This video was CENSORED by PBS because it simply tells the truth about Islam. Incidentally, the truth about Islam is that when the truth is told about Islam, Islam never looks good. Hmmmm.

Glenn Beck: The Prophet?

Is Your Local Mosque ‘Moderate’ or ‘Radical’?

The following article is THE BEST approach to the problem of militant Islam I have ever encountered. If it were actually implemented we could seriously begin to address the most pressing problem of our time; Radical Islam.

The solutions offered are reasonable, realistic and effective for identifying who the enemies of a more peaceful world are.

Dr. Hamid has done us a great service; if we will listen.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After the problem of Ground Zero Mosque has escalated it becomes an urgent necessity to distinguish ‘Moderate’ from ‘Radical’ Islam. Without making such a distinction the US and the rest of the world will remain divided regarding this issue. Debates about the issue can be endless unless we define the words ‘radical’ and ‘moderate’.

Mosque leaders, Islamic scholars, and organizations who want to be considered Moderates MUST clearly and unambiguously declare the following declaration in their media outlets and on their websites.

Declaration of Beliefs of Muslim Moderates:

We are Muslims who want contemporary understandings of Islam to replace currently predominant harsh and radical (Salafi/Wahabbi) interpretations of our religion. We therefore declare that:

1. Redda Law, the Sharia Law that allows the killing of Muslims who convert to other faiths, must be banned in Islamic teachings and in Sharia legal doctrine.

* Islamic countries that practice Sharia must stop the practice of this law and must admit that Freedom of belief and the right to convert to other faith or believe is a basic right that must be given to all Muslims.

2. Current mainstream Sharia doctrines justify the use of violence against women; these teachings must be ended by reinterpreting the Islamic text that justifies such violence.

* They encourage men to beat their wives to discipline them.
* They allow women accused of adultery to be stoned to death.
* These doctrines are barbarically inhumane, non-egalitarian, and teach Muslim children to be violent.

3. Traditional Sharia doctrines teach Muslims that they must engage in war so that Islam will dominate the world. This understanding of Jihad that seeks domination of Islam over other peoples must no longer be regarded as an Islamic value and its teaching as a duty for Muslims must end.

* When Islam becomes dominant, Non-Muslims are offered three options:

1. to convert to Islam
2. to pay Jizzia (a humiliating tax)
3. to be killed

* These doctrines run contrary to modern respect for diversity and for personal freedom of speech and belief.
* The early Islamic wars known as “Futohaat Islameia” were fought to implement this doctrine of Jihad.

o These wars therefore should now be regarded as un-Islamic and un-justifiable.

4. Jews are individuals who deserve the same respect accorded to all individuals. All Islamic teachings that encourage anti-Semitic attitudes, violence or disrespect toward Jews must be declared un-Islamic.

* They should not be called “pigs and monkeys.”
* The Islamic teaching that Muslims must fight and kill all Jews before the end of days is totally incorrect and unacceptable as it does not exist in the Quran.

5. Slavery is a crime against humanity. All Sharia laws that justify slavery in our modern times must not be taught any more.

* Muslim scholars must have a clear and loud voice against slavery.

6. Islamic Sharia laws currently permit the killing homosexuals. They must be declared un-Islamic and their implementation must be considered criminal.

* These laws also are advocating a crime against our fellow human beings.

Signed,
Dr. Tawfik Hamid

The above violent teachings, which currently are taught in mainstream Islamic books in America, are implemented in countries that allow governance according to Sharia Law. Future Muslim generations must be protected from these destructive doctrines, interpretations and customs.

These violent Sharia doctrines must be replaced with clear and unconditional explanations of why they no longer are valid.

Anything short of a fully clear and unequivocal stand against these doctrines indicates passive approval. Therefore, all Islamic leaders who genuinely consider themselves to be Muslim moderates must post these principles in English and in Arabic in full public view on their websites and declare them in their media outlets.

Failure to publically post and support these principles should be interpreted as clear evidence that a leader’s mosque or Islamic organization must be considered radical.

Is Your Local Mosque ‘Moderate’ or ‘Radical’? By Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Muslim reformer, CI Centre instructor and author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam and The Roots of Jihad

Global Markets and Economy Facing Rough Ride

By Ron Coby & Denny Lamson May 18, 2010 12:45 pm

This is a summation of an article written by Coby and Lamson for Minyanville.com on the current state of affairs for the economy on May 18, 2010. Never let it be said, "Nobody told me!" Or, "Nobody saw this coming!"

