Remove this ad

3/22 TUESDAY Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership

Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    


0 Points

Lead

Mar 22 11 11:42 AM

Tags : :

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article1158818.ece

Judge orders use of Islamic law in Tampa lawsuit over mosque leadership


TAMPA — The question of what law applies in any Florida courtroom usually comes down to two choices: federal or state.
But Hillsborough Circuit Judge Richard Nielsen is being attacked by conservative bloggers after he ruled in a lawsuit March 3 that, to resolve one crucial issue in the case, he will consult a different source.
"This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."
Nielsen said he will decide in a lawsuit against a local mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, whether the parties in the litigation properly followed the teachings of the Koran in obtaining an arbitration decision from an Islamic scholar.
The suit was filed by several men who say they were improperly ousted as trustees in 2002. The dispute may decide who controls $2.2 million the center received from the state after some of its land was used in a road project.
But attorney Paul Thanasides last week appealed Nielson's decision with the 2nd District Court of Appeal, saying religion has no place in a secular court.
His client: the mosque.
"The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Koran and its teachings," Thanasides said Monday. "They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts."
The four ex-trustees suing the center did not return calls for comment. And attorneys representing them declined comment.
Nielsen, an appointee of Gov. Jeb Bush in 2000 who was subsequently elected, also did not return calls for comment.
The judge's ruling comes as conservative lawmakers in Florida and around the nation are increasingly discussing legislation to ban or curtail the use of Islamic law, sometimes called sharia law, in U.S. courts.
Two Florida Republicans, Sen. Alan Hays and Rep. Larry Metz, this month announced legislation to prevent Islamic law, or any foreign legal code, from being applied in state courts.
The Tampa case is drawing attention from some who cite it as proof judges are improperly using foreign law.
"Florida has joined the march towards Sharia," a writer on the Constitution Club blog said.
Markus Wagner, a professor of international law at the University of Miami School of Law, said it is not improper for a judge to use foreign law in an arbitration if all the parties agree to do so.
"If we both sign a contract agreeing to be governed by German law, then Florida courts will interpret German law," he said.
Others are less certain, including Neelofer Syed, a Tampa immigration lawyer who is a guest lecturer on Islamic law at Stetson University College of Law.
The mosque, she said, is incorporated under the laws of Florida and so is ruled by state law.
"I think the judge's ruling is flawed," Syed said. "If you live in a country, you are subject to that country's laws."
Just about everything involving the arbitration is in dispute.
An a'lim, a Muslim scholar trained in Islam and Islamic law, said the parties agreed to his arbitration if the lawsuit against individual trustees was dismissed. This occurred, though the ousted trustees then re-filed against the mosque itself.
Thanasides said the mosque's directors would have to appoint a representative to participate in any legally binding arbitration.
That, he said, didn't happen because the board was never notified of the arbitration.
Thanasides said the arbitration was not binding on the mosque for a litany of reasons. He said the mosque was not properly notified of the proceeding and did not participate. He questioned whether the a'lim had proper standing to decide anything.
He also questioned whether the arbitration actually took place, noting two participants the a'lim said were present were overseas at the time.
The a'lim ruled in a Dec. 28 decision that the ex-trustees were ousted improperly.
The ex-trustees then asked Judge Nielsen to enforce the arbitration award, which could wrest control of the money from the mosque's current leaders.
Thanasides said using Islamic law to decide the issue violates the U.S. Constitution. He said existing Florida law governs arbitration findings. At a hearing in January, Nielsen disagreed.
"It appears that the Koran provides that where two or more brothers have a dispute, they are first required to try to resolve the dispute among themselves," the judge told attorneys, according to a transcript of proceedings.
"If that does not occur, they can agree to present the dispute to the greater community of brothers within the mosque or the Muslim community. And if that is not done, or does not result in a resolution of the dispute, then it is to be presented to an Islamic judge …
"The next question is whether the proper procedures have occurred. … Did they properly invoke the use of … an Islamic judge or an Islamic A'lim?"
In an appeal of the judge's decision, Thanasides wrote, "The First Amendment restricts courts' authority to review, interpret and apply religious law because these actions interfere with a party's right to choose, free from state involvement, the religious dogma it will follow."
The judge said he would use Islamic law to decide only the legitimacy of arbitration.
"What law would we be applying (at) trial?" Thanasides asked.
"That trial would be civil law," the judge said. "Florida law."

