Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Is The Fix In?

Yesterday I posted Because You Leak relating to the world that Israel would not give Barack Hussein Obama an early warning when they attack Iran.  Now the reason for this attitude by the Israelis has been made known.

Obama, Iran in secret nuclear deal

My sources inside Iran tell me that President Obama, seeking to protect the recovering U.S. economy and bolster his chances of being re-elected in November, apparently has entered into an informal agreement with Iran that he believes will defuse the nuclear weapons crisis and keep Israel from attacking the Islamic regime.

The agreement calls for the United States to acknowledge that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, and for Iran to hand over its highly enriched uranium, which is necessary for nuclear weaponization.

Iran, for its part, though engaging Obama, has no intention of abiding by the agreement and is stepping up its nuclear enrichment program clandestinely, even as it prepares for a war it believes it can win.

When Obama took office in 2009, he threw out the Bush administration’s aggressive posture in negotiating with Iran and instead sought a new approach, one of diplomacy and friendship. He had a golden opportunity to support millions of Iranians who took to the streets over Iran’s fraudulent elections that June, but instead turned his back on freedom and democracy while believing that negotiations with the Islamic regime would yield results.

Once the protests had died down, the Iranians, after months of promises, announced that a proposed agreement by the West that limited their nuclear activity was no longer acceptable and that they had successfully enriched uranium to 20 percent, which is nine-tenths of the way to nuclear weaponization.

The Iranians have now expanded their nuclear program to the point where they not only have enough low-enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs but also have doubled their stock of highly enriched uranium of 20 percent. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently reported that Iran has added 3,000 more centrifuges to the Natanz facility, bringing the total to 9,000, and has started enriching to 20 percent at the previous secret site, the Fordow facility, which is deep within a mountain and secure against any attack. Such production could give Iran weapons-grade uranium for nuclear bombs within weeks.

Obama knows that Israel is losing patience with the lack of progress over Iran’s unabated continuation of its illicit nuclear program despite four sets of U.N. sanctions and other sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union. He also knows that any confrontation between Israel and Iran will drag America into an unwanted war and therefore destabilize the American economy and harm his chances of re-election.

Iran knows that its best chance to delay any attack on its nuclear and military facilities and its best opportunity to be in a win-win situation is to once again engage Obama, believing he is weak, that Iran holds the key to his re-election and that a Republican win in November could mean direct confrontation

As revealed in January, Obama sent a message to the Iranian leaders through three different channels. Part of it, disclosed by the Iranian officials, reflected a message by the U.S. president asking for cooperation and negotiation based on mutual interests, but more importantly, it assured Iran that America will not take any action against the Islamic regime.

Sources within Iran reveal that Khamenei, in a secret meeting with his top officials and military commanders, has issued a directive to push for a step-by-step Russian proposal to defuse the crisis in which Iran would only hand over its 20 percent enrichment stock while keeping all low-enriched uranium stock (enough for six nuclear bombs) and cooperate more with the IAEA (all the while continuing its enrichment activity). In exchange, the West would ease up on the sanctions as each step is taken.

The U.S., for its part, had to announce that Iran is not after the nuclear bomb, backing Israel into a corner and pressuring it not to take any action.

In the same meeting it was decided that if the West did not take the offer, then a limited war in the region could help the Iranian leaders further consolidate power at home, incite further uprisings in the region, become the leader of the Islamic movement by attacking Israel and still save some of its nuclear facilities, which are either at secret locations or deep underground. And that would justify their pursuit of the nuclear bomb.

The Obama administration responded positively. First, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsy, publicly announced that Iran is a rational actor and that it is not after a nuclear bomb. Then, just as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to arrive in Washington for talks with Obama over Iran’s nuclear program, the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies said Iran has already stopped efforts to build a bomb.

This despite the most recent IAEA report clearly indicating the military aspect of the Iranian nuclear program and last week’s announcement by the U.N. nuclear agency that Iran has ramped up by 50 percent its production of highly enriched uranium, well beyond what is normally needed for peaceful nuclear energy.

In response to the Americans meeting Khamenei’s demands, the Iranian supreme leader responded by publicly announcing that Iran has never sought and will never seek nuclear weapons as it regards possession of such weapons a great sin.

Other Iranian officials did their part by announcing that the cooperation with the IAEA will continue to once again show the world that claims of Iran wanting a nuclear bomb are unfounded.

In this high-stakes game, Iranian leaders believe Obama is hamstrung by politics, and even if war comes, ultimately Russia and China will intervene to support Iran and therefore giving Iran a victory similar to the outcome of the 200demanding a cease-fire6 Hezbollah-Israel war.

Though an election year, Obama must know that radicals ruling Iran, if given time, will obtain nuclear weapons, changing the world as we know it forever, no matter who is in the White House come 2013

Given this information no one can now accept that Obama will be trying to throw Israel under the bus.  His re-election is at stake.  It is just too bad that Benjamin Netanyahu is not on board for this plan.  His only concern is his nation, his people.  And will do anything possible to prevent Iran or Obama from bringing about a Second Holocaust!

Big Cat Week

On National Geographic Wild they are preparing for Big Cat Week.  This video was made to create awareness about the preservation of big cats. Share this video and help save big cats around the world!

The Big Cats are disappearing.  Without them this world will have lost some of its richness.

Big Cat Rescue is the largest accredited sanctuary in the world dedicated entirely to abused and abandoned big cats. We are home to over 100 lions, tigers, bobcats, cougars and other species most of whom have been abandoned, abused, orphaned, saved from being turned into fur coats, or retired from performing acts. Our dual mission is to provide the best home we can for the cats in our care and educate the public about the plight of these majestic animals, both in captivity and in the wild, to end abuse and avoid extinction.

You can help them here.

Here Kitty, Kitty!

Only Bollywood Could Do It

Forget about the big time Hollywood director to direct the Obama campaign films.  Here we have a Bollywood film that does it for a lot less.

Maybe Obama Girl will fall in love with him again.

Hat tip to Israel Matzav

Om Obama!

Wednesday's Hero: 1st Battalion, 9th Marines

This Weeks Post Was Suggested By Michael

1st Battalion, 9th Marines  

U.S. Marines

1st Battalion, 9th Marines  
This weeks post is a little different. Rather than an individual service member, or a group, Wednesday Hero is profiling an entire battalion. 1st Battalion, 9th Marines (1/9) aka "The Walking Dead". Activated on March 1, 1942, 1/9 has had a long and distinguished service history. Seeing deployments in WWII, Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq. During the Vietnam War they earned the nickname "The Walking Dead" because of their extremely high casualty rate. 1/9 was deactivated in September 1994 but were once again called back into service in 2005. There has also been four Medal Of Honor recipients from 1/9; Pfc. Frank Witek, 2nd Lt. John Leims, Sgt. Walter Singleton & Cpt. Wesley Fox.
You can read more about 1st Battalion, 9th Marines here and here These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives just so others may get to enjoy freedom. For that I am proud to call them Hero.

