’s goals (if not its tactics) – including al Qaeda, which was born out of the Brotherhood – the Ikhwan is by far the strongest and most organized. The Muslim Brotherhood is now active in over 80 countries around the world.

Of particular concern must be the purpose of the Brotherhood in the United States and other nations of the Free World:

  • “…The Ikhwan’s mission in the West is sedition in the furtherance of shariah’s supremacist agenda, not peaceful assimilation and co-existence with non-Muslim populations.”
  • “The Ikhwan believes that its purposes in the West are, for the moment, better advanced by the use of non-violent, stealthy techniques. In that connection, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to establish relations with, influence and, wherever possible, penetrate: government circles in executive and legislative branches at the federal, state and local levels; the law enforcement community; intelligence agencies; the military; penal institutions; the media; think tanks and policy groups; academic institutions; non-Muslim religious communities; and other elites.
  • “The Brothers engage in all of these activities and more for one reason: to subvert the targeted communities in furtherance of the MB’s primary objective – the triumph of shariah.”

In short, the Muslim Brotherhood – whether it is operating in Egypt, elsewhere in the world or here – is our enemy.  Vital U.S. interests will be at risk if it succeeds in supplanting the present regime in Cairo, taking control in the process not only of the Arab world’s most populous nation but its vast, American-supplied arsenal.  It is no less reckless to allow the Brotherhood’s operatives to enjoy continued access to and influence over our perceptions of their true purposes, and the policies adopted pursuant thereto.

Read more at bigpeace.com

El-Baradei aliado da Irmandade Muçulmana

Amplify’d from sheikyermami.com

El-Baradei has a long history with the Muslim Brotherhood

Indeed. I guess that’s what makes him a ‘moderate’ in the eyes of liberal progressives. Only Yasser Arafartbastard  and Hussein Obama would be more deserving of a Nobel Peace Price……..

The Daily Beast reported:

Egypt’s new opposition leader, former International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohamed ElBaradei, has formed a loose alliance with the Brotherhood because he knows it is the only opposition group that can mobilize masses of Egyptians, especially the poor. He says he can work with it to change Egypt. Many scholars of political Islam also judge the Brotherhood is the most reasonable face of Islamic politics in the Arab world today. Skeptics fear ElBaradei will be swept along by more radical forces.

The radical Muslim Brotherhood announced moments ago that they will support Mohamed ElBaradei to negotiate with the government.   Reuters reported (via GWP)

Read more at sheikyermami.com

Homens armados atacam prisões, libertam 34 membros da Irmandade Muçulmana

Os islamitas preparam-se, com a ajuda de El-Baradei, para tomar conta do Egipto.

Amplify’d from www.jihadwatch.org
CAIRO - Gangs of armed men attacked at least four jails across Egypt before dawn Sunday, helping to free hundreds of Muslim militants and thousands of other inmates as police vanished from the streets of Cairo and other cities.

Those who fled included 34 members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest and best organized opposition group. The Muslim Brotherhood's lawyer, Abdel-Monaem Abdel-Maqsoud, told The Associated Press the 34 were among scores rounded up by authorities ahead of the large anti-government demonstrations on Friday. The escapees included at least seven senior members of the group....

Read more at www.jihadwatch.org

Perspectivas sobre a revolução no Egipto

Amplify’d from pajamasmedia.com

Consider recent precedents in this regard:

1. Iranian revolution, 1978-1979: Mass protests by a wide coalition against dictatorship. Result? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now president.

2. Beirut Spring: Christians, Sunni Muslims, and Druze unite against Syrian control. Moderate government gains power. Result? Hezbollah is now running Lebanon.

3. Palestinians have free elections: Voters protest against corrupt regime. Result? Hamas is now running the Gaza Strip.

4. Algeria holds free elections: Voters back moderate Islamist group. Result? Military coup; Islamists turn (or reveal their true thinking) radical; tens of thousands of people killed.

But what do Egyptians really think? According to a recent Pew poll, they are extremely radical even in comparison to Jordan or Lebanon. When asked whether they preferred “Islamists” or “modernizers,” the score was 59% to 27% in favor of the Islamists. In addition, 20 percent said they liked al-Qaeda; 30 percent, Hezbollah; 49 percent, Hamas. And this was at a time that their government daily propagandized against these groups.