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Mar 22 11 11:49 AM

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110321/163134252.html

Russia's Zhirinovsky calls to revoke Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

 
Russia's head of the Liberal Democratic Party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, has appealed to the Nobel Prize Committee to revoke U.S. President Barack Obama's Nobel Prize, the party's press service said in a statement on Monday.
Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his commitment to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
"The situation in Libya is yet another shocking act of aggression by NATO forces and in particular by the United States. This is a clear reflection of colonial policy. This is another crude invasion into the domestic affairs of an independent state. There is only one goal: to take control of Libyan oil and the Libyan regime and not saving the Libyan people," the press service quoted Zhirinovsky as saying.
The colorful and flamboyant leader of Russia's LDPR party plans to meet with Libyan Ambassador to Russia Amir al-Arabi on Wednesday to discuss the latest events in the North African country.
Earlier Zhirinovsky called on the Muslim world to support Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and sent an official letter to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen demanding the immediate stop to the military operation in Libya.
A military operation against Libya's strongman Gaddafi, who has ruled the country with an iron fist for more than 40 years, began on Saturday. On Monday, Western forces launched a second wave of air strikes on Gaddafi's positions under a UN resolution authorizing military action to protect Libyan civilians.
NATO has so far not indicated if it will participate in the operation.
Libyan television has reported that at least 50 civilians have been killed and over 150 wounded in the UN strikes and that many health and education facilities have been destroyed.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Mar 22 11 11:50 AM

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=592071&vId=

Take Obama's Peace Prize


Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize to be revoked following his decision to attack Libya.
'Two years ago we heard that President Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but is he defending peace in the world now, or isn't he instead fomenting violence?' Morales told reporters, days after Obama ordered the bombing of Libya military targets as part of an UN-approved effort to protect civilians.
'How is it possible to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who has launched an invasion, a bombing? It's a violation, an assault, an aggression,' said Morales, one of Latin America's most left-leaning leaders and a vocal critic of the United States.
'Obama is the leader of group of thugs who led an assault and an invasion - and that has nothing to do with defending human rights,' he declared.
Obama receive the prize in December 2009, less than a year after taking office.
In his acceptance speech in Oslo, Obama referred to himself as 'the commander-in-chief of a nation in the midst of two wars' and said armed conflict was at times necessary.
Obama gave his $US1.4 million ($A1.4 million) Nobel Peace Prize award money to 10 charities, including groups working on Haiti relief and supporting military families

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Mar 22 11 11:51 AM

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4045778,00.html

Report: Turkey discovers weapons in Iran plane


Turkish media reports plane forced to land in southeast Turkey carried rocket launchers, mortars, rifles and explosive materials Weapons were found on an Iranian cargo plane forced to land in southeast Turkey on Saturday, Turkish media reported Tuesday.


According to reports, the arms plane left Tehran with military ammunition for Syria. Several crates containing weapons and ammunition were removed from the aircraft.


Turkish media reported that the plane was forced to land in a military airfield at the United Nations' request following information indicating it was carrying nuclear materials. It was further reported that rocket launchers, mortars, rifles and explosive materials were found in one of the main cabinets on the plane.


Turkish newspapers stated this was the first time that a plane was forced to land in such circumstances since 2006.


Last Wednesday, another Iranian plane was forced to land in Turkey. The Turkish foreign ministry said at the time no suspicious materials were found.

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Mar 22 11 11:53 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-Obamas-coalition-unwilling-asks-does-West-right-kill-Gaddafi.html

Who's in charge? NATO members squabble over who leads Libyan bombings...and they can't even agree whether to assassinate Gaddafi



  • Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
  • No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
  • Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
  • NATO baulks at taking over operation with Turkey and European countries unwilling
  • Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians
A war of words has erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.
U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader and that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.
Unsure: Libyan rebels retreat from the outskirts of the city of Ajdabiya, south of Benghazi. Nato members are also fighting over who will take command of allied forces

Unsure: Libyan rebels retreat from the outskirts of the city of Ajdabiya, south of Benghazi. Nato members are also fighting over who will take command of allied forces


Strikel: Gaddafi's forces have taken a pounding from allied air offensives. The news comes as Italy has warned it may withdraw use of its military bases if no NATO agreement is reached

Strikel: Gaddafi's forces have taken a pounding from allied air offensives. The news comes as Italy has warned it may withdraw use of its military bases if no NATO agreement is reached

President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces within days, handing the reins over to NATO.
But Germany and European allies remain unwilling to have NATO take on a military operation that theoretically has nothing to do with the defence of Europe.
France, which launched the initial air strikes on Libya on Saturday, has argued against giving the U.S.-led NATO political control over an operation in an Arab country, while Turkey has called for limits to any alliance involvement.
Some allies are even questioning whether a no-fly zone is still necessary, given the damage already done by air strikes to Gaddafi's military capabilities.

