SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 8:36:57 AM
From: lorne2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224748
 
ken...How soon will you or other democrat lefties be promoting this...it is from Europe lefties so I suspect it will be adopted by obama soon...womens health and all that stuff that your kind like to promote.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
29 Feb 2012
telegraph.co.uk


The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “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.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.

“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.

They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.

Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.

Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?'

He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.

Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.

What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.

While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”

He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.

Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen?

"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."

Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 8:38:17 AM
From: lorne3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224748
 
ken...obama loves his moslums?

Releasing the Blind Sheikh?
It is too early to tell, but not too early to be very worried.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
March 1, 2012
nationalreview.com


The Arabic-language newspaper al-Arabiya reported on Tuesday that the Obama administration has offered to release Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to Egypt. Abdel Rahman is the infamous “Blind Sheikh” who was convicted in 1995 for masterminding a terrorist war against the United States that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. According to the late Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda’s founder, Abdel Rahman is also responsible for the fatwa — the necessary Islamic edict — that green-lighted the 9/11 attacks.

The alleged offer to release Abdel Rahman is said to be an effort to end the impasse over 16 American “civil-society activists” (including the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood) being detained by Egypt’s interim government. The Blind Sheikh, the report says, would be part of a prisoner exchange: 50 Egyptians swapped for the Americans whose organizations are said to have received foreign funding in violation of Egyptian law. (See my post from last week on efforts by senior Republican senators to secure the Americans’ release.) Speculation that a quid pro quo may be in place has intensified because, in recent days, Egyptian authorities suddenly adjourned the trial of the Americans and lifted the travel ban against seven of them, including Sam LaHood — freeing them to return to the U.S.

The al-Arabiya report is available only in Arabic so far, not on the newspaper’s English-language website. It was brought to the attention of the English-speaking blogosphere late Tuesday night by the indispensable Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch (see here). Through the intercession of Andrew Bostom, the website “Translating Jihad” has now published an English translation of the full story.

Blind since the age of four, the 73-year-old Abdel Rahman has been renowned in global Islamist circles as “the Emir of Jihad” since the 1970s. He is an al-Azhar University–educated sharia jurist and the leader of an Egyptian terrorist organization, Gama’at al-Islamiya (“the Islamic Group”). Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Gama’at purports to have renounced violence. Although he was acquitted by an Egyptian court for complicity in the 1981 slaying of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, Abdel Rahman has bragged about issuing the fatwa that approved the killing. His fatwas calling on Muslims to murder Sadat’s successor, Hosni Mubarak, are numerous and notorious.

American immigration authorities permitted Abdel Rahman to settle in the United States in 1990, eventually giving him permanent residence status as a “religious worker,” even though his long history of inciting terror and his virulent anti-Americanism were well known — and even though his name appeared on U.S. terrorist watch lists.

I was the lead prosecutor at Abdel Rahman’s lengthy 1995 trial. A jury convicted him of conspiring to wage a war of urban terrorism against the United States, and of bombing conspiracy, solicitation of attacks on American military installations, and conspiring to murder — as well as soliciting the murder of — Mubarak. In January 1996, then–district judge (and later U.S. attorney general) Michael Mukasey sentenced Abdel Rahman to life imprisonment. The sheikh’s convictions and sentence were unanimously upheld on appeal. My book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad details Abdel Rahman’s history and the investigation of the jihadist organization he built in the United States.

Egyptian Islamists have been agitating for Abdel Rahman’s release since we arrested him in New York City in July 1993. Some of this agitation has predictably crossed into barbarism. In 1997, Gama’at threatened to “target . . . all of those Americans who participated in subjecting [Abdel Rahman’s] life to danger” — “every American official, starting with the American president [down] to the despicable jailer.” The organization promised to do “everything in its power” to obtain his release. Six months later, Gama’at jihadists set upon 58 foreign tourists and several police officers at an archeological site in Luxor, Egypt, brutally shooting and slicing them to death. The terrorists left behind leaflets — including in the mutilated torso of one victim — demanding that the Blind Sheikh be freed.

Gama’at subsequently issued a statement warning that its forcible struggle against the Egyptian regime would proceed unless Mubarak met its three demands: the implementation of sharia, the cessation of diplomatic relations with Israel, and “the return of our Sheikh and emir to his land.” In March 2000, terrorists associated with the Abu Sayyaf group kidnapped a number of tourists in the Philippines and threatened to behead them if Abdel Rahman and two other convicted terrorists were not freed. Authorities later recovered two decapitated bodies (four other hostages were never accounted for).

On September 21, 2000, only three weeks before al-Qaeda’s bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, al-Jazeera televised a “Convention to Support the Honorable Omar Abdel Rahman.” Front and center were Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri (then bin Laden’s deputy, now his successor as emir of al-Qaeda). They warned that unless Sheikh Abdel Rahman was freed, jihadist attacks against the United States would be stepped up. At the same event, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, an al-Qaeda operative who is one of the sheikh’s sons, exhorted the crowd to “avenge your Sheikh” and “go to the spilling of blood.”