How about religious views? Egyptian Muslims said the following: 82 percent want adulterers punished with stoning; 77 percent want robbers to be whipped and have their hands amputated; 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

In a democracy, of course, these views are going to be expressed by how people vote. Even if Egypt does not have an Islamist government, it might well end up with a radical regime that caters to these attitudes and incites violence abroad.

There are reasons not to expect Egypt to turn into a moderate, stable, and democratic state: There are few forces favoring this outcome; the rebellion has no organization; Egypt doesn’t have the resources to raise living standards and distribute wealth; extremist ideologies are deeply held and widely spread.

There are basically three possibilities for the outcome:

First, the establishment and army stick together, get rid of Mubarak, but preserve the regime. The changes put in charge a former Air Force commander (the same job Mubarak once held) and the intelligence chief. The elite stays united, toughs it out, does a skillful combination of coopting and repressing the demonstrations, and offering some populist reforms. The old regime continues. In that case, it is only a minor adjustment.

Disgusted with the Mubaraks — Hosni’s stubborn refusal to step down; his son Gamal’s disgraceful cowardice, showing he fully deserved his insulting nickname “the boy” — the regime throws them overboard.

Second, the elite loses its nerve and fragments, in part demoralized by a lack of Western — especially U.S. — support. The Muslim Brotherhood throws its full weight behind the rebellion. Soldiers refuse to fire at or join the opposition. Eventually, a radical regime emerges, with the Muslim Brotherhood as either ruler or power behind the throne. Remember that the “moderate democratic” leaders have been largely radical and willing to work with the Brotherhood. In that case, it is a fundamental transformation.

The new regime turns against the West, tears up the peace treaty with Israel (in practice if not formally), and joins hands with Hamas. Iranian influence isn’t important with this regime, but that will be small comfort as it launches its own subversive efforts and even goes to war against Israel at some point in the future. This will be the biggest disaster for the region and the West since the Iranian revolution 30 years ago. And in some ways it will be worse.

Third and least likely, neither side backs down bringing bloody civil war.

Absolutely critical here is the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision. Should it be cautious or decide that the moment for revolution has arrived? The choice is not clear because if it picks wrong it could be destroyed. Have no doubt, though, that the Brotherhood is the only non-government group with disciplined followers, real organization, and mass support. In an election where it was harassed, repressed, and cheated — thus undercounting its support — the Brotherhood officially received 20 percent of the vote.

The regime’s survival is by no means impossible, but if that is going to happen it is going to have to mobilize quickly. Meanwhile, the same U.S. policymakers who stood by as enemy Iran crushed democratic protestors is pushing too hard on a friendly Egyptian regime to make big concessions.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition, Viking-Penguin), the paperback edition of The Truth about Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan), and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Read more at pajamasmedia.com


Alerta Vermelho: Hamas entra no Egipto em apoio à Irmandade Muçulmana

Amplify’d from vladtepesblog.com

The following is a report from a STRATFOR source in Hamas. Hamas, which formed in Gaza as an outgrowth of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB), has an interest in exaggerating its role and coordination with the MB in this crisis. The following information has not been confirmed. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of concern building in Israel and the United States in particular over the role of the MB in the demonstrations and whether a political opening will be made for the Islamist organization in Egypt.

The Egypt Unrest
The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

Security forces in plainclothes are engaged in destroying public property in order to give the impression that many protesters represent a public menace. The MB is meanwhile forming people’s committees to protect public property and also to coordinate demonstrators’ activities, including supplying them with food, beverages and first aid.

Read more at vladtepesblog.com

Alegado autor do atentado no aeroporto de Moscovo, converso ao islão

Por enquanto, é apenas suspeito.
Se se confirmar o seu envolvimento na planificação ou execução do acto de terrorismo, presumivelmente de motivação religiosa islâmica, é uma boa fotografia para mostrar aos que acusam os membros do movimento anti-islamização do Ocidente de racismo!

Amplify’d from www.jihadwatch.org

Suspected mastermind of Moscow jihad bombing a convert to Islam


Yet another convert to Islam misunderstands his new, peaceful religion. Yet there is not a single program in any mosque or Islamic school anywhere in the world dedicated to teaching new converts to reject jihad violence and Islamic supremacism. Now, why is that?

