Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (389)	12/10/2012 2:19:25 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Jamie Glazov: Female Genital Mutilation: An Islamic Crime At FrontPage this morning Jamie Glazov tells truths about FGM that the Western Leftist intelligentsia seems determined to ignore or deny: Asia News recently reported how the misogynist crime of female genital mutilation (FGM) continues to be a “widespread traditional practice” in “rural areas and more remote areas of Indonesia, particularly the island of Java.” The story makes sure to remind us, naturally, that while this crime is being perpetrated in a Muslim country, the crime “is not a rule set in a rigid manner by the precepts of Islam.” It is only widespread, we are consoled, because of the actions of “the more extreme and integral fringe.” In her coverage of this news report, freedom fighter Pamela Geller shrewdly asksthe key question that somehow mysteriously eludes the minds of every breathing human being in our mainstream media: “The fringe made it widespread?” Indeed, if only the “extreme and integral fringe” supports this sadistic and vicious crime against women, and if it is “not a rule set in a rigid manner by the precepts of Islam,” then where are all the Muslim imams, muftis and clerics in the world, and in Indonesia in particular, vociferously denouncing and repudiating this crime as un-Islamic and coming to the defense of Muslim women? Why haven’t they shut down this crime against women, since it is, after all, so un-Islamic? Where are all the tens of thousands of Muslims gathering in mass demonstrations around the world shouting in moral indignation and fury about their young little Muslim girls having their clitorises cut out with broken glass and being maimed for life, as they do about Danish cartoons and American movies? Why do cartoons and films mean more to them than the brutal maiming of their women? Hmmm. What a great mystery this continues to be. One can’t help from wondering: could it all have something possibly to do with the fact that female genital mutilation is rooted in Islam and integral to its misogynist structures? Pamela Geller gives us the easy answer – an answer you shouldn’t hold your breath waiting to hear on Anderson Cooper, Geraldo or Pierce Morgan, since uncomfortable answers can’t be given when pertinent questions are never asked in our mainstream media. Geller affirms that this Islam-denial coverage of FGM in Asia News “is just more whitewashing of Islam’s human rights abuses.” She points out that FGM is “fundamentally Islamic” and cites its foundation in Islamic texts such as Umdat al-Salik: “Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris.” Sacred Islamic Reliance: page 59, Umdat al-Salik (“Reliance of the Traveler”), a manual of the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence, endorsed by Egypt’s very own Al-Azhar University of Cairo — the oldest and most prestigious university in the Islamic world. FGM is indeed fundamentally Islamic. Why would it not be when one of Sunni Islam’s “Four Great Imams,” Ahmad ibn Hanbal, quotes Muhammed as saying: “Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women?” Perhaps this is why Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi of Egypt’s Al-Azhar University has called circumcision “a laudable practice that did honor to women.” And so perhaps it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why in Muslim Egypt, like in Indonesia, the crime of FGM is perpetrated on a massive level. Even when the Egyptian government tried to ban FGM back in 1996, an Egyptian court overturned the ban in July 1997 because of the ferocious uprising it sparked among Islamic clerics, who fervently pointed to Islamic teachings to make sure this crime against women remained firm in place. And it is clear, of course, why FGM is so important and crucial to Islam; crippling women’s sexuality solidifies the misogynist structures of Islamic gender apartheid. Keeping FGM legitimized and institutionalized helps keep women subjugated and caged. By amputating the clitoris, Islam’s mutilators succeed in maiming the woman’s sexual desire and pleasure, which, in the morbid Islamic mindset, reduces the chances that she will ever toy with the horrifying notions (for Islam) of autonomy, equality and self-determination. But how can we possibly help Muslim girls if our society forbids us to confront this Islamic crime and the theology in which it is rooted? And that’s where we tragically stand: while millions of young Muslim girls suffer the mutilating barbarity of female genital mutilation in the Islamic world every year, our mainstream media and higher literary culture remains completely silent about it – and slanders the truth tellers like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer who want to come to the aid of Muslim women. credit longnshort