Who is providing what in the war effort

  • US: B-2 stealth bombers; EA-18G Growler and AV-8B Harrier aircraft; destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; amphibious assault ship USS Kearsage; command and control vessel USS Mount Whitney; submarines
  • France: Rafale and Mirage aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and escort ships
  • UK: Typhoon and Tornado aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; Trafalgar-class submarine firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland
  • Italy: Tornado aircraft; providing military bases
  • Canada: F-18 aircraft; frigate HMCS Charlottetown
  • Spain: F-18 aircraft; refuelling and surveillance aircraft; frigate and submarine; military bases
  • Denmark: F-16 aircraft
  • Belgium: F-16 aircraft
Speaking about the hastily arranged meeting of NATO allies, one diplomat said: 'Yesterday's meeting became a little bit emotional,' before adding that France had argued that the coalition led by Britain, the United States and France should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.
'Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn't make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,' the diplomat added.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.
'There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,' he told news channel CNN Turk.
Adding pressure to the already fractured alliance, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has also reiterated a warning that Italy would take back control of airbases it has authorised for use by allies for operations over Libya unless a NATO coordination structure was agreed.

In the U.S. Mr Obama has made it clear he wants no part of any leadership role in Libya.
The President has already been criticised for continuing with a tour of Latin America as the military operation over Libya began. And yesterday he insisted again that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. is not prepared to remove him by force, but merely to enforce the no-fly zone.

Even that hesitant stance, which has already earned him the title of the Great Vacillator, left him criticised for not seeking proper approval from Congress before sending the American military in.

And after reports emerged that Gaddafi's son had been killed in a kamikaze strike yesterday, fresh questions over what exactly the U.S. intends to achieve in Libya emerged.

With Turkey digging its heels in and the Arab League suspicious, Fox News pointed out that Mr Obama has fewer coalition partners in Libya than George Bush did at the start of the Iraq war.
He was criticised by both Republicans and Democrats over his decision to commit the U.S. military before going to Congress.

Representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Barbara Lee of California, Michael Capuano of Massachusetts, Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland all complained that Mr Obama had exceeded his constitutional authority by authorizing the attack without Congressional permission.

 

Floundering: Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, participate in a reception in La Moneda Palace in Santiago, Chile, last night
Colonel Gaddafi and Nicolas Sarkozy in France (file photo)

Floundering: Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, participate in a reception in La Moneda Palace in Santiago, Chile, last night, left. Right, Colonel Gaddafi and Nicolas Sarkozy in France (file photo)

Destruction: A blackened wreck from Gaddafi's bombed-out armoured column outside Benghazi

Destruction: A blackened wreck from Gaddafi's bombed-out armoured column outside Benghazi


The President hit back in a two-page letter to Congress and, speaking from Chile today, again reiterated his claim that while Gaddafi must go, the U.S. was only in Libya to enforce the no-fly zone for the protection of civilians.

The U.S. had expected Nato to announce yesterday that it was set to take over the military incursion into the North African country. But Germany and other European countries are balking over Nato's role in the conflict - which could see responsibility left up to the UK and France.
France has already taken a leading role in the conflict, with President Nicolas Sarkozy hosting a summit in Paris over the weekend and French bombers being the first to enforce the no-fly zone.


 

But last night Britain's top general was embroiled in an extraordinary clash with Downing Street over the legality of a strike to kill Gaddafi.
No 10 slapped down Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards after he flatly rejected ministers’ suggestions that the Libyan dictator was a legitimate target for assassination.