"Moscow bomber 'was Islamist militant from North Caucasus,'" by Andrew Osborn in the Telegraph, January 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

The suspected mastermind of the Moscow airport bombing is thought to belong to a local Islamist militant group in the North Caucasus, security sources say.

Police are urgently seeking information about Vitaly Razdobudko, a 32-year-old ethnic Russian man who converted to Islam. He is a native of Russia's volatile Stavropol region which is located around 800 miles south of Moscow, close to the Muslim internal republics of Chechnya and Dagestan.

An alleged member of a radical Wahhabite terror group called the Nogai Jamaat, he is suspected of being one of the bloody attack's main organisers. Some sources have suggested he may also have personally taken part in the attack. The bombing, at Moscow's busy Domodedovo airport, left 35 people dead....

Read more at www.jihadwatch.org


E(S)UA: mãe condenada por querer filhos em escola segura

Mentiu, dando como local de residência a casa do ex-marido, de modo a que os filhos pudessem frequentar uma escola melhor e mais segura.
Ela vai presa, perde a possibilidade de ser professora (porque fica com cadastro) e os políticos, os burocratas e os dirigentes dos sindicatos de professores que inventaram e mantêm este sistema põem os respectivos filhos em boas escolas privadas:

This is madness. A mother has been sent to jail for lying about her residence because she was attempting to send her kids to a better school district.

If you ask me, the union thugs and their cohorts in Congress and state legislatures around the country should be the ones facing time for locking children into failing schools.
Time Magazine reports:
Much of the poltical rhetoric on education reform has centered on the ability of parents to send their children to better schools, particularly in situations where they were forced to send them to schools that were failing. But in the case of Kelley Williams-Bolar, her desire to get her children better educational placement landed her in jail, and may well derail her aspirations of becoming a teacher herself.

Williams-Bolar, 40, and her two children live in housing projects in Akron, Ohio. For two years, she sent them to school in the Copley-Fairlawn district, where her father lived, because it was a safer environment -- the high crime rate in her area drove her decision. The suburban school district hired a private investigator to find their residential records and it turned out she listed the children as living in that district, although they actually stayed with her.

Technically, that qualifies as a felony since she falsified records, and Judge Patricia Cosgrove sentenced her to two concurrent five-year prison sentences. She suspended the sentence, though, in favor of a 10-day jail sentence, 80 hours of community service and three years probation. She had been working as a teaching assistant for special needs children and earning a teaching degree, but since she is now a convicted felon, under Ohio law she cannot earn that degree.
So instead of putting mothers in jail maybe we should let them send their children to a decent school. Crazy idea, I know.
Read more at www.creativeminorityreport.com

Confiscação de livros em Gaza

Eis uma das razões que explicam a simpatia dos comunistas e socialistas pelo islão: são moralistas (cada qual com a sua moral, entenda-se) e antiliberais:

Amplify’d from elderofziyon.blogspot.com
PCHR  reports that Hamas has been engaging in a little book censorship in Gaza
At approximately 13:30 on Sunday, 23 January 2011, 4 persons, one of whom was wearing military uniform, who introduced themselves as members of the GIB, confiscated copies of two novels – Alaa al-Aswany's "Chicago" and Haidar Haidar's "Banquet for Seaweed" – from Ibn Khaldoun bookstore opposite to al-Azhar University in the west of Gaza City. The GIB members presented a decision issued by the Ministry of Interior in the Gaza Strip ordering confiscation of a number of novels, including the aforementioned ones. They also informed the owner of the bookstore to refer to al-Abbas police station to obtain a document proving the confiscation of the two novels. They further claimed that the two novels violate the Islamic Shari'a (Islamic Law).
At the same time, 3 persons wearing civilian clothes, went to al-Shorouq bookstore. They introduced themselves as members of the GIB and presented an order issued by the Ministry of Interior ordering confiscation of 3 novels: "Chicago;" "Banquet for Seaweed;" and "Forbidden Pleasure." They confiscated copies of the first two novels as the third one was not available in the bookshop. They also informed the owner of the bookstore to refer to al-Abbas police station to obtain a document proving the confiscation of the two novels.
Earlier, two persons wearing civilian clothes, who introduced themselves as members of the Internal Security Service, went to Sameer Mansour bookstore opposite to the Islamic University in Jamal Abdul Nasser Street in the west of Gaza City. They requested an employee to show them the two novels - "Chicago" and "Banquet for Seaweed." When the employee showed them copies of the two novels, they ordered him not to sell them until necessary measures are taken with regard to them.
Major Ayman al-Batniji, spokesman of the Palestinian police, told a PCHR field worker in a phone call on Monday, 24 January 2011, that he had no information about such measures, but he digressed claiming that these novels violate the Islamic Shari'a.
I'm sure that the media will be all over this outrageous act of banning books, just as they would if Christians or Jews did this. I look forward to the "Comment is Free" piece on this issue.
Read more at elderofziyon.blogspot.com