 Those Who Say That We're In A Time When There Are No Heroes, They Just Don't Know Where To Look. 

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.

Wednesday Hero Logo

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

Hat tip to Iggymom

When is a child a person?  At conception?  Viability?  Birth?  In the last case it is none of the above.  According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

Francesca Minerva
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

Read the full story here
I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child.  The child has no value.  It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself.  It is nothing to these so-called ethicists.  Ethics?  These two don't know the meaning of the word.  They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.

The American Declaration of Independence states this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Have we forgotten those words?  Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:
Deuteronomy Chapter 5

16.  Thou shalt not murder.
Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman.  She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.

How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is.  This goes against all the rules of society.  But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left.  First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children.  Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.

Another Take on the Garden Grove Mosque Town Hall

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Red County (Colony Rabble)

Steve Amundson, who also attended the town hall at the Islamic Center of Orange County on February 19, has written his own account of the event in Red County.

I heartily concur with Steve's description of the event. It was disgraceful.

President Obama Apologizes....

To the families of the 9/11 hijackers for the killing of their loved ones by American Tall Buildings and the Pentagon.


TOPICS: NewsBusted show 5-05








--JACK IN THE BOX HAS BACON MILKSHAKES Keeping Muslims from eating at the restaurant.

They Are Going To Kill Obama!

And Guess Who The They Is?

Louis Farrakhan told his Nation of Islam Cult that the Jews will kill Obama, destroy their cult, and want to take over the world.

In a fiery lecture to thousands of followers of the Nation of Islam on Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan warned that racial hatred could lead to attempts to assassinate President Barack Obama.

Farrakhan spent much of his oration decrying what he cast as Satan's influence over racist forces in politics and society before asking a pointed rhetorical question: "Do you think they're wicked enough to be plotting our brother's assassination as we speak?"

Farrakhan delivered his speech to an enthusiastic crowd of adherents packed loosely into the United Center for the Nation of Islam's annual observance of Saviours' Day, which celebrates the birth of the faith's founder, W. Fard Muhammad. This year's events marked the 82nd year of the religion's existence in North America.

With his finger jabbing at the air above him and his voice frequently raising to an indignant shout, Farrakhan, 78, delivered his message to a crowd of men in dark suits with bow ties and women in shimmering white gowns and scarves.

He spoke for more than three hours on a broad array of topics, excoriating U.S. foreign policy, suggesting that the9/11attacks were a government-planned pretext for war in the Middle East, lamenting recent extreme weather and attacking mothers for serving their children food from McDonald's. He also returned repeatedly to a topic that has attracted intense controversy in the past: the influence of Jews in politics and media.

Farrakhan drew a distinction between noble Jews and followers of "the synagogue of Satan," and he pointed to a recent incident in which the publisher of a Jewish magazine suggested Israeli security forces could help preserve Israel by killing Obama. He attacked Israeli policies, while also directing criticism at perceived Jewish influence in the U.S.

"Jewish people were not the origin of Hollywood, but they took it over," he said, blaming the entertainment industry for degrading the country's morality.

While Farrakhan called out conservatives for questioning Obama's citizenship and even criticizing the figure of first lady Michelle Obama, he also attacked the president for his support of efforts to remove Middle Eastern leaders and warned him against any potential military action in Iran. The crowd roared as he called on them to be "conscientious objectors" to any strike against Iran.

He again condemned the killing of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Farrakhan was friends with the slain dictator, and the Nation of Islam's headquarters was purchased 40 years ago with a $3 million loan from Gadhafi.

Farrakhan also suggested that Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces, instead of being detained for questioning, because the government might not have been able to prove all its accusations against him.

On domestic policy, Farrakhan said the national debt has reached unsustainable levels, and he challenged Obama's assertion in his recent State of the Union speech that the country is not in decline.

"America is on her deathbed. The vital signs of America are not good," he said.

As he spoke, Farrakhan was flanked by dozens of associates and dignitaries, including another controversial religious figure based in Chicago: the Rev. Michael Pfleger, who stood to receive praise from Farrakhan and applause from the crowd.

Near the close of his speech, Farrakhan spent several minutes comparing Obama's political situation to that of Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated after winning a second term, and suggested an assassination plot against Obama might involve a "patsy," a person set up to take the blame for a broader conspiracy.

"I believe they want a Muslim to kill President Obama," he said.

Louis Farrakhan sided for years with Gadhafi, Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and any other dictator that speaks out against the United States, Jews, Israel or all three.

How much longer will the clown Farrakhan be allowed to speak his words of hatred unchallenged?

Because You Leak!

The Israelis want to scream at President Barack Hussein Obama and the members of his regime administration.  President Obama has demanded that the Israelis give him a 12-hour advanced notice of when they will attack Iran.  The Israelis know that if they did that President Obama would go public with the knowledge and inform the world.  So the Israelis have decided (And rightly so.) not to inform the United States of any advanced knowledge of an attack on Iran.

Israeli officials say they won't warn the U.S. if they decide to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, one U.S. intelligence official familiar with the discussions told the Associated Press. The pronouncement, delivered in a series of private, top-level conversations, sets a tense tone ahead of meetings in the coming days at the White House and Capitol Hill.

Israeli officials said that if they eventually decide a strike is necessary, they would keep the Americans in the dark to decrease the likelihood that the U.S. would be held responsible for failing to stop Israel's potential attack. The U.S. has been working with the Israelis for months to persuade them that an attack would be only a temporary setback to Iran's nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak delivered the message to a series of top-level U.S. visitors to the country, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the White House national security adviser and the director of national intelligence, and top U.S. lawmakers, all trying to close the trust gap between Israel and the U.S. over how to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu delivered the same message to all the Americans who have traveled to Israel for talks, the U.S. official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic negotiations.

The White House did not respond to requests for comment, and the Pentagon and Office of Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, as did the Israeli Embassy.

Iran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised alarms that its uranium enrichment program might be a precursor to building nuclear weapons. The US has said it does not know whether the government has decided to weaponize its nuclear material and put it on a missile or other delivery device.

The secret warning is likely to worry US officials and begin the high level meetings with Israel and the US far apart on how to handle Iran.