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (389)	12/11/2012 1:20:06 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Democrats' Assault on Language Townhall.com ^ \| December 11, 2012 \| Lurita Doan Now, even our language is under assault. Americans are no longer arguing about increasingly misleading and dodgy ways to represent the budget numbers, but are now battling over the meaning of the words being used by both sides in these arguments. Consider Mr. Obama’s primary contention that the millionaires and billionaires (defined, without any sense of irony, as those making $250,000 a year) need to pay “just a little bit more” in taxes. The president contends that raising taxes to 39% on the top 2% will generate $1.6 trillion dollars over 10 years with no adverse effects to job growth. • Barack Obama, has said "We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more." • Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, has said: "people making all this money have to contribute a little bit more," • Dick Durbin, Senate Majority Whip, has said; " let the tax rates go up to 39 percent", that's it's okay for the wealthy to pay "just a bit more". • According to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), "At a time when middle class families continue to struggle, it’s only fair to call on the wealthiest Americans to pay just a bit more toward their fair share,” Murray said after the vote". • Peter Orszag (former head of OMB) claims: calling for the wealthy to pay "just a bit more" in order to achieve needed compromise on taxes and debt, is a reasonable and moderate approach. However, in the Democrat's lexicon, what constitutes " just a bit more" changes dramatically when referring to calls for cuts of $400 billion in entitlement reform. Suddenly, much smaller calls for cuts of $400 billion are defined as imprudent "hacking away", "a gusher" and "hemorrhaging.", Yet, the president's plan to raise $1.6 trillion (or about 4 times that amount) in new taxes are described as “just a little bit.” Remember the Paul Ryan Budget that called for $1.4 trillion in cuts to Medicaid? That plan was quickly called a "draconian", effort to punish the poor and elderly. If $1.6 trillion is defined by Mr. Obama as “just a little bit”, how then can a smaller number be defined as a draconian slash designed to punish? But, all of this, Mr. Obama tells us, is in the pursuit of a “balanced approach”. Words do matter, and according to Socrates' Law of Identity, A=A. Or, as John Stuart Mill explains: "Whatever is true in one form of words, is true in every other form of words, which conveys the same meaning". So, if 1.6 trillion dollars is "gouging" and "draconian" when talking about entitlement spending cuts, then $1.6 trillion dollars is "gouging" and "draconian" when talking about tax increases. We seem to have reached a sad impasse: even before members of Congress can agree on a course of action to avert the fiscal cliff, they need to agree on what words they use. During the last election, Democrats proved their ability to inflame and to misdirect attention away from the president's failed policies, while obfuscating the very real financial crisis our country is facing. Inciting class warfare and racial tensions with the careful use of loaded words has become a Democrat stock in trade whenever there are difficult policy decisions to be made. The question is: how can Republicans negotiate with Democrats when the two parties clearly speak different languages?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (389)	12/13/2012 10:26:27 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 16547

Far-Left University of Chicago to Bulldoze Ronald Reagan's Early Childhood Home OF COURSE- All Commies Despise Him: Far-Left University of Chicago to Bulldoze Ronald Reagan's Early Childhood Home And for a 'grassy strip' adjacent to 'new parking lot' 13 December 2012 reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com Latest news out of the communist stronghold known as the University of Chicago -you know, same U of C that made Bill Ayers a professor and found Obama a faux teaching gig to pad his micron-thin resume- is that a childhood home to young Ronald Reagan is about to be leveled so the University can build -get ready for it- 'a grassy strip' next to a new parking lot... All of Ronald Reagan's formative years, from birth until he landed his first job across the Mississippi 21 years later, were lived in rural northwestern Illinois except for about ten months in Chicago. In all but one case, his rural boyhood homes have been preserved. His birthplace in Tampico looks as it did when he was born and is open to the public. So is his teen years home in Dixon. The house the Reagans lived in for two years in Galesburg has been lovingly restored by its private owner. Their house in Monmouth is the only home that is closed... Reagan's father, Jack, a shoe salesmen by trade, moved the family from Tampico at the beginning of 1915 after his boss in Tampico sold his dry goods store. He got a job at the big Fair Store on Chicago's south side, thinking his career would take off there. They rented a cold-water flat in a four-story apartment building at 832 East 57th Street in the Hyde Park neighborhood. Young "Dutch" Reagan (that was his nickname from birth until he moved to Hollywood in 1937) had his first memories in that flat. In a letter years later, he writes about the thrill of seeing horses pulling the fire wagon down the street at a gallop. February 6 that year marked his fourth birthday... The building the Reagans lived in is about to be demolished. The land now belongs to the University of Chicago's Medical Center and the plan is to replace it with a grassy strip bordering what will be a new parking lot. The Commission on Chicago Landmarks turned down an appeal to give the building landmark status on the grounds that it "does not have sufficient architectural significance" and "is not associated with Mr. Reagan during his active and productive years." ... The demolition is scheduled to take place by the end of this year. Meanwhile, while the university is more-or-less ignoring the Reagan home preservation effort, it is actively lobbying for an Obama Presidential Library... eaga