Sultan Knish: «O discurso do estado da união soviética»

Amplify’d from sultanknish.blogspot.com
As usual, the slogan du jour comes from the dictionary of the left. "Winning the future" was a common slogan on the left. While it was belatedly used by Newt Gingrich, it was most commonly employed in the 20th century by Communists and the far left. Two time Lenin prize winner, Danilo Dolci used it as the theme of one of his addresses. Jesse Jackson made use of it during his presidential campaign. Max Lerner gave a number of talks on "Winning the Future". Mandella threw it in there. Most notably it was used by Lenin, "Our hopes must be placed on the young. We must win the youth if we are to win the future."

The thrust of Obama's agenda follows Lenin's. The old jobs are gone. We must prepare for the future by educating our youth. The sturm und drang of the "We Musts" quickly becomes an argument for pandering to the teacher's unions. Only by empowering the teacher's union will we be able to compete with China. But China isn't strong because of its teachers, but because it has no independent unions, no minimum wage, no pollution laws and nothing to get in the way of the terrible machine of its industry. The People's Republic of China is not beating us in science or math, but in manufacturing cheap products with an undervalued national currency.

Handing out free educations to beat China is like going to college to fight a bear. Not only will it not improve your bear fighting skills, it actually gives the bear the upper hand. American math and science degrees are used to do research whose practical applications take the form of products manufactured in China. Even if all 300 million Americans all go to work as researchers, we are not going to "out-compete" and "out-innovate" by "out-educating" Americans. Russia has the highest percentage of college degrees by population in the world. China has the lowest. These figures have little to do with their economic success.

America already has a college degree program percentage rate on par with Sweden and Finland, countries that almost wholly subsidize higher educations. Greece subsidizes 99.7 percent of higher education, and yet has a lower degree rate than America and is in a state of complete economic meltdown. America has higher rates of graduates than many of the European countries which heavily subsidize their education systems. The takeaway is that state subsidized education does not ensure more graduates. And more graduates does not mean more jobs.
If you're following Obama's curve ball so far, the plan is to fund education for entirely new industries. The same clean energy industries he wants to subsidize. All in the name of innovation. But this isn't innovation, it's central planning. The Obama administration has decided which industries to promote. It will use taxpayer money to subsidize those industries. It's a great plan aside from one small hitch, what if those industries don't succeed? That's the fallacy of central planning. It all looks good on paper. But paper isn't life.

Obama acted as if he were delivering Lenin's 10th congress speech on the New Economic Plan, but he has nothing revolutionary to say. He wants to cut spending, and all he does is talk about more spending. He wants to see more innovation, but what he's actually proposing is economic central planning, the opposite of innovation. Lenin's "Commanding Heights" approach allowed for socialism to be promoted through market economics, as long as the Communist party controlled the commanding heights of key industries. That seems to be Obama's approach as well. Nationalize and subsidize the country's remaining industries in order to shape the trajectory of the economy, while letting small businesses enjoy their freedom until the time arrives to shut them down. Even Obama's talk of innovation seemed to echo Lenin's "We are a party of innovators".
The internet, GPS and the space program were mentioned as examples of government subsidized innovation. And he has a point. But the internet, GPS and the space program were all spinoffs of ARPA/DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. They were outgrowths of the Cold War. Elements of a plan to checkmate the Soviet Union by protecting the homefront and denying them space supremacy. They are proof that subsidized government programs can create amazing and revolutionary technologies. But to do that there has to be a plan.
Obama's speech is devoid of plans. We're going to build rail, because China is building rail. China is also building factories, but we're not going to do that. China is leveraging its exports in order to move manufacturing into the country, but we're not doing that either. Chinese companies are moving into Africa, but we're not doing that. So why are we building high speed rail?