But the apparent decision to keep the U.S. in the dark also stems from Israel's frustration with the White House. After a visit by National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in particular, they became convinced the Americans would neither take military action, nor go along with unilateral action by Israel against Iran. The Israelis concluded they would have to conduct a strike unilaterally -- a point they are likely to hammer home in a series of meetings over the next two weeks in Washington, the official said.

Barak will meet with top administration and congressional officials during his visit. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for meetings with President Barack Obama next week.

The behind-the-scenes warning belies the publicly united front the two sides have attempted to craft with the shuttle diplomacy to each other's capitals.

"It's unprecedented outreach to Israel to make sure we are working together to develop the plan to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon," and to keep them from exporting terrorism, said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

He traveled there with the intelligence committee chairman, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., to meet Israel's prime minister and defense minister, along with other officials.

"We talked about the fact that sanctions are working and they are going to get a lot more aggressive," Ruppersberger added.

They also discussed talked about presenting a unified front to Iran, to counter the media reports that the two countries are at odds over how and when to attack Iran.

"We have to learn from North Korea. All those (peace) talks and stalling and they developed a nuclear weapon," he said. "We are going to send a message, enough is enough, the stalling is over. ... All options are on the table."

"I got the sense that Israel is incredibly serious about a strike on their nuclear weapons program," Rogers told CNN on Monday. "It's their calculus that the administration ... is not serious about a real military consequence to Iran moving forward.

"They believe they're going to have to make a decision on their own, given the current posture of the United States," he added.

U.S. intelligence and special operations officials have tried to keep a dialogue going with Israel, despite the high-level impasse, sharing with them options such as allowing Israel to use U.S. bases in the region from which to launch such a strike, as a way to make sure the Israelis give the Americans a heads-up, according to the U.S. official, and a former U.S. official with knowledge of the communications

Cooperation has improved on sharing of intelligence in the region, according to one current and one former U.S. official. Israel is providing key information on Syria for instance, now that the U.S. has closed its embassy and pulled out both its diplomats and intelligence officials stationed there, the U.S. official said.

Every move President Obama has made in the Middle East has been the wrong one.  He misjudged the Arab Spring, his Muslim Outreach, his Iraq and Afghan Policies.  In fact to the Muslim world he is seen as a weak leader.

The Israelis cannot afford to rely on such a weak leader for their safety.  In fact the Israelis have already learned that Obama will leak any secret they have.  An nuclear Iran is too dangerous for the Middle East, too dangerous for Israel's survival.  They will attack.  And if Obama is lucky he might get a 12 second warning, but he will not be able to prevent an Israeli strike without using US air power against the IAF.  And that would be throwing not Israel under the bus, but his re-election under the bus.

Monday, February 27, 2012

More on the Garden Grove Mosque Town Hall by Karen Lugo

Gary Fouse

Hat tip to Town Hall

My friend and colleague Karen Lugo, a constitutional law expert, has written an article in Town Hall on the Sharia event last week at the Islamic Center of Orange Country. Take particular note of answers given by Imam Muzammil Siddiqi.

"As I asked him when Muslims would assume a leadership role in repudiating human rights abuses in the name of sharia, he gave rationalizations on how everyone suffered during the revolution in Egypt. He said that country and customs must be taken into consideration when assessing the application of sharia as he also offered that not all governments or actors in Muslim countries follow sharia."

Of course. You see, here is the sticking point. It is true that Muslims living as a minority in non-Muslim countries are told to obey the local laws-as long as they do not interfere with a Muslim's ability to obey God-as expressed in the statement published by the Fiqh Council of North America, which was read by Siddiqi himself. (He is director of FCNA). That itself is a big enough hole to drive a bus through. It is when Muslims achieve majority status that Sharia comes into play-according to the design of the Islamists. Siddiqi himself has been quoted as wishing for the eventual rule of Sharia and Islam world-wide. Of course, he knows he will never live to see it, but it is a long-range mission to him to be achieved peacefully through immigration, demographics, Dawa (outreach) and conversion. How many Muslims are there out there who came here so they would not have to live under Sharia? And now they have people like Siddiqi trying to bring it into our own legal system and using hacks like Maxine Waters and Loretta Sanchez to further their cause.

When asked about what is happening around the world today, the best he can do is mumble about considering the conditions in certain countries at certain points in time. Wonderful.

Muzammil Siddiqi, like Abdul Faisal Rauf, is a master dissembler, who has convinced gullible non-Muslims that he is a moderate. He is not. His associations with proven radicals goes back many years and continues today. He has his fingers in most of the suspicious Islamic organizations in the US today (ISNA, NAIT, and the Figh Council to name a few). The fingerprints of the Muslim Brotherhood are over Siddiqi's associations. What Siddiqi is engaging in is taqiyya (deception).

President Joe Biden?

Hat Tip to The Grouch At Right Truth

A what if with the outcome of Joe Biden becoming President.
The summer of 2012 was one of turmoil. The Republican primary remained hotly contested up until the convention. Mitt Romney eventually prevailed and named governor Chris Christie from New Jersey as his running mate.

On May 5, 2012, Israel conducted surgical strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The immediate results of these strikes were unclear but as the United States stood idly by, the Arab outrage against Israel and the west increased exponentially and by June, gasoline prices in the US averaged 8 dollars per gallon. Whatever so called economic recovery the mainstream media had tried to invent was shattered. In spite of attempts to cover the facts, the unemployment rate charged up to around 11 percent and the stock market took a tumble below 8000 by the beginning of July.

In September and October the Romney campaign hammered Obama relentlessly over his desertion of our Israeli ally, his failure to build the Keystone pipeline, his failure to lift the moratorium on gulf drilling, and the continuing intrusion of the federal government by Obamacare. In spite of all this the polls showed the race between Obama and Romney to be a dead heat up until the very last minute.

On Tuesday November 6, 2012, the presidential election resulted in an electoral tie with both Romney and the President receiving 269 electoral votes. Obama actually won the popular vote by a scant 52,000 votes. The Republicans easily held control of the House of Representatives and in fact gained 4 seats. The Senate was shifted with 50 seats held by Republicans, 48 seats held by Democrats, and 2 seats held by independents. The two independents had historically caucused with the Democrats.

Most ignorant Democrat voters and many ignorant Republican voters were unaware that in the event of an electoral tie, the incoming House of Representatives would, according to the 12th amendment of the Constitution, choose the President while the Senate would select the Vice President.