In summary, it’s time to put your safety belt on because it’s very likely going to be a rough ride for the global markets and economy over the next six to nine months. It's said that no one ever rings a bell at the top of the market. We believe that in this case, not only was a bell rung, but that last Monday’s news of the European trillion-dollar bailout will prove to have been a giant gong! Why? The reason is that the highest-ranking government officials worldwide have acknowledged that sovereign debt is out of control and has the ability to sink the world economy as it breaks the European Union apart. We hear no modern day Herbert Hoover declaring “the worst has passed," and there are no “Happy Days Are Here Again” songs being written. Instead we hear Merkel declaring that the trillion-dollar bailout will only “buy us time." All nations burdened by excess debt are either in trouble or will soon be in very big trouble, and that's bad news for everyone around the globe.

http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/global-markets-economy-grail-timing-indicator/5/18/2010/id/28364

FINALLY, CNN GETS REAL!!!

The Successful Subversion of America By Progressives is Almost Complete

These are the most disturbing videos I have ever seen. No violence, no sexual deviancy, no drug use, only a startling revelation of truth.

Here the veil is lifted so that anyone with eyes can SEE the truth behind the events to which we have been witness in the last few years.


The Art of War
Sun Tzu

The Principles of Subversion

1. Cover with ridicule all of the valid traditions in your opponent’s country.

2. Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time.

3. Disrupt the work of their government by every means;

4. Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy’s country.

5. Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens.

6. Turn the young against the old.

7. Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices.

BEWARE!!!

"Normalization" may be coming sooner than we dare think!

(PS Be sure to watch part 7 for Yuri Brezmenov provides a strategy for a way out of the coming crisis)

Part 1


Part 2

Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7

Your Cellphone: "No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy"

The latest position of the Obama Administration on cellphone privacy.

Add this to the things that make you go hmmm....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is there an “expectation of privacy” pertaining to your cell phone’s records? Or any records held by a third party provider?

The Obama administration is arguing that there isn’t:

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their—or at least their cell phones’—whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that “a customer’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records” that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

In other words, since the provider keeps the records (not you) as mandated by law, those records belong to them and thus should be open to government inspection without permission from you or a court.

Now, there’s an argument to be made in terms of law enforcement needs. For instance, a series of bank robberies took place over a wide area. Combing the records for cell towers in the area of each robbery allowed law enforcement to narrow it down to two cell phone users who made calls in each area just before the robberies. Good police work. But shouldn’t they have to go before a judge and justify their desire to look at these records? I’m not sure they didn’t, but essentially the Justice Department is trying to argue that such a justification and court order should be unnecessary.

Ironic from an administration that was so strident about opposing warrantless wiretaps.

The question is, should those records be considered private? Jim Harper argues at Cato that those records are the modern equivalent of “papers and effects” protected by the 4th Amendment and that the court has misinterpreted that since 1967.

These holdings were never right, but they grow more wrong with each step forward in modern, connected living. Incredibly deep reservoirs of information are constantly collected by third-party service providers today. Cellular telephone networks pinpoint customers’ locations throughout the day through the movement of their phones. Internet service providers maintain copies of huge swaths of the information that crosses their networks, tied to customer identifiers. Search engines maintain logs of searches that can be correlated to specific computers and usually the individuals that use them. Payment systems record each instance of commerce, and the time and place it occurred. The totality of these records are very, very revealing of people’s lives. They are a window onto each individual’s spiritual nature, feelings, and intellect. They reflect each American’s beliefs, thoughts, emotions, and sensations. They ought to be protected, as they are the modern iteration of our “papers and effects.”

I agree with Harper. Technology has changed how those records are kept, but they are still private records between the provider and the subscriber – especially since, for the most part, much of the data recorded is gathered without our permission. What I see in the case by the Obama administration is another attempt at government data mining – domestic intelligence – something which Democrats and libertarians were adamantly against when various schemes were uncovered during the Bush administration.

This attempt is subtly different. Instead of just assuming that there is no expectation of privacy and going ahead and demanding the information, the administration is attempting to have the court okay it first. But the result will be the same – unimpeded access by government to your location at any time (as long as you have a cell phone). It is but a short step from there to do what Harper outlines: data mining from various other providers based on the same argument and with this case as precedence. Result: a profile of you containing private data about your movements, spending habits, places visited on the internet, etc that are really none of the government’s business.

Of course, we all know that Big Brother government would never misuse or abuse this information, don’t we?

As Harper concludes, this is an imporant case which needs to be watched closely:

This is a case to watch, as it will help determine whether or not your digital life is an open book to government investigators.

http://www.qando.net/?p=7079