China's high speed rail program is impressive, but also a Communist party project that loses money every year. It's more about control, than it is about economic necessity. If we had expanding urban infrastructure and a booming manufacturing sector, the way China does, then at least we would be building high speed rail in context. But we don't. We're building high speed rail, because the administration likes the idea. Not because American business is in desperate need of it
, it's another program without context.
Had such a project been contemplated under the Eisenhower administration, it's possible that it might have been revolutionary and feasible. But it's just so much noise now. Connecting 80 percent of the country with high speed rail is doable, but we aren't going to do it. And no one seriously thinks that we are. The money isn't there and neither is the commitment. The only part of the government that can actually carry out grand projects is the military. No other part of the Federal government can successfully complete major infrastructure projects anymore, except for the new buildings they need to house their own bureaucracy. The Chinese are building high speed rail on the backs of a booming economy. We are not. And our own bureaucracy is not performance oriented. Instead of completing projects, we hand out subsidies for projects that never get built or if they do, never get utilized. And we borrow the money to pay for all that from China.
In the Soviet Union, Khrushchev did the same thing when he tried to integrate innovations he picked up on his trip to the United States, into Soviet industry and agriculture with no context. The results were disastrous. Khrushchev tried to imitate America's corn industry, by growing corn in the USSR. But Soviet farmers didn't want the corn and didn't understand how to plant it and where. Food production fell and usable land was ruined. Attempts to imitate American construction resulted in equally disastrous Khruschobas. That is what happens when techniques and approaches developed through innovation are filtered through a system of central planning.
This is our Sputnik moment, Obama says. But what is our Sputnik? Is it Chinese rail. What happens if the Chinese outrail us? Is it investing in clean energy, as he suggests the Chinese are doing. But China doesn't care about clean energy. Try taking a brisk walk through Bejing if you think pollution is a major concern there. Liberals have cynically pushed the meme that we're losing to China in the clean energy race. We're not. We're losing to China in every race.

China is building coal and nuclear plants, and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. It's a diverse strategy, not an environmental one. The ChiCom leadership does not care whether energy is clean or not, but how much it costs and how much it frees them from concern over energy supplies. Obama mentioned that China has the world's largest solar plant, but he failed to mention that the vast majority of their solar panels are manufactured for export to environmentally obsessed Western countries.

China's clean energy industry is heavily subsidized by the government. Obama wants us to follow suit. But China's export market for wind turbines and solar panels is us. What is our export market? Mostly Western countries which will also begin subsidizing their own clean energy industries. If every country subsidizes its own clean energy manufacturing, then there is no export market. Only a giant scam. Another closed loop of central planning as governments mandate the use of solar panels and wind turbines, and then subsidize solar panel and wind turbine manufacturing. Again this is not innovation. It's money being moved around at the expense of jobs and innovation.
Clinton promised all Americans an affordable college education and a home. What millions ended up with were piles of debt. That debt mushroomed and imploded on itself. Obama is still promising the college education and green jobs. Take out a loan, get a biotech degree and sign up to be a biofuels analyst. All to be paid for by more debt, with no actual economic prosperity in sight. The future is here, except it's more like the past.
But what future has Obama actually laid out? There is the Khrushchevian "We will overtake you" directed at China. Calls for a Stakhanovitesque commitment by the masses. And a promise to win the future. But what future is that? We haven't been told. It's an unknown future with high speed rail, green jobs, college educations for everyone, but no flying cars unless they're electric or solar flying cars. This isn't a future. It's more mouthwash. Soviet mouthwash.
There's a 5 year plan to give broadband access to the masses. How did Khrushchev never think of that. More subsidies for solar and wind, at the expense of oil. Because 4 dollar a barrel oil isn't expensive enough. A 25 year plan to give 80 percent of Americans access to high speed rail. Except there's no actual plan either. It's all mouthwash. Soviet leaders rinsed their mouths with talk like this to assure their citizens that the future was moving forward on schedule. Now Obama is spitting their mouthwash out all over the country.