Downing Street and Foreign Office officials were quick to dispute that – saying assassinating Gaddafi would be legal because it would preserve civilian lives in Libya.
A suspected Gaddafi supporter is captured by rebel fighters on a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah earlier today

A suspected Gaddafi supporter is captured by rebel fighters on a road between Benghazi and Ajdabiyah earlier today


Force: A rebel fighter walks towards a suspected Gaddafi supporter along the Benghazi-Ajdabiyah road near yesterday

Force: A rebel fighter walks towards a suspected Gaddafi supporter along the Benghazi-Ajdabiyah road near yesterday

But U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates quickly slapped the suggestion down, and described the calls for Gaddafi’s killing ‘unwise’. 
Desperately trying to keep the mission on track, he warned that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.
‘If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,’ he said.  ‘I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.’

Were journalists used as human shields by Gaddafi

A vicious war of words has broken out between TV networks Fox news and CNN.
On Monday a Fox website reported journalists from several news organisations being used as 'human shields' to stop a British air strike on a Gaddafi compound.
The 40 journalists were bused to the site on the invitation of Libyan government officials.
The Fox report said the trip was part of a plan by Gaddafi officials to prevent the planes releasing their bombs.
Nic Robertson, a veteran CNN correspondent who was part of the CNN crew mentioned in the Fox story, called the rival network's report 'outrageous and hypocritical.'
Mr Robertson added that a Fox journalist was part of the trip, a fact left out of the network's web report.

Mr Obama has not directly discussed the military action with British Prime Minister David Cameron since it began on Saturday – an omission that would have been unthinkable under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
The public spat just days into the operation highlighted growing tensions about ‘mission creep’ in the assault on Gaddafi.
Meanwhle, the coalition abandoned a further raid by Tornado bombers when SAS soldiers on the ground warned that civilians and journalists were being used as human shields.
And Russian premier Vladimir Putin provocatively likened the UN-backed mission to the medieval crusades.
On Saturday Gaddafi's son was said to have been killed in a Tomahawk missile strike on the dictator's compound carried out by the British submarine HMS Triumph.
And soon afterwards, it was reduced to rubble by a precision strike from the 1,000lb weapons. The block was about 150 yards from the tents which the Libyan leader uses as his official residence.
It is not known where the dictator was at the time of the bombing but he has not been seen or heard since the attack. He may have fled into the desert. Senior government sources described the hugely symbolic strike at the heart of his regime as a ‘shot across his bows’.
But there was outright condemnation from Russian premier Vladimir Putin, who gave fuel to Muslim critics of the attacks by branding the UN resolution backing the use of force – a resolution on which Russia abstained – a return to the Crusades.
‘The resolution is defective and flawed,’ said Mr Putin. ‘It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades.’
Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League said that while he supports a no-fly zone, ‘the Arab League was against aerial bombing in principle’.
The North Atlantic Council will meet today to thrash out the differences as every Nato country must agree the plans.
Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan called for air strikes to end ‘as soon as possible’.
‘If Nato is going into operation we have some conditions,’ Mr Erdogan said. ‘Nato should go in with the recognition and acknowledgement that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth.’
Defiant: A supporter of Gaddafi shows pieces of shrapnel, believed to be bits of the cruise missile that destroyed an administrative building at the colonel's compound

Defiant: A supporter of Gaddafi shows pieces of shrapnel, believed to be bits of the cruise missile that destroyed an administrative building at the colonel's compound


Surveying the damage: Libyan army soldiers stand amid the wreckage of the administration building inside Bab Al-Aziziyah, Gaddafi's heavily fortified compound in Tripoli where 300 people were reported to be at the time of the attack

Surveying the damage: Libyan army soldiers stand amid the wreckage of the administration building inside Bab Al-Aziziyah, Gaddafi's heavily fortified compound in Tripoli where 300 people were reported to be at the time of the attack

Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said legal procedures for establishing a coalition ‘were not sufficiently respected’ by the West.

