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 : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: FJB who wrote (15845)5/11/2012 4:59:28 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 20106
 
New York Times Bows to Terrorism

by Cliff Kincaid — May 1, 2012
aim.org




Speaking at the April 25 New York Times annual meeting, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., chairman of The New York Times Company, tried to justify the rejection of an ad calling attention to the alleged oppressive nature of the Islamic religion and the “vengeful, hateful and violent teachings” of Islam’s prophet. He said the ad might incite violence in the Middle East.
At the same time, he justified the placement of an anti-Catholic ad in The New York Times by saying, “We take political ads that we do not agree with. That is the nature of advocacy advertising.”

Representing Accuracy in Media, a shareholder in the company for the purpose of getting access to the annual meetings, I told Sulzberger, his executives and other Times shareholders, “You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.”

The full-page, anti-Catholic ad ran on March 9 under the title “It’s time to quit the Catholic Church” and was sponsored by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. It showed a cartoon of a Catholic Bishop going berserk over a birth control pill and urged Catholics to leave the church.

The ad against radical Islam, designed to test the paper’s commitment to fairness and freedom of expression, had a cartoon of a radical Imam upset over a smoldering Koran. It was sponsored and signed by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer of Stop Islamization of Nations and the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

Addressing moderate Muslims, the ad said in part: “In light of the ongoing, ruthless, international jihad against non-Muslims, the 1,400-year record of institutionalized oppression of women, the 18,560 Islamic attacks across the world since 9/11, and the endangering of free peoples across the world, if you’re part of the Islamic jihad, you’re part of the problem.”

Questions over the ad were just one of several headaches for Sulzberger. Several stockholders took to the floor of the annual meeting to grill him over the paper’s editorial, news and advertising policies. One individual attacked the Times for an anti-Israel bias in its news coverage. Another said the company is unaccountable and does not answer legitimate questions from the public.

Sulzberger is also under a lot of pressure because of the company’s falling stock price and financial losses.

Fr. Colin McKenna of Sacred Heart Church in Georgetown, Connecticut, reamed Sulzberger over the anti-Catholic ad, wondering whether the paper would run an ad calling Islam’s Prophet Muhammad a pedophile for having a 6-year-old girl as a child bride.

McKenna, who said he had 100 shares in company stock, and that they had lost 50 percent of their value, said the paper was needlessly offending Catholics, who might be persuaded to buy the paper if it did not have such a strident anti-Catholic bias.

Sulzberger said the only ads the paper rejects are those which are obscene or dangerous to American soldiers. He did not elaborate on that latter point or allude to the fact that the Times had rejected other ads.

“Please do not confuse the ads we run with the positions we hold as journalists,” he said.

He failed to tell McKenna that the Times had rejected the Geller/Spencer ad that was supposed to run with the title of, “It’s Time to Quit Islam.”

We informed the shareholders, “…the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that in March you rejected a similar kind of ad directed at radical Islam submitted by Pamela Geller…You didn’t tell him [McKenna] that.”

Sulzberger shot back: “What I did say was that unless there’s an obscenity or it puts our troops in danger. I did say that sir. I did not mention the ad in particular.”

Sulzberger claimed that the Geller/Spencer ad would have endangered the lives of our troops in Afghanistan, at a time when there was a controversy and violence over the burning of Korans. “And that is why we chose not to run that ad,” he said. He called it a “unique” situation.

Sulzberger added: “If we had run that ad, and one of our troops had died because of it, you’d be here calling me a troop killer.”

Sulzberger did not explain to the shareholders how an ad in the print edition of the Times could have further incited terrorists in Afghanistan to kill American soldiers.

McKenna later told AIM that he was unfamiliar with the fact that the ad was rejected. The Times, of course, did not tell its readers about the rejection.

Pamela Geller rejected the Times’ rationale, saying, “It is most disingenuous for The New York Times to refuse to run our counter-jihad ad based on their ‘concern for US troops in Afghanistan.’ Liars. Who has done more to jeopardize our troops and American citizens than the pro-jihadist New York Times? They are notorious for their treasonous reportage.”

She explained that the paper has “done more to jeopardize the safety of our troops than any mainstream media outlet, with the possible exception of Newsweek. How many front page stories ran on Abu Ghraib? Who leaked the NSA wiretaps under FISA, jeopardizing not just troops but American citizens, or the highly classified Pentagon order authorizing special ops to hunt for al-Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan?”

Newsweek had run a phony story about American troops flushing a Koran down a toilet.

The rejection of the ad, Geller maintained, amounts to the paper enforcing Sharia, or Islamic law, for the radical Islamists. She added, “What is lower than using our brave men and women to cover for the Times’ cowardice and anti-freedom editorial policies?”

We told Sulzberger that his alleged concern for American lives in the Middle East was hard to believe, considering that the paper has been waging attacks on the New York City Police Department and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for conducting surveillance of radical Muslims in order to prevent terrorist attacks.