But don't worry, comrades. We're winning the future. History is on our side.. This is not a State of the Union address. It's a State of the Soviet Union address.
Read more at sultanknish.blogspot.com


A Igreja e a crise expõe crise na Igreja

Uma crise de humildade e de sabedoria de alguns presbíteros, de quem, não se esperando que saibam tudo sobre todas as matérias do mundo, se espera que se saibam rodear de pessoas tecnicamente competente e moralmente idóneas que lhes sirvam de consultores. Graças a Deus, ainda as vai havendo.

Amplify’d from www.agencia.ecclesia.pt

João César das Neves deixa alerta aos padres das dioceses de Évora, Beja e Algarve

Tavira, Faro, 26 Jan (Ecclesia) – O economista João César das Neves afirmou hoje que o discurso de alguns membros da Igreja sobre a crise está “errado” e desafiou a um novo olhar sobre o modelo capitalista.

O professor da Universidade Católica Portuguesa falava nas jornadas de actualização do clero da Província Eclesiástica do sul (dioceses de Évora, Beja e Algarve), que decorrem em Tavira, no litoral algarvio, de 24 a 27 de Janeiro.

A Durante o encontro organizado pelo Instituto Superior de Teologia de Évora, sob o tema «Crise, desafios e oportunidades», o orador apresentou uma «Radiografia da Crise» e defendeu que “não há capitalismo selvagem”.

“O capitalismo é de todos os sistemas o que precisa mais de leis. Não há nenhum mercado mais regulado do mundo do que o financeiro”, advertiu César das Neves.

O economista português defendeu também que a “crise financeira não manifesta uma crise de valores”, considerando que se verificou uma ausência de “critérios”.

“Até há excesso de valores, mas eles estão desordenados”, concretizou.

César das Neves assinalou que “o dinheiro só vale enquanto temos confiança e a crise mostrou o poder da desconfiança”.

Referindo-se ao “optimismo progressista que vivemos”, o economista português declarou que a “sociedade vive a crise de valores que tem a ver com a crise da esquerda”.

“A esquerda quis redesenhar a sociedade perfeita sem Deus e vê-la esboroar-se nas mãos. Não há mais ninguém a defender os pobres para além da Igreja”, referiu.

O terceiro dia de trabalhos prosseguiu com a realização de um painel sobre o tema «Crise: a realidade e os desafios emergentes», dando destaque à realidade dos jovens, dos desempregados e das famílias.

As jornadas concluem-se esta Sexta-feira, dia 27, com um painel intitulado «Crise: pequenas/grandes respostas».

Read more at www.agencia.ecclesia.pt

Jihad na Rússia

Embora o atentado ainda não tenha sido reivindicado e apesar dos esforços patéticos dos media convencionais no sentido de falar sobre a explosão no aeroporto russo sem fazer qualquer tipo de referência à suposta orientação ideológico-religiosa dos seus perpetradores, ninguém parece duvidar de que se tratou de mais um acto de jihad contra o mundo ocidental.

Leia mais sobre a jihad na Rússia:

Amplify’d from blogs.telegraph.co.uk

First, the attacks in Russia make clear that the jihadist movement isn’t something that, as optimists contend, breeds in failed states and can be kept there by well-aimed missiles. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism at the University of Maryland has recorded that Russia saw 1107 attacks between 1991 and 2008, resulting in 3,100 fatalities; the trend is headed north.

Russia’s jihad has its roots in the 18th century, when its empire began to expand into territories until then controlled by Turkey and Iran. Local rulers resisted Russia’s advance; the rebellions took various ideological hues. In 1940, for example, Chechen fascists allied with Nazi Germany.

In 1991, as the Soviet Union crumbled, the Chechens began another war for independence. Russia lost an estimated 5,500 troops before Aslam Maskhadov, the president of the Chechen Republic, signed a ceasefire and sought to buy off Basayev by appointing him vice-prime minister. But in August 1999, Basayev led an Islamist army to stage a coup in neighbouring Dagestan. Russian forces intervened, ending Chechnya’s de facto independence.