The mainstream media went immediately to work informing the masses that Mitt Romney would no doubt be the 45th President of the United States. A tremendous outcry went up and rioting occurred in the streets of major cities. Accusations of racism and theft of the election were alive and well in the mainstream news. Al Sharpton and the "reverend" Jesse Jackson were happy as larks as they stirred the racial flames. Hundreds died as local police and fire departments were overwhelmed by angry, racially charged mobs. The National Guard was heavily deployed in many places around the country. In spite of this violence continued.

Gasoline remained at around 8 dollars a gallon and in December of 2012, Egypt and Syria launched all out attacks against Israel. The United States finally had to act and supported Israel in a shooting war against its Arab neighbors mainly with airstrikes from carrier based aircraft from the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

In the meantime, the stock market began to make a slow recovery and the unemployment rate began to drop in hopes that a new Romney presidency would create a more business friendly environment. This good news, however, was largely ignored as much of America burned and war raged in the middle east.

In January the new congress convened with the House of Representatives, as expected, choosing Mitt Romney as President. The Senate however was hopelessly deadlocked at 50/50, Biden vs. Christie. Biden, still the sitting Vice President, cast the deciding vote in favor of himself. The improbable result had the Republican Romney in the top position with Biden remaining in second place. Biden told the news media that he would do everything possible during his next term to vigorously continue the efforts and policies of Barack Obama.

On January 25, 2013, five days after his inauguration, Romney was assassinated by a bomb while he was giving a speech in New York, City. 75 people were killed in the attack allegedly conducted by Al'Qaeda operatives in relatiation for our actions in the middle east.

On the same day, Joe Biden was sworn in as 46th President of the United States.
The idea of President Biden is scarier than an Obama second term.  But The Grouch does give a very good What if to the idea.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Barack Has A Memory Like A Steel Trap

Not too good to share.  Michelle Obama relating that Obama's memory is perfect.  But let us see the truth for ourselves.

Oops!  Maybe not!

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Hell Has Frozen Over!

It was bound to happen eventually, even with the warm weather in the United States, but Hell has frozen over.  In fact, the whole world is in shock over it.  What could happen to bring about a freeze in such a hot spot?  Why the United Nations condemned Iran for attacks on Israeli diplomats.

Yes condemned Iran not Israel.
The United Nations Security Council condemned "in the strongest terms" the terrorist attack against Israeli diplomats in New Delhi, India and the attempted attack in Georgia's capital Tbilisi.

The UN resolution stated that terrorism poses "one of the most serious threats to peace and security," and said that terrorist acts are "criminal and unjustifiable."

Israel Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor welcomed the Security Council resolution, saying it was the first time the UNSC condemned a terror attack against Israelis since 2005.

Prosor declared that the UN's "breaking the silence echoes around the world." He said the international body's resolution would bring solace to the wounded from the attack in New Delhi.

An Israeli diplomat's wife, Tal Yehoshua-Koren, was wounded along with her Indian driver, Manoj Sharma, in New Delhi near the Israeli embassy when a sticky bomb was planted on their vehicle, exploding and sending shrapnel flying. At the same time, in Tbilisi, an embassy employee noticed a bomb on his vehicle while he was driving and informed the local authorties, which sent sappers to defuse the explosive device. No one was injured in that attack.

The UN condemnation came after Prosor sent a letter to both the Security Council and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, requesting that a strong and clear message be transmitted to Iran, who he said, is directly responsible for the actions. Prosor also mentioned a botched bombing in Thailand that occurred a day after the two attacks in India and Georgia, which Thai defense officials said was meant to target Israeli officials.

Iran has denied any involvement in each case, with some officials in Tehran insisting that Israel attacked its own diplomatic personnel in order to engage in "psychological warfare" with Iran.

Iran announced earlier this week it would participate with Thailand to investigate the explosion in Bangkok. Tehran has not offered to comply with the investigations in India or Georgia.

It has been 7 years since the United Nations didn't condemn Israel for attacks upon Israelis (and anyone else).  In fact Lucifer himself was seen fainting when the vote on this was announced.  He is renewing his effort to destroy Israel as part of his program of world domination.

Meanwhile the world has scrambled to write notices of condemnation not of Israel, but of Iran.  And all this while they are scratching their hands.

A Real Apology To President Karzai On Behalf Of Americans

A simple American woman gives her apology to President Karzai of Afghanistan over the burning of a Koran.

Of course if you want to show your support for this you can go to Burn the Koran and show your patriotism.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Don't Attack Iran! I'll Lose The Election!

Is the cry coming from the Obama Regime Administration.  If Israel attacks Iran before October the US economy will collapse and Obama will lose the election in November.
A military strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities has emerged as one of the biggest threats to the U.S. economic recovery and could roil the November elections.

The Obama administration and economic experts have warned a pre-emptive attack by Israel could send the economy into a slump, which would change the trajectory of campaigns for the White House and Congress.

Economic and energy experts say an attack could cause an oil shock, which sent the United States into recession in the late 1970s. In the early '90s, a similar shock occurred when the OPEC oil embargo and the Iraq invasion of Kuwait sent prices soaring.

“If Iran is to retaliate against Israel or other U.S. targets, it’s really unpredictable. It’s safe to say there would be a big shock to oil prices,” said Adam Hersh, an economist at the Center for American Progress.

“The oil price shock and domestic politics in the United States are my biggest concerns for disrupting the economic recovery we’ve been seeing,” he said.

Tensions with Iran will serve as a backdrop for the emerging battle over energy policy between the White House and congressional Republicans, who are seizing on high gas prices to build political momentum.

Read it all here.
If there ever was a rational for Binaymin Netanyahu to go it alone, this is it.  No longer would President Obama have to deal with Netanyahu.  In fact President Obama would have more time for golf.  A lot more time.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

My Letter to the US Attorney in Los Angeles

Gary Fouse

Below is the text of a letter I have sent to Mr Andre 
Birotte Jr., the US Attorney for the Central District 
of California in Los Angeles concerningthe town hall 
at the Islamic Center of Orange County on Sunday, in 
which MrBirotte spoke. 

Dear Mr Birotte,

I appreciate your taking the time to chat with me and listen to my concerns last Sunday at the Islamic Center of Orange County in Garden Grove. As promised, I am sending you the information I talked about regarding Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, his past words, as well as his past and present associations. In preparing this, I found it easier to retrieve the information from my own blog postings, which refer to the appropriate sources. The below links are in chronological order, past to most recent. The final link is my own posting and summary on the Garden Grove event.

The point of these links is to show that Imam Siddiqi is not what he represents himself to be and what our leaders have thought him to be. I have met Mr Siddiqi, and I know he comes across as a soft-spoken gentleman. He speaks of equality, tolerance and peace. The above links, however, show that there is much more to his persona.