Mr Cameron responded: ‘There are millions in the Arab world who frankly want to know that the UN, the U.S., the UK, the French [and] the international community care about their suffering and their oppression.’
Defence officials say Qatari warplanes are to join the no-fly zone operation and the United Arab Emirates is being pressured to help too.
Fight back: Libyan rebels unload rocket propelled grenades from a car as they massed for a second day to try to attack government forces

Fight back: Libyan rebels unload rocket propelled grenades from a car as they massed for a second day to try to attack government forces



A rebel fighter points his gun at a suspected Gaddafi supporter as other rebels try to protect him

A rebel fighter points his gun at a suspected Gaddafi supporter as other rebels try to protect him



 

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:19 PM

http://wvgazette.com/News/Business/201103211014

FBI center takes on $1 billion ID project
 
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- The Clarksburg FBI complex is taking part in a $1 billion project that will enable law enforcement agencies to identify criminals and terrorists by physical characteristics more quickly and accurately, an FBI official said Monday in Charleston.
Earlier this month, the FBI center unveiled its "Next Generation Identification System," which will slowly replace an older system that can no longer handle the volume of fingerprints sent to Clarksburg.
"It's bigger, better, faster," said Stephen Morris, a deputy assistant director at the FBI Center. "It increases capacity and accuracy."
Morris spoke Monday at a Charleston Rotary Club luncheon at the Civic Center.
The NGI system, built by Lockheed Martin, allows FBI employees to conduct automated fingerprint searches and exchange information with more than 18,000 law enforcement agencies.
The FBI's fingerprint examining staff also received new "advanced technology workstations" that will help increase accuracy, Morris said.
Under the system, state and local police officers also will eventually use hand-held devices to scan suspects' fingerprints and send the images electronically to the FBI center.
"It's a quick scan to let police officers know if they should let the person go, or take him into custody," Morris said.
In later stages, NGI system also will be expanded to include the analysis of palm prints, handwriting, faces, human irises and voices.
"Our job is to study those and see how reliable they are for law enforcement," Morris said.
The FBI plans to increase the size of the Clarksburg complex significantly with the opening of a new 350,000-square-foot Biometric Technology Center in 2014, Morris said. The FBI plans to share the facility with the U.S. Department of Defense.
The FBI center, which opened in 1995, now has about 2,500 full-time workers and another 500 contract employees.
The center analyzes and identifies nearly 168,000 fingerprints a day on average. The fingerprints are used to solve investigations, prevent crime and identify criminals and terrorists.

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:36 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34691

Preening before underprivileged children in Latin America

Obama ignoring `Spiral of Silence’ shroud on Costa Rica

 

Count it as one of el Presidente’s biggest Latin hypocrisies that while the Obamas are preening themselves before underprivileged children in Chile that the “spiral of silence”  covers the aggression of Nicaragua’s Sandinista government against Costa Rica.

Some nations are increasingly more equal than others while the concept of “democracy” is getting to be all but owned by the Muslim Brotherhood since the Obama-enabled uprisings in .

Democracy does not include Costa Rica, whose Calero Island has been under Sandinista occupation since last November.

 

There was no `democracy advocate’ Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn or Code Pink around Calero Island when the Sandinistas invaded it.  And the silence from Barack on Costa Rica is anything but golden.

Surely true believers of democracy must have laughed outright earlier this month when the International Court of Justice ordered that Costa Rica and Nicaragua both must refrain from sending or maintaining civilians, security forces or police in a disputed border area.  In typical UN style, offering each side something it could claim as a victory.

“The Calero Island, located along the San Juan River, in the border between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, was invaded in November, 2010 by Nicaraguan troops, in what constitutes an unreasonable aggression protected by an almost complete “spiral of silence” from media vehicles throughout the Americas.” (americasalert@yahoogroups.com , March 21, 2011).  “The territory at stake is no bigger than a few tens of square kilometers.  But the upsetting of international legal principles acquired a symbolic meaning that went far beyond the geographical extension of the invaded territory and the very scope of those two noble and so closely related Central American people—the Nicaraguan and the Costa Rican—each of whom having a historical symbolism of its own.
“In view of such a disinterest from media vehicles, as well as from political rulers and regional organisms throughout the Americas, the Costa Rican government had no way out but to resort to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in Hay.  On Tuesday, March 8, 2011, the ICJ admitted an injunctive relief filed by Costa Rica, issuing an order forbidding both countries to send troops to the bordering region, especially to the Calero Island, whose sovereignty belongs to Costa Rica but Nicaragua claims as its own.  The ICJ’s order will be valid until the ICJ issues a judgment about the core problem, which concerns the settling of borderlines now in dispute. 
“For all practical purposes, due to the fact that Costa Rica does not have an army, the International Court’s order applies above all to the Nicaraguan army—presently under the command of Sandinista President Daniel Ortega, who is internationally aligned with Chavez, Zelaya, and Gadaffi.  President Ortega said he would accept the ICJ’s decision.  However, no one knows the subterfuges he may resort to in order to continue with the hostility that he and his party (the Sandinist National Liberation Front—FSLN) are currently carrying on against a neighboring country that is basically defenseless.
“Nicaragua played an important role during the Cold War era, being the stage for a paradigmatic Communist-Catholic union that inspired Sandinism and other revolutionary movements in Latin America.  Later on, Sandinism was electorally defeated, but it seized power again in November, 2006 through national elections of a doubtful transparency.”