In 2002, jihadists from Basayev’s Riyad ul-Saliheen Martyrs Brigade – named for Yahiya Ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi’s compilation of religious texts, the Gardens of the Righteous – took 800 people hostage at the Nord-Ost theatre in Moscow; 129 died. In September 2004, the Brigade seized control of a school in the town of Beslan. The ensuing hostage crisis ended in the death of 334 people, including 186 children.

Basayev himself was to be killed in 2006 – but the jihadist movement in Chechnya soon gathered momentum again.  In the summer of 2008, there were a series of suicide attacks. In November, 2008 , Doku Khamatovich Umarov declared himself the amir, or supreme leader, of a so-called Islamic Emirate of the Caucasus. He later gave an interview warning Russians: “God-willing, we plan to show them that the war will return to their homes.”

He did. In 2009, 29 were killed when the group bombed a Moscow-bound high-speed train. In the summer of 2010, there were the attacks on the Moscow subway. Russian forces have hit back – but, as the latest bombings make clear, their war against the jihadists is far from over.

This is not because Russia hasn’t killed and captured enough jihadists. It is because the jihadist movement embedded itself in the historical consciousness of its audience, offering solutions that democratic political life doesn’t appear to hold out.

This brings me to my second point: our failure to comprehend the political strategies that underpin the resilience and growing reach of the global jihadist movement, and to combat them.

Few minutes pass between major terrorist attacks and expert commentary that it has something to do with al-Qaeda. The label is useless and dangerous: useless because it tells us next to nothing bar the fact that some people in the Brigade have something to do with Osama bin-Laden’s lieutenants and dangerous because it panders to the illusion that we can reduce the jihadist movement to a fairy-tale ogre which we can slay.

Like other revolutionary movements, of either the Right or Left, jihadism is in a state of constant evolution – often, as Patrick Porter has pointed out in his must-read book Military Orientalism, learning from the systems of knowledge of its adversaries. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who proclaimed that the “language of war is killing,” was quoting, almost verbatim, from the writings of Carl von Clausewitz. In his recent statements, Osama bin-Laden has borrowed the language of the environmental movement and New Left. Basayev, of course, read an author beloved of Oprah fans.

There is a fascinating passage in the Book of a Mujahid; fascinating because of the murderous actions to which it must be compared. The mujahid, Basayev wrote, “recalls the words said by the Prophet Isa [Jesus]: ‘Love your enemies,’ and he obeys this precept, for a mujahid knows that any person, until the very moment of death, has the chance from Allah to get on the Straight Way. And by the mercy of Allah, your worst enemy may happen to become your brother.”

I’m guessing the man who blew himself at Moscow’s airport had read the book, though he quite clearly had an unusual interpretation of Jesus Christ’s message.

From this, the lesson is simple: pious lectures about religious tolerance, or understanding the real message of Islam, whatever it might be, will do nothing to stop jihadism. Not one word of this message will be disputed even by the most crazed suicide-bomber. The suicide bomber chooses to die not because he hates his enemy, but because he sees himself as an altruist: his blood and that of his victims, he believes, will bring redemption.

The jihadist cult of death will lead, inexorably, to hell. But the fight against it will not be won by guns alone. It needs the emergence of real political alternatives – and sadly, there just aren’t any in sight.

Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk

Beirut upon Kent

De como uma pacata cidade estival se tornou numa micrópole islâmica:

Kent: "In the last few years it’s turned into Beirut"

Via Kent News:
Folkestone residents have spoken at their shock at the fatal stabbing of an Afghan man in the street last night.

People have described the area of town where the killing happened as ‘a no go area after dark’.

One man died and five are in hospital after the fight which is believed to be the culmination of weeks of friction between rival Afghan gangs.

They say the area around the former harbour has become a hotbed of problems between rival gangs and is notorious for drug taking.

The flats behind the hotel, which overlooks the harbour, are used to house asylum seekers and foreign nationals. Many of the qwindows are boarded up.

Tina Alder, who lives in one of the flats overlooking the scene of the fight saw the aftermath of the brawl.

She said: "I didn’t actually see a fight, I just saw a couple of lads lying in the road. I couldn’t see what state they were in but my partner ran out with some towels to try and help them.