One of the themes of the event Sunday was that there is a climate of hate against American Muslims. While there is some truth to that, it does not speak for the people who are sincerely concerned about what is happening all over the world and here in America. It does not speak for those that I work with. I do not hate Muslims. The Muslims I know love this country and appreciate the freedoms they enjoy here-freedoms they didn't enjoy in their countries of origin. I do not wish to  see innocent Muslims labeled as terrorists or extremists and  targeted for  discrimination or attack. With certain exceptions, I think Americans have done well in that regard in not holding all American Muslims responsible for what terrorists and jihadists are doing. In fact, speaking as a Christian, I have come to the belief that the group most vulnerable to hate in this country and the world now is Jews. I have seen it first hand while working the past 14 years as an adjunct teacher at UC Irvine. It is what led me to become an activist. To me, it is not a question of practicing hate and intolerance. It is a question of fighting hate and intolerance. That is the direction from which I come.

Yet, there is a problem that we cannot ignore. Aside from terrorist attacks, non-Muslim minorities are subject to hate and violence in Muslim nations like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and many others. At the same time, there is a subversive movement afoot among some Muslims in America, including organizations like CAIR who pose as "moderates".  They use the label, "Islamophobia" as a weapon to try and silence their critics. Honest and open discussion of what is happening here and around the world is not "Islamophobia", however one wants to define that tricky term. The issue of Islam can be discussed without resorting to hate against Muslims themselves. At the same time, our freedom of speech to discuss these issues cannot be trampled upon.

As for the much-discussed Sharia law, there is no way that it can be called compatible with the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We must recognize that Islam is more than just a religion; it is also a political ideology-a totalitarian one at that. Its legal tool is Sharia. For Siddiqi to state that Sharia is compatible with the US Constitution is to say the Earth is flat. No code that calls for death to homosexuals or apostates can be compatible with our laws and rights. As you well know, these horrors are actually being committed in many Muslim lands as we speak. Last Sunday, Imam Siddiqi read the statement from the Fiqh Council of North America, of which he is the director. I would encourage you to read the complete  statement-carefully- and note how craftily
it is worded.

I would never begrudge Muslims their right to worship. I believe in freedom of religion for all. Nor am I against immigrants. I am married to one and have myself lived in three other countries. What I do believe in is assimilation, as I am sure you do as well having come from Haiti. This does not mean that one has to leave his or her religion when they come to America. Yet, if there are certain traditions or aspects that are in conflict with our concept of equality and rights for all, then immigrants have to know that there must be an accommodation on their part-not on the part of their adopted country. It also means that American Muslims must have all the protections our Constitution guarantees for all including gays and those wishing to change religions.

Nor do I begrudge the effort of law enforcement to work within the Muslim community. Surely, there are many who want to cooperate, possibly because they themselves came to America to escape Sharia. It is a valid investigative tool, one I used myself while in DEA. Having said that, I detected a certain skepticism when I attempted to explain my views to the LAPD officers present. In that vein, I would suggest that you and your colleagues explore true Muslim moderates, people like Dr Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, Stephen Schwartz of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and another newly created organization, the American Islamic Leadership Coalition. Here you will find the type of Muslims that our government should be working with-but has largely ignored. They will tell you the truth about organizations like CAIR and others. They recognize that there is a radical threat right here at home.

That leads me to my final observation. The three politicians who were present used the event to push their own political agenda against a rival party. Were I a law enforcement officer, I would have been most uncomfortable participating at such an event that featured partisan politics-especially when other law enforcement agencies were being singled out for attack (FBI-NYPD).

At any rate, I appreciate your allowing me to send you this rather voluminous information. My purpose is two-fold: First, our law enforcement agencies and officials need to be aware of the facts (in this case, Siddiqi and his associations). Secondly, those of us who are speaking out are not all a bunch of extremist bigots. On the contrary, I feel that I am fighting against hate and

I thank you for your time.

Gary Fouse

PS: I will be posting this letter on my blog. Accordingly, I will be happy to post any response you care to give.

Alaskan Islands Belong to Russia?

On Sunday, February 19, 2012 I posted Obama Gives 7 Oil-Rich Islands To Alaska.  This post was originally written by Maggie of Maggie's Notebook and she like I assumed that it was factual.  It wasn't and I apologize to you about that.  Here are the facts that are known about this:

A story this week in a World Net Daily opinion piece by former Republican U.S. Senate Candidate for Alaska, Joe Miller, has received huge attention from the blogosphere. I have spent some time on the telephone with Mr. Miller and want to pass on the new information clarified by him and other sources. The bottom line is, Russia has not ratified the proposed treaty thus, the US Senate’s 1990 consent to it can be withdrawn. Information about the Alaskan legislature’s attempt to redeem land they believe belongs to Alaska is at the bottom of this article. For reference, my original article is here.

The purported Agreement for the “island giveaway” was and is not a ratified treaty according to the public record. The official name (as shown on the document) is Agreement between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the maritime boundary, 1 June 1990. However, you’ll see below that the U.S. State Department in 2009 refers to it as a Treaty.

Before going farther, it’s important to note the reason this Agreement has been brought forward at this time, with accusations following that this is ‘nothing,’ not important…even that the agreement is a myth. The Agreement exists, signed by a U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1990 and ratified by Congress in June 1990, and signed by President G. H. W. Bush. Russia has not signed on, originally declaring that they would receive too little from it.

Secondly, it is important to know that the Agreement was negotiated completely in secret as far as we know. It began with Henry Kissinger when he was Secretary of State under President Gerald Ford. Ford left office in 1977. The U.S. ratification didn’t happen until June 1, 1990 under President G. H. W. Bush. ‘Ratification’ does not mean that Congress created legislation. It means that an ‘agent’ presented the language and Congress ‘ratified’ (consented to) it.

Today, there are those in U.S. political circles, and especially in Alaska, who want the Agreement to be declared null and void, by whatever action it takes for the U.S. Congress to do so. Efforts are in the works to try to make that happen, so that is why these islands, whether 5 or 7 or 8, are being discussed.

First came the 1867 Treaty wherein the U.S. purchased what was then Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, an area about twice the size of Texas. Article 1 in the 1990 Agreement refers to Article 1 of the 1867 Treaty/Convention:

From the 1990 Agreement:
Article 1
1. The Parties agree that the line described as the “western limit” in article 1 of the 1867 Convention, as defined in article 2 of this Agreement, is the maritime boundary between the United States and the Soviet Union.