Costa Rica does not have an army, but what it does have is one of the largest UN presences outside of Manhattan,  courtesy of the University of Peace, the one and the same of which mentor, Canadian UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong was Chairman of its governing body,  and initially as Rector.

Never—anywhere—has it been mentioned that Costa Rica was invaded by the Sandinist National Liberation Front right under the sanctimonious nose of the UN.

In other words, the blue helmeted vision of “Peace” carries on in all parts of Costa Rica other than Calero Island.

The ongoing Sandinista occupation of Calero Island is proof positive of the utter hypocrisy of the United Nations and its self-declared king Barack Obama, now cha cha-ing his way through Latin America after dragging America into war in Libya.


Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:39 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34651

Newly released Wikileaks documents show increased concern among U.S. officials of the Gulen Movement

Meet “the Most Dangerous Islamist on Planet Earth” He lives in Pennsylvania


The latest documents from Wikileaks shows growing concern among U. S. officials over Fethullah Gulen’s attempts to create a New Islamic World and the “braining washing of students” that takes place at his charter schools within the United States and throughout the Muslim world.
The cable that speaks of the “brain-washing” was written in 2009 by James Jeffrey, the U. S. Ambassador to Turkey.

In the cable, Mr. Jeffrey describes Gülen as a “political phenomena” in Turkey even when he resides “in exile” within a mountain fortress in Pennsylvania. He says the Gülen movement has gained control of Turkey’s government and dictates Turkish policy which has become increasing anti-Israeli and anti-American. It points out that the leaders of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma or AKP) who now govern Turkey, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, appear to serve as Gulen’s puppets.
Other newly released cables state that Gulen’s disciples now direct the country’s 200,000 strong police force - - a force that remains in conflict with the military, which sees the group as an enemy.
In recent months, Turkish military leaders, and other critics of the AKP, have been arrested in the dead of night and whisked off to detention cells.
According to NurettinVeren, who served as Fethullah Gulen’s right-hand man “There are imam security directors; imams wearing police uniforms. Many police commissioners get their orders from imams.”
“It is not possible to confirm the Turkish police are under the control of the Gülen community members, but we have not met anybody who denies it,” one cable said.

The most dangerous Islamist on planet earth

Gulen has been labeled “the most dangerous Islamist on planet earth,” although he has failed to attract the attention of U. S. counter-terrorism experts and the national media.
Gülen is a student and follower of Sheikh Sa’id-i Kurdi (1878-1960), also known as Sa’id-i Nursi, the founder of the Islamist Nur (light) movement. After Turkey’s war of independence, Kurdi demanded, in an address to the new parliament, that the new republic be based on Islamic principles. Kurdi turned against Atatürk and his reforms and against the new modern, secular, Western republic and Gulen has followed his militant mentor’s example.
Hailed as an outstanding educator by Graham Fuller and other CIA officials, the reclusive Gulen is semi-literate and lacks a high school diploma.
In 1999, he was driven from his native Turkey because of his attempts to overthrow the secular Turkish government.

Objectives of transforming Turkey into an Islam republic and of creating a New Islamic World Order