"It was then we heard the sirens of the police and ambulances and after that we kept ourselves to ourselves."

Other locals say it is not safe to walk the streets after 9pm and in recent months problems in the area have got worse.

One local said: "This used to be a holiday town but in the last few years it’s turned into Beirut. This could be such a nice place, all these old buildings and it’s been left to go to ruin."


Read more at islamineurope.blogspot.com

«Animais enfeitiçados e os media muçulmanos»

Estas notícias começam por provocar riso e chegam a ser apresentadas nos media ocidentais como uma bizarria que merece sorrisos de menosprezo.
Para lá da espuma, o que é que estes episódios nos devem ensinar e por que é que merecem uma abordagem mais profunda?

Amplify’d from www.meforum.org

Bewitched Animals and the Muslim Media

by Raymond Ibrahim
Hudson New York
January 26, 2011

Because conspiracy theories emanating from the Muslim world are nothing new—a decade ago, Israel was accused of perpetrating the strikes of 9/11, today it is accused of perpetrating the bombings of a Coptic church—they tend to be dismissed in the West.

A close examination of these theories, however, reveals pathological trends that need to be acknowledged—especially by Western leaders who stubbornly interact with the Muslim world under the assumption that all Muslims "think just like us."

Consider, for starters, those conspiracy theories dealing with subversive animals:

As the reader mulls over the plausibility of these charges, here is the latest example, from just last month. According to released Gitmo inmate Walid Muhammad Hajj, the Jews at the base cast "spells" on the Muslim inmates—including through the use of bewitched birds and a phantom feline that tried to sodomize Walid:

The most common method to wear down the brothers [Muslim inmates] was witchcraft…. There were, of course, Jews among the [staff of] the Guantanamo Base, and they would set traps for the guys…. I remembered an incident with a guy who sat next to me in the morning. When they brought the milk, he began to urinate into the milk. I said to him: "Why are you urinating in the milk?" That's when we knew that he was under a spell. After he had recovered a little, after we read Koranic verses to him, he said to me: "The birds on the barbed wire would talk to me, and tell me to urinate in the milk"…. Once, when I was sleeping—on the floor, not on a bed—I suddenly felt that a cat was trying to penetrate me. It tried to penetrate me again and again. I recited the kursi verse again and again [Koran 2:255] until the cat left.

Considering that the Koran depicts talking ants and birds, vouches for the power of sorcery, and has an entire chapter dedicated to the Jinn (Sura 72); that Hamas arrested 150 "witches" in Gaza last year; that Islam's prophet Muhammad decreed that black dogs must die, "for they are devils"; that there is a fatwa to kill Mickey Mouse (a cartoon character), since rodents are "corrupters, steered by Satan";—considering all this, it should come as no surprise that animals are being portrayed as infidel operatives.

Rather, the surprise lies in who is making and disseminating these stories. After all, conspiracy theories are not the sole domain of the Muslim world; the West has its share of crackpot theories. Yet, they are not in the mainstream. Conversely, far from coming from a marginalized periphery, all of the aforementioned animal accusations were either made or disseminated by "authoritative" sources in the Muslim world: Spying squirrels, Iranian state-sponsored news; rampaging rats and pigs, Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority media; tourism-destroying shark, an Egyptian official; spying vulture awaiting Sharia justice, Saudi media.

Consider the most recent example of Gitmo witchery. The problem is not that one Walid Muhammad Hajj believes this, but that Al Jazeera—by far, the highest rated news network in the Arab world—aired it on prime time. That the suit-and-tie host was very sympathetic, never once casting doubt on Hajj's narrative, speaks volumes. (Incidentally, this Gitmo story was aired on the same show that earlier provided Muhammad al-Awwa a platform to incite Egypt's Muslims against its Christian minority—thereby contributing to the latest slaughter of Copts in Egypt on New Year's Eve.)

The point here is simple: if the media—especially news and current affairs programs—reflect the concerns of their society, imagine if a prime-time CNN program hosted someone who earnestly accused people of witchcraft, talking birds, and rapist cats—all to a sincerely concerned host. What would that suggest about the American mindset?

What does it suggest about the Muslim mindset?

Read more at www.meforum.org