2. Each Party shall respect the maritime boundary as limiting the extent of its coastal State jurisdiction otherwise permitted by international law for any purpose
From the 1867 Treaty/Convention:Article I
His Majesty the emperor of all the Russias agrees to cede to the United States, by this convention, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications thereof, all the territory and dominion now possessed by his said Majesty on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands, the same being contained within the geographical limits herein set forth, to wit:

The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the Russian and the British possessions in North America, as established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28-16, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of said convention, in the following terms:…(beginning at the pertinent information for this article)

[ceded to the U.S.] …thence, from the intersection of that meridian, in a southwesterly direction, so as to pass midway between the island of Attou and Copper island of the Kormandorski cuplet or group in the North Pacific ocean, to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude, so as to include the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian.
At this point, it appears that Copper Island belongs to Russia. Copper is one of the islands disputed by Alaska. Russia wanted Bering Island almost adjacent to Copper. I think I’m correct in saying the 1867 Treaty made sure that Bering went to Russia. Both Bering and Copper are a part of the Commander Islands.

At several places I have read that the boundary line went between Bering and Copper Islands with Copper on the eastern and considered U.S. property. Here is one such statement by State Department Watch (I am not familiar with this site and cannot vouch for the information, but they have compiled quite a history. I recommend you go to them for much more detail):
Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock: These islands in the Bering Sea were acquired in 1867 from Russia. The treaty’s Article I language states, “…to the meridian of one hundred and ninety-three degrees west longitude [167 east], so as to include in the territory conveyed the whole of the Aleutian islands east of that meridian.” That meridian runs between Copper and Bering Islands at the westernmost end of the Aleutian islands. [See 1867 Treaty.]“
The following is the State Department Watch map showing the boundary running between Bering and Copper. Look for the arrow on the left side that says “Copper Island, Sea Otter and Sea Lion Rocks.” The arrow points to a slash mark – that’s Copper and then a finger that is Bering Island. I believe the slash tracks running between the two islands show Copper on the U.S. side. Then look below to the next text that says “These Western and Eastern special areas are based on Russian sovereignty on Copper Island.”

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Book Browsing at a Mosque

Gary Fouse

This past Sunday, as reported, I attended a town hall event at the Islamic Center of Orange County. Prior the start of the event, I had a chance to drop into the mosque book store and do some browsing. My time was limited, but I did happen find an interesting book called "West vs. Islam" by Margaret Marcus (aka Mayam Jameelah). The entire text of the book can be accessed at the below link.

Marcus was born to a Jewish family in New York in 1934. As a young woman, she converted to Islam and moved to Pakistan, where she lived with the family of the famous founder of the Islamic party Jamaat e Islami, Maulana Abul Ala Maududi. Eventually, Maududi arranged a marriage for her. She became a prolific writer on Islam and is a well known figure in Islamic literary circles, Much of her writing reflects a condemnation of Western society and a strict interpretaion of Islam. Below is her Wikipedia entry

A critical book about Marcus and her extremism was written by Deborah Baker. It is called, "The Convert"

Below is a wikipedia entry for Maududi, which includes his views on Jihad and Sharia.

Below is a wikipedia entry for Jamaat e Islami. The article appears to be written by a non-English native speaker and seems favorable to the party.

If I may summarize, the writer of "West vs Islam" is a woman who apparently had psychiatric problems in her life, converted to Islam, moved to Pakistan and holds very negative opinions about Western culture. I noted in one part of her book while I was in the bookstore that she does not believe that Muslims in the West should adopt Western ways in areas such as dress and others.

Maududi's version of Islam was very strict in terms of Islam ruling Muslim countries, Sharia, and status of non-Muslims. The party he founded reflects those views. Marcus apparently does as well.

To sum up, I ask myself, why the Islamic Center of Orange County, whose imam, Muzammil Siddiqi, is a well-known religious figure in the American Muslim community, would have this book in their store? This is hardly a book that encourages American Muslims to assimilate into Western society.

Is the ideology that Muzammil Siddiqi subscribes to? Is this something that is compatible with American society, pluralism, liberty, and our Constitution? On that day, I heard a lot of speakers proclaim that Sharia law is perfectly in harmony with the US Constitution. I suggest that the non-Muslim speakers who participated in Sunday's event do their homework.

1 To 3 Or A Decade

That is what is being debated now.   American experts claim that an Israeli attack on the Iranian Nuclear Program will only set Iran back 1-3 years if Israel is able to pull it off.  The Germans not only think Israel can pull it off, but will set the Iranians back a full decade.
BERLIN – Competing analysis articles appeared Monday in The New York Times and last week in the German daily Die Welt outlining vastly different conclusions about Israel’s military capability to knock out Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

While The New York Times report cast doubt on Israel’s success chances, Hans Rühle, who directed the planning department of the German Defense Ministry between 1982-1988, expressed confidence that Israel’s air force could decimate Iran’s principal nuclear installations.

The core differences surround the number of Israeli jets and bombs required to destroy Iran’s primary nuclear facilities, as well as the challenge of refueling fighter planes to travel a distance of more than 1,000 miles into Iranian airspace and return safely to Israel.

The Times titled its rather pessimistic analysis “Iran Raid Seen as a Huge Task for Israeli Jets,” and wrote that an Israeli mission to annihilate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would require a minimum of 100 fighter jets.

According to a sample of US defense and military analysts, it would be a Herculean challenge for Israel to penetrate Iran’s air space and launch attacks on the country’s nuclear complexes.

The Times cited Michael V. Hayden, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009, who explicitly declared that pulverizing Iran’s nuclear facilities is “beyond the capacity” of Israel.

Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula told the Times that, “All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy.”

Deptula, served as the US Air Force’s top intelligence official until last year, and oversaw the air military strikes conducted in the 2001 Afghanistan War theater in 2001, and during the first Gulf war in 1991 in Iraq.

The Times offered a bleak assessment of Israel’s capability to refuel its fighter planes, saying “Israel would have to use airborne refueling planes, called tankers, but Israel is not thought to have enough.”

In a sharp contrast to the Times analysis, Hans Rühle, a leading German security expert, asserted last week in a lengthy article in the Die Welt that a comprehensive Israel-based bombing campaign could significantly set back, perhaps a decade or more, Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

In the article titled “How Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear program” Rühle analyzed the number of Israeli fighter jets and bombs necessary to obliterate Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Citing experts, Rühle writes that an extensive bombing campaign is within Israel’s capability to decimate Iran’s ability to continue to make progress on developing nuclear weapons.

According to Rühle, there are 25 to 30 facilities in Iran used for its atomic program, of which six are primary-bombing targets.