In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the New York Post reported bin Laden’s proclamation that his war on America had been justified by a fatwa promulgated by Abdel Rahman from prison. Abdel Rahman had indeed issued a decree casting the fight for his release as an Islamic duty. Regarding Americans, the Blind Sheikh exhorted “Muslims everywhere to dismember their nation, tear them apart, ruin their economy, provoke their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, . . . shoot down their planes, [and] kill them on land, at sea, and in the air. Kill them wherever you find them.”

The Mubarak regime, of course, fell last year, after Obama — following some temporizing — called for the Egyptian president to step down. Egypt is currently run by a military council, although it is transitioning to an overtly Islamist government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Islamists won about 80 percent of the parliamentary seats in just-completed national elections — an outcome the Obama administration has said it welcomes.

Tuesday’s al-Arabiya story portrays the Blind Sheikh’s potential release and repatriation as an offer by the Obama administration, not a demand by Egypt’s interim government. But there have been many such demands from Egyptian sources. They have increased in number since last year’s revolt, and have featured protests outside the American embassy in Cairo. Helping spearhead the effort has been Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the extremely influential Muslim Brotherhood jurist. Like the Blind Sheikh, the 85-year-old Qaradawi is an Egyptian alumnus of al-Azhar who fled the secular regime and is regarded by Muslim supremacists as a hero. The Egyptian press reports that, ever since the Americans were detained in December, Abdel Rahman’s family and supporters have aggressively pushed the government to barter them for the sheikh’s release.

According to the al-Arabiya report, which is entitled “Umar Abd-al-Rahman at Forefront of Egyptian-American Prisoner Exchange Deal,” Egypt’s interim rulers perceive the United States to be in a “weak position” because the 16 American prisoners were caught violating Egypt’s laws and sovereignty. Thus, according to Major General Muhammad Hani Zahir, who is described as an “expert” on terrorism matters, Egypt is in a position to “exploit” the situation and demand weighty concessions.

Zahir claims that the American activists provoked some of the violence in the Egyptian uprising, and that this offense is akin to terrorism support — a charge that can result in severe sentences in Egypt, just as it does in many American terrorism cases. Zahir thus speculates that the prospect of convictions on such extreme charges puts enormous pressure on Obama. Consequently, Zahir says, the Egyptian government is pulling together a list of all Egyptian nationals currently in American custody — intimating that the government’s demands could far outstrip the 50 prisoners the newspaper claims the U.S. has offered. It is worth noting that, besides Abdel Rahman, other convicted Egyptian terrorists serving life sentences in the U.S. include Mahmud Abouhalima, one of the 1993 WTC bombers.
It is important to stress that, while it appears the Americans are being freed, all we have at the moment to suggest an unsavory deal has been cut is a report in the Arabic press. Al-Arabiya is no fly-by-night operation, but neither is it immune to the Arab media’s penchant for sensationalism and conspiracy theories. The Obama administration has not publicly indicated any intention to resort to a prisoner swap to resolve the ongoing crisis over Egypt’s detention of Americans — let alone signaled that it would be open to releasing the Blind Sheikh in such a swap. The United States provides Egypt with billions in aid and obviously has many negotiating cards to play. There should be no need to entertain requests that convicted terrorists be released.

On the other hand, there are patent grounds for concern. While President Obama has at times been admirably aggressive in taking the fight to jihadists overseas, he has at other times lapsed into appeasement — and is especially cavalier when it comes to captured terrorists. His administration is currently trying to broker a peace deal with the Taliban and is reportedly contemplating the release of terrorists held at Gitmo in order to make it happen. The administration was pressured into releasing Binyam Mohammed, an al-Qaeda operative accused of plotting with convicted terrorist Jose Padilla to carry out a second round of post-9/11 attacks against American cities. It has participated in prisoner swaps that resulted in the release of terrorists complicit in the killing of U.S. soldiers — deals that violated longstanding American policy against negotiating with terrorists. And it has gone to great lengths to propitiate the Islamists who will soon be running Egypt — branding them as “largely secular” moderates, indicating a willingness to work with them, and remaining mum as their ascendancy has led to a campaign of violence against religious minorities.


For quite some time now, I’ve been concerned that President Obama might cave in to Egyptian pressure for Sheikh Abdel Rahman’s release. I’ve assumed, however, that the president’s political instincts rendered such a move inconceivable before the November election. In the interim, I’ve hoped that an engaged Republican opponent might highlight the matter, turning it into a campaign issue, pressing Obama for a public commitment that Abdel Rahman will not be released, period. To be sure, that would be an unenforceable promise, but one Obama could not break without severe political consequences.