Just three days after the annual meeting, the Times launched an attack on the FBI for trying to prevent terrorist attacks. The opinion piece by David K. Shipler, a former Times reporter, criticized the agency for using undercover agents and informants to identify and apprehend potential Islamic terrorists.

It carried the headline, “Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I.,” as if the FBI was to blame for Islamists expressing their desire and willingness to engage in anti-American terrorism.

Rusty Weiss, author of an AIM Center for Investigative Journalism report on the Times campaign against the NYPD, said the attack on the FBI provides additional proof that the paper regards law enforcement as the problem, not the radical Islamists.



To: FJB who wrote (15845)5/21/2012 5:12:49 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 20106
 
Obama Sells Out US to the muslims

As Obama Preaches Patience, Mattis Prepares for War With Iran


by Eli Lake May 21, 2012
thedailybeast.com

Exclusive: CentCom commander’s call for third Persian Gulf carrier group was rejected, reports Eli Lake.


As Western diplomats meet this week in Baghdad to try to coax Iran’s leaders to disclose its full nuclear program, Gen. James Mattis will be keeping an eye on the Persian military.

Mattis wanted to send a third aircraft-carrier group to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, The Daily Beast has exclusively learned, in what would have been a massive show of force at a time when Iranian military commanders were publicly threatening to sink American ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The four-star Marine Corps general and CentCom commander believed the display could have deterred Iran from further escalating tensions, according to U.S. military officials familiar with his thinking.

But the president wanted to focus military resources on new priorities like China, and Mattis was told a third carrier group was not available to be deployed to the Gulf.

The carrier-group rebuff in January was one of several for the commander responsible for East Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Working for the Obama administration, Mattis has often found himself the odd man out—particularly when it comes to Iran.

Military sources close to the general tell The Beast that Mattis was worried that the president’s decision, announced in November, to fully withdraw from Iraq would leave the U.S. military without access to the country’s bases and with few options to project power in the region. The military had been negotiating with the Iraqi government for continued access to bases there for some intelligence, training, and counterterrorism missions until Obama announced his decision to the press in November.

“General Mattis is a key player in administration debates and a vital implementer of the administration’s policies,” said Denis McDonough, a deputy national-security adviser and one of President Obama’s most trusted advisers on foreign affairs.

Those who have worked with Mattis say his views when it comes to Iran are more in line with those of America’s allies in the Persian Gulf and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than with his own government’s. At a recent charity event for Spirit of America, Mattis, known by admirers as the “warrior monk” and by detractors as “Mad Dog Mattis,” said his three top concerns in the Middle East were “Iran, Iran, and Iran.”

Gen. James Mattis, the head of U.S. Central Command, wanted to send a third aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf earlier this year, but the president wanted to focus military resources on new priorities like China. Mattis was told a third carrier group was not available. (Matt Dunham / AP Photo)


The official U.S. national-intelligence estimate on Iran concludes that the country suspended its nuclear-weapons work in 2003, but sources close to the general say he believes that Iran has restarted its weapons work and has urged his analysts to disregard the official estimate.

While Mattis has largely voiced his dissent about recent U.S. Iran assessments in private, on occasion his displeasure has spilled into the public record. In March, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Mattis, “After all the sanctions that have been imposed on the Iranian regime, do you believe the regime has been at all dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear-weapons capability?”

Mattis responded: “No, sir, I have not seen that.”


The general also serves as a critical liaison with America’s Arab allies in the Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which share Israel’s concern about Iran’s nuclear program. Since 2007 the United States has approved an unprecedented level of arms sales to those countries.

“General Mattis is reflecting two pretty traditional concerns,” said Thomas Donnelly, the codirector of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “One is that of a regional commander who has to every day deal with our allies and partners in the region that do not fear Israel, but do fear Iran.”

“There isn’t a single other leader in government who doesn’t share some concern over the direction Iran is headed.”

At times, Mattis has even served as an important interlocutor with the Israelis—even though Israel is the one Middle Eastern country that does not fall within his area of responsibility. According to U.S. and Israeli officials, Mattis has had regular contact with Maj. Gen. Gadi Shamni, the military attaché at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. These meetings are not on the public schedule and are often over dinner, according to these sources.

Mattis’s unsuccessful push for a third carrier group was a significant request. There are only 11, and that number will go down to 10 this year when the USS Enterprise is decommissioned after 50 years. And Obama’s new military strategy unveiled in January calls for a beefed-up military presence in the Pacific Ocean to counter China.

The general did get an afloat forward staging base, or AFSB, a floating dock that can host smaller aircraft or launch the rigid-hull inflatable speedboats favored by special forces—though in February Adm. John Harvey, commander of fleet forces, denied press reports that the AFSB would be used as a SEAL mothership.