He cites the nuclear enrichment plant Natanz, the conversion facility in Isfahan, the heavy water reactor Arak and the weapons and munitions sites in Parchin. In addition, he notes the deep underground enrichment facility Fordow and Iran’s operational nuclear plant Bushehr.

The popular PJ Media news website columnist, David P. Goldman, wrote last week that “Hans Rühle was one of the toughest and most perspicacious analysts in those heady days” during the Cold war period.

Goldman added that “Rühle is highly confident that Israel could knock out Iran’s nuclear program for a decade or more with about 25 of its 87 F-15 fighter-bombers and a smaller number of its F-16s. Each of the F- 15s would carry two of the GBU-28 bunker busters, with the F-16s armed with smaller bombs.

Rühle writes that surveillance “information about Natanz is solid,“ adding that the “project has been observed from satellites and from the location from 'Israeli tourists.'”

He added that Israel strongest bunker buster bombs GBU-28 could destroy the roof of the facility. If the damage is not sufficient, a second GBU-28 could be launched to complete the aim of destruction.

According to Rühle, Israel’s successful obliteration of the Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 laid an important precedent. He writes that “many experts believe “ that strikes against Iran’s nuclear operations could set back the program 10 years, or possibly longer, based on present knowledge.

The fighter plane requirement would entail 20 F-15 machines each accompanied with two GBU-28s. He estimates that Israel’s air force has over 87 F-15 planes at its disposal. The conversion Nuclear Technology Center of Isfahan, which is largely vulnerable to attack because its buildings are not underground, could be eliminated with GBU-27 bombs. Isfahan converts the yellow cake process into uranium.

The least difficult challenge for Israel’s air force is the heavy-water reactor Arak, observes Rühle. The above-ground facility could be razed with 10 GBU-10 bombs, wrote Rühle. The strike would require 10 F- 16 fighter jets.

According to Rühe, the most difficult obstacle to destroy is the underground Fordow enrichment plant. He notes that special team forces would have to attack the facility.

The alternative would be to strike the tunnel openings with GBU-28 bombs to plug the entry points for a period of time.

The complex Parchin site remains beyond the International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and it is unclear how many bombs it would take to destroy the over 100 buildings, many of which are buried underground. Nuclear warheads are believed to be worked on in the Parchin plant.

Rühle views the nuclear power plant Bushehr as a possible primary military target, largely because the plants plutonium can be used for weapons. In contrast to the United States State Department, which views the Bushehr plant as a civilian-energy program without a military dimension, Rühle writes that “the destruction of Bushehr should not be a problem for Israel’s army – 10 GBU-28 or GBU-27 bombs would be sufficient.”

He quotes a high-level representative of the Israeli nuclear expert class who was in Berlin last year. The Israeli expert said “we cannot live with this reactor” in Bushehr because it is not immune to stopping the spread of proliferation-related material.

Rühle adds that if Israel can wipe out essential pieces of Iran’s nuclear program, then the problem is solved for a generation.

His essay is filled with a kind of supreme confidence about the ability of Israel’s military systems.

“Israel’s Air Force is first class, “ writes Rühle. “Their pilots are conditioned from the history of Israel and the constant dangers faced by the Jewish state.”

Though Rühle identifies the refueling of Israel’s fighter jets to be a thorny problem because Israel only has five tankers of the type KC-130H and four of the category B- 700, he said he believes the number to be higher.

He calls the public refuel tanker number a “rather lean supply, “ but notes that Israel’s government had requested to buy or lease from US President George W. Bush’s Administration additional refueling tanks. He adds that Israel’s Air Force has expertise over the “buddy refueling“ process among F-15 and F-16 planes. There is also the possibility of a temporary landing to refuel in Syria, Turkey, or Iraq, noted Rühle.

Israeli officials have been over this for years and the window of oppotunity is closing fast.  Whether or not the Israelis will attack Iran has to be decided soon.  I do believe it will be a decision that they will do the raid with or without the US aided them.  I believe they have to in order to survive as a nation.  The Iranians have made it clear that their goal is not just the destruction of Israel, but the systematic murder of every Jew world-wide.  Nothing else will satisfy them.

It's Not Fair!!!!

Yesterday was Mardi Gras.  I had a few drinks, had a little fun, and didn't get a string of beads.  I did show everyone my boobies, but no beads.  What was wrong?  Perhaps if you see my boobies you'll send me a string of beads?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Is He Alive?

Reports out of Iran is that an Order of Execution may have been written and signed for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was arrested for being a Christian Minister and has been living in prison under an execution threat since 2009.  The father of 2 sons, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has been tortured to renounce Christianity and embrace Islam.  Yet he has refused.  He has gathered strength in his faith while living in close supervision and in isolation from all others but his tormenters.
We are hearing reports from our contacts in Iran that the execution orders for Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani may have been issued.

Pastor Youcef’s situation – an innocent man convicted and sentenced to death for becoming a Christian – has not been this dire since we first brought his case to your attention last year.

It is unclear whether Pastor Youcef would have a right of appeal from the execution order. We know that the head of Iran’s Judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, must approve publicly held executions, but only a small percentage of executions are held public—most executions in Iran are conducted in secret.

There has also been a disturbing increase in the number of executions conducted by the Iranian regime in the last month.

Iran is actively violating its human rights obligations by sentencing and detaining Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. We call on the Iranian government to release Pastor Youcef immediately.

We are continuing to work to help spare the life of Pastor Youcef, and will provide additional updates on his situation as we are able.

Please continue to pray, share his story, and call for his release.

Will you lend your voice to many others and sign this petition to free Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  He is living in the Lion's Den and like Daniel of old he has the same protector.  But for how long?

UPDATE:  It is official.  A warrant of execution has been issued for Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani.  It is not known on whether or not the execution of Pastor Nadarkhani has taken place.

Getting Ready For A Second Term

Let us prevent this from happening in November.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Townhall at Islamic Center of Garden Grove

Gary Fouse

Imam Muzammil Siddiqi of the Islamic Center of Orange County

On February 19, 2012, The Islamic Center of Orange County and the Council of Pakistan American Affairs hosted a town hall at the above Islamic Center in Garden Grove. The theme was the US Constitution, US Law and Sharia. I attended and took notes. Afterward, I had a chance to talk with a couple of the panelists/speakers.