Has the crisis involving Americans detained in Egypt changed those calculations? It is too early to tell, but not too early to be very worried.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 8:54:24 AM
From: TideGlider3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224748
 
Afghan Religious Council Demands Public Trial For Quran Burners
Last update: 3/2/2012 8:49:22 AM
KABUL (AFP) -- Afghanistan's top religious council Friday demanded that those responsible for the burning of Qurans at a U.S. military base should be put on public trial, a statement from the president's office said.
The Ulema Council "insists that such a devilish act is not forgiveable by apologies, and that the perpetrators of this crime should soon be publicly tried and punished", the statement said.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
March 02, 2012 08:49 ET (13:49 GMT)

We need stop our bending to these barbarians and let them eat themselves.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 10:02:53 AM
From: locogringo3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224748
 



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 11:00:05 AM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224748
 
Election 2012: Massachusetts Senate
Massachusetts Senate: Brown (R) 49%, Warren (D) 44%



Thursday, March 01, 2012

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who won the 2010 special election to finish the term of the late Ted Kennedy, holds a modest lead over his expected Democrat challenger Elizabeth Warren in the first Rasmussen Reports’ look at his 2012 reelection bid in the Bay State.

The latest Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey of Likely Voters shows Brown picking up 49% of the vote to Warren’s 44%. Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate in the race, while five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 11:01:26 AM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224748
 
Election 2012: Montana Senate
Montana Senate: Rehberg (R) 47%, Tester (D) 44%



Thursday, February 23, 2012

Democratic incumbent Jon Tester runs slightly behind his leading Republican challenger in his bid for reelection in Montana’s U.S. Senate race.

A new telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state finds Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg earning 47% support to Tester’s 44% in Rasmussen Reports’ first look at this contest. Four percent (4%) prefers some other candidate, while five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 11:02:10 AM
From: TideGlider4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224748
 
Election 2012: Wisconsin Senate
Wisconsin Senate: Thompson (R) 50%, Baldwin (D) 36%



Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Former Governor Tommy Thompson continues to be the strongest Republican contender for Wisconsin’s open U.S. Senate seat, now posting a double-digit lead over Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Wisconsin shows Thompson with 50% support to Baldwin’s 36%. Four percent (4%) like some other candidate, and 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 11:04:09 AM
From: TideGlider2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224748
 
Generic Congressional Ballot
Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 43%, Democrats 39%



Monday, February 27, 2012

Republicans hold a four-point lead over Democrats on the latest Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, Feb. 26.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican in their district’s congressional race if the election were held today, while 39% would choose the Democrat instead. Last week, the Republican led by just one point.

The national telephone survey of 3,500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports from February 20-26, 2012. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 2 percentage point with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (125289)3/2/2012 12:59:42 PM
From: TideGlider3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224748
 
Geithner Shows Own 'Amnesia' Over Bank Crisis: Bove



Timothy Geithner should have done more to stop the financial crisis before it started, rather than try now to impose unnecessary reforms on the banking system, analyst Dick Bove said.

In a a much-discussed op-ed piece Friday for The Wall Street Journal, Geithner says a collective "amnesia" about what caused the crisis drives opposition to reform. He adds that "financial safeguards" during the crisis that exploded in 2008 "were tragically antiquated and weak."

"Only four years after the financial crisis began to unfold, some people seem to be suffering from amnesia about how close America came to complete financial collapse under the outdated regulatory system we had before Wall Street reform," he writes.

But Bove, who is vice president of equity research at Rochdale Securities, said the Treasury secretary's memory may be a bit short as well.

Geithner, while at Treasury, supported the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley law that helped unleash the too-big-to-fail institutions that required bailouts, and failed to flag any of the financial system excesses, particularly in the mortgage market, that drove the crisis, Bove said.

"Quite frankly, I find this article almost unbelievable in its lack of veracity in explaining the past, and even more outrageous in failing to understand what has been done to harm the future," Bove wrote in an analysis.

When Geithner took over the New York Fed in 2003 he never protested excessive risk taking by banks, Bove said.

The crisis evolved following years of easy lending practices aimed at fostering home ownership. Excessive leverage by institutions such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers proved fatal when overnight lending operations dried up.

When the crisis exploded in 2008, Geithner worked with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to implement a variety of liquidity programs to help revive the system.

Instead of advocating bailouts, Geithner years earlier could have urged the Federal Reserve , where he was a member of the Open Markets Committee, to tighten monetary policy and curtail risk-taking, Bove said.

"There is no record that he understood the risks; disagreed with the Federal Reserve policies that fostered that risk; or took any substantive action to combat that risk," Bove said. "Mr. Geithner was part and parcel of the problem. Apparently he has forgotten that everything in his history suggests this."

In his opinion piece, Geithner argues that reforms, such as the Dodd-Frank regulations and the Volcker Rule that restricts banks from trading for their own benefit, will help prevent another collapse.

"The greater error would be for Congress or the regulators, under tremendous pressure from lobbyists, to once again exempt large swaths of the financial industry from rules against abuse," he wrote.

But Bove argues that the new reforms are not helping consumers, but rather driving banks out of business.

"If the political establishment actually believes what is written here," Bove said in reference to Geithner's Journal piece, "this country is in more danger than one imagines."

"More importantly, a) having a bunch of people who know virtually nothing about the financial system, b) pass laws to regulate that system in c) an environment of total hysteria fueled in part d) by political games playing can only result in disaster," he added. "The argument that these reforms would have stopped the crisis from developing had they been in the place is a lack of understanding as to how financial systems work."

Geithner did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Bove's critique.