“It appears that General Mattis is at the point where he knows his power projected from land will decrease over time with the close of two land-centered wars,” said Peter Daly, the chief executive officer of the U.S. Naval Institute. Daly retired from the Navy in August with the rank of vice admiral. His last job was as deputy commander of U.S. fleet forces, the Navy’s broker in the global-force-management process that the U.S. military uses to determine where to place its numerous assets.

“Unlike the past, where we’ve had permission to go into these other countries and operate, that is less likely in the future. It is appealing to operate from the sea, where you do not need permission.”

Mattis was commanding his area of responsibility in an “outstanding manner and with great skill,” said George Little, a spokesman for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Little added: “The secretary trusts his judgment implicitly on some of the most pressing security and military challenges of our time, including the war in Afghanistan. General Mattis is seasoned, studied, and the consummate warrior. He is also among the best of advisers, candid and honest, and always in keeping with—and in full support of—our national interests. He’s one of America’s finest military leaders.”

A senior U.S. defense official acknowledged that Mattis has differences with the White House on Iran. “He’s doing exactly what we need any combatant commander to do: telling us what he thinks he needs, giving us his perspective on the problems he faces,” this official said. “That’s what you want. That’s what you expect. And he does it all privately, with all the more credibility. There isn’t a single other leader in government who doesn’t share some concern over the direction Iran is headed.”

Mattis declined to comment for this article.



Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and the Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush’s axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.





To: FJB who wrote (15845)5/29/2012 10:16:18 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 20106
 
Commerce considers labeling Arab Americans a disadvantaged minority

By Rachel Leven - 05/29/12
thehill.com

The Commerce Department is considering naming Arab Americans a socially and economically disadvantaged minority group that is eligible for special business assistance.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) petitioned Commerce earlier this year to ask that Arab Americans be made eligible for the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), which helps minority entrepreneurs gain access to capital, contracts and trade opportunities.

The ADC petition cited “discrimination and prejudice in American society[,] resulting in conditions under which Arab-American individuals have been unable to compete in a business world.” The group claimed discrimination against Arab Americans increased after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The ADC petition asserts that, in the government’s efforts to protect Americans, they essentially took away the rights of other Americans,” according to the notice of proposed rulemaking about the petition.

Commerce is asking for comment about whether there is social and economic discrimination against Arab Americans, along with examples of it occurring. The MBDA will decide whether or not to accept the petition by June 27.

In making the case for minority status, ADC highlighted the National Security Entry Exit Registration System, "which required non-immigrants to register at ports of entry and targeted males from Arab nations; stricter travel guidelines; and ‘no-fly lists’ that predominantly contained the names of Arab-Americans," according to MBDA’s summary of the petition.

The petition also said studies indicate that Arab Americans have seen their earnings decrease since Sept. 11 compared to other ethnic groups, and have been subject to harassment and racial profiling while receiving “few prime government contracts.”

The ADC wants any “American who traces his or her ethnic roots to one of the countries in the Arab World, including Algeria, Bahrain, Djoubti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen” to be eligible for MBDA services. Palestinians would also be included.

MBDA services are now offered to African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Spanish-speaking Americans, American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, Hasidic Jews, Asian-Pacific Americans and Asian Indians.




To: FJB who wrote (15845)5/30/2012 9:30:23 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 20106
 
Some 'numbers' about the Religion of "peace"

Two-Thirds of Likely US Voters Are Islamo-Realistic
May 15, 2012 Andrew G. Bostom


... After nearly 19,000 jihadist attacks since 9/11/2001, perhaps these somber, if Islamo-Realistic views, are influenced by a phenomenon Nicolai Sennels characterized in his essay, and plea for moral clarity in nomenclature, "Islamonausea, not Islamophobia."
americanthinker.com

Islamic Extremists Use 'Civil Rights' Group Front to Push Agenda - Family Security Matters
by STEVE EMERSON March 26, 2009

... Groups like CAIR deny the very existence of radical Islam and blame the problem on "hatemongers." I am sorry to tell Mr. Ayloush that the primary factor causing an image problem for Islam today is the existence of rampant Islamic terrorism and extremism. CAIR says that the term "Islamic terrorist" is racist and that terrorism has no religion. I wish it he could have convinced the 19 Muslim hijackers on September 11th or the four UK Muslims who bombed a London subway in July 2005 or any of those responsible for more than 50,000 attacks carried in the name of Islam. All of these were Islamic terrorists motivated by their particular belief in Islam.
familysecuritymatters.org

The lesson of Ghailani's trial fiasco Al-Qaida declared war on the US in 1998, so let's not be moral idiots: try their combatants in Guantánamo, not civilian courts
Pamela Geller guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 17 November 2010 23.18 EST

... There have been close to 20,000 documented Islamist-inspired attacks worldwide since 9/11; all were inspired by the same Islamic jihadi ideology and given the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric. This is war. It takes incomprehensible delusion and a denial of objective reality to think that combatants in that war are comparable to civilian criminals and should be tried in the same way.
guardian.co.uk