The official host of the affair was Imam Muzammil Siddiqi, who is the head of the center. Panelists  included LASD Sheriff Lee Baca, LAPD Chief of counter-terrorism, Michael Downing, US Attorney for the Central District of California Andre Birotte, Jr,  Congresswomen, Loretta Sanchez, Maxine Waters and Judy Chu (all Democrats), the Pakistani Consul General of Los Angeles, Riffat Masood, and, of course, Siddiqi. Aside from Downing, there were three uniformed LAPD officers from his unit present, one of whom appeared to be recording images of the crowd with his cell phone. First, I would like to summarize the theme of the hour-long session then mention some specific statements by the speakers.

If it may be summarized, each speaker talked about equal rights for all. They stated that it was wrong to single out all Muslims as a result of the actions of some. They spoke of widespread hatred directed at the Muslim community. Most made reference to their belief that Sharia was not in contradiction with US laws, the Bill of Rights, or the US Constitution. Sanchez, Chu and Waters took the opportunity to make partisan political attacks against Republican members of Congress.

Here are some of the statements made by the speakers, each of whom spoke for 5-10 minutes.

Imam Siddiqi

Siddiqi stated that Muslims were the target of increasing hateful propaganda, also coming from public officials. He stated that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. He also complained of misinformation about Sharia. Siddiqi then read a prepared statement by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA). The statement ( I am paraphrasing from my notes) stated that they saw no contradiction between the normative values of Islam  and the US Constitution. The statement stressed securing of life, equality of all humans, and religious freedom. It went on to state that Muslims in America should obey US laws, the Constitution and Bill of Rights as long as it doesn't conflict with their duty to obey God. It also stated that the core values of Sharia are respect for human life and property. There is no contradiction between Sharia and the US Constitution.

Siddiqi is the chairman of the FCNA. The entire statement is below from their website:

US Attorney Andre Birotte Jr

There was really little noteworthy about Birotte's remarks. He spoke of civil rights, diversity, working with all creeds, colors etc. He did tell the audience that upon taking over the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, he re-instituted the public corruption unit.

Chief Michael Downing

Downing spoke of a campaign of hate against Muslims across the country. He repeated the same themes about protecting rights of all. He stated that Sharia is not a threat to America, but that the threat is violent ideological extremists
Maxine Waters

Waters (reading most of her remarks) began by praising Sheriff Baca for his courage in taking on this issue. She then went on to attack House Republicans for their hearings on Islamic radicalization. She said they were "attacking Muslim people" and using "scare tactics". She mentioned that 13 states had attempted to pass legislation banning Sharia. She criticized Peter King (R-NY) for stating that he would continue his hearings. She also referred to Newt Gingrich's calling for a federal law that Sharia would not be recognized in US law. She also referred to HR 3618, the End Racial Profiling Act, that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from profiling.  She went on to list violent acts by hate groups, and said that many of the recent terrorist arrests in the US were a result of tips from the Muslim community. She added according to a report by the Muslim Public Affairs Council that since 9-11, there have been 77 terrorist acts committed by non-Muslims domestically. She quoted a rabbi named Jerry Serotta of Clergy Beyond Borders, who took a shot at Newt Gingrich for speaking about American exceptualism. She concluded by quoting  ACLU director of religious affairs Daniel Mach, who said that "anti-Sharia laws are motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry, plain and simple."

Someone Should Tell Michelle Obama

Stolen from Israel Matzav

Now here is a diet I can really sink my teeth into.  (Fork or spoon too.)  If you want to lose weight, eat cake for breakfast.
Want to lose weight? Experts say eating cake for breakfast helps you do just that. A research team from Edith Wolfson Medical Center in Holon and Tel Aviv University discovered that a high-carb and high-protein diet helps people shed the extra pounds and prevents repetitive weight gain.

How is that possible? It turns out that eating carbohydrates reduces our hunger pangs and food cravings by decreasing ghrelin hormone levels, responsible for us feeling hunger.

"Diets usually lead to weight loss, but most people can't seem to keep it up and after a while start to gain weight," explained team leader Professor Daniela Jakubowicz.

"Losing weight increases hunger, cravings for carbs and increases ghrelin hormone levels. But a breakfast rich with carbs and protein helps reduce the hormone levels, which in turn helps prevent reoccurring weight gain."

The Israeli team examined 193 overweight men and women who are not physically active nor diabetic, ages 40-50. Each day the participants in the study ate the same number of calories: 1,400 for the women and 1,600 for men.

The participants were split into two groups; one group ate a 300-calorie breakfast while the other group ate a 600-calorie breakfast including proteins and carbohydrates – even a chocolate or ice-cream dessert.

Both groups lost weight up until the 16th week, however the first group kept complaining of hunger pangs while the second group felt full, despite the diet.

On the 16th week, both groups were sent home to try and keep up with their diets on their own. At this point, the second group continued to loose weight while the first group, deprived of carbs, showed some weight gain.

Over the course of a 32 week-long study participants who added dessert to their breakfast lost more weight than a group that avoided such foods and kept off the pounds for a longer period of time.

Jakubowicz explained that '"the participants in the low carbohydrate diet group had less satisfaction, and felt that they were not full, but the group that consumed a bigger breakfast, including dessert, experienced few if any cravings for these foods later in the day."

I suppose that Michelle Obama will only declare this study to be used by her and her cronies.  But I love the idea of kids demanding cake for breakfast from their Moms.  And Moms willingly give it to their kids.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Muslim Persecution of Christians: January 2012

'Good Muslims Cannot Convert to Christianity'

- She was flogged -- given 40 lashes as hundreds of Muslim spectators jeered -- for embracing a "foreign religion."

- The happy cheers of Christian children singing carols "became terrified whimpers" when four Muslims, one of them with an axe, barged into the church, slapped the children, wrecked the furniture, and kicked the altar -- for "disturbing their prayers."
The beginning of the New Year saw only an increase in the oppression of Christians under Islam, from Nigeria, where an all-out jihad has been declared in an effort to eradicate the Muslim north of all Christians, to Europe, where Muslim converts to Christianity are still hounded and attacked as apostates. According to the Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, "The flight of Christians out of the region is unprecedented and it's increasing year by year"; in our life time alone, he predicts "Christians might disappear altogether from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt."

An international report found that Muslim nations make up nine out of the top ten countries where Christians face the "most severe" persecution. In response to these findings, a Vatican spokesman said that "Among the most serious concerns, the increase in Islamic extremism merits special attention. Persons and organizations dedicated to extremist Islamic ideology perpetrate terrible acts of violence in many places throughout the world: the Boko Haram sect in Nigeria is but one example. Then there is the climate of insecurity that unfortunately in some countries accompanies the so-called "Arab spring"—a climate that drives many Christians to flee and even to emigrate."

Categorized by theme, January's batch of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is not limited to) the following accounts, listed in alphabetical order by country, not severity of anecdote.