In his sermons, Gulen has stated his objectives of transforming Turkey into an Islam republic and of creating a New Islamic World Order. In one sermon, he said:
“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here.
He continued:
When everything was closed and all doors were locked, our houses of isik [light] assumed a mission greater than that of older times. In the past, some of the duties of these houses were carried out by madrasas [Islamic schools], some by schools, some by tekkes [Islamist lodges] … These isik homes had to be the schools, had to be madrasas, [had to be] tekkes all at the same time. The permission did not come from the state, or the state’s laws, or the people who govern us. The permission was given by God … who wanted His name learned and talked about, studied, and discussed in those houses, as it used to be in the mosques.
In another sermon, Gülen proclaimed:
Now it is a painful spring that we live in. A nation is being born again. A nation of millions [is] being born—one that will live for long centuries, God willing … It is being born with its own culture, its own civilization. If giving birth to one person is so painful, the birth of millions cannot be pain-free. Naturally we will suffer pain. It won’t be easy for a nation that has accepted atheism, has accepted materialism, a nation accustomed to running away from itself, to come back riding on its horse. It will not be easy, but it is worth all our suffering and the sacrifices.
In 1998, Gulen fled to the U.S. with a small army of followers and purchased a 45 acre parcel of land in the midst of Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains as a base for his international operations.
From this base, Gulen, who has amassed over $25 billion in assets, continues to direct the activities of the AKP and events throughout Central Asia and much of the Muslim world.
Under his direction, Turkey has transformed from a secular state into an Islamic country with 85,000 active mosques - - one for every 350- citizens - - the highest number per capita in the world, 90,000 imams, more imams than teachers and physicians - - and thousands of state-run Islamic schools.

Turkey, thanks to Gulen and his disciples, has transferred its alliance from Europe and the United States to Russia and Iran

Despite the rhetoric of European Union accession, Turkey, thanks to Gulen and his disciples, has transferred its alliance from Europe and the United States to Russia and Iran. It has moved toward friendship with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria and created a pervasive anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-America animus throughout the populace.
Gulen has also established thousands of schools throughout central Asia and Europe.
According to Bayram Balci, a Turkish scholar, the Gulen schools seek to expand “the Islamization of Turkish nationality and the Turification of Islam” in order to bring about a universal caliphate ruled by Islamic law.
Because of their subversive nature of these institutions, these schools have been outlawed in Russia and Uzbekistan.
Even the Netherlands, a nation that embraces pluralism and tolerance, has opted to cut funding to the Gulen schools because of their imminent threat to the social order.
But Gulen’s 140-plus schools in the United States which advance the establishment of a New Islamic World Order have received little national attention.
These schools bear such innocuous names as the Magnolia School, the Beehive Academy, the Sonoran Science Academy, the Lotus School for Excellence, and the Pacific Technology School.

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:41 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34703

United Nation, Congress and the Constitution

The Myth Of International Consensus on Libya


Talking heads such as Andrea Mitchell of NBC News have praised President for his “remarkable” achievement in obtaining international consensus to go to war against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi

The New York Times editors today called the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizing member states to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya “an extraordinary moment in recent history.”

Now it’s all well and good that the United Nations has given President Obama authority to take military action against Libya, but the Constitution contemplates that such authority should come first from irrespective of what the UN might say. Indeed, candidate Obama said as much back in 2007:

  The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

More…

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:43 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34652

Obama's Lack of Leadership Has Created More Peril In Libya

President Obama Follows France And the Arab League Into Libya


The United Nations Security Council, after days of debate, passed Resolution 1973 on March 17th authorizing member states to impose and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya and to “take all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack by Col. Moammar Qaddafi’s forces, including the rebel stronghold of Benghazi. In addition to authorizing the use of military force if necessary under Article VII of the United Nations Charter, the resolution, passed with ten votes in favor and five countries abstaining (Russia, China, Brazil, Germany and India), includes provisions calling for an immediate ceasefire, a beefed up arms embargo, banning certain flights taking off to and landing from Libya and expanded asset freezes. However, the resolution explicitly rules out any “occupation force” in Libya.

The U.S. was a follower in this case, waiting for international consensus to emerge rather than helping to shape it. The Obama administration took a full month to come around and support a military response to Qaddafi’s gross atrocities against his own people. After the Arab League made a formal request to the Security Council for imposition of a no-fly zone on March 12th, France and Lebanon took the lead in moving the latest Security Council resolution forward. France even sent its newly appointed foreign minister Alain Juppe to New York to make a personal appeal for passage of the resolution.
Now that the international community has finally spoken and there is a framework under international law for the use of military force against the Libyan regime to stop the killing, the serious work has begun - how to implement the resolution in time to save more innocent Libyans from slaughter. Allied warplanes have since gone into action in an effort to stop Qaddafi’s aggression and push him back.  American tomahawk cruise missiles have also been fired at targets inside Libya from ships in the Mediterranean Sea, striking Qaddafi’s air-defense and communications systems and facilities. But these actions may well be too late, particularly if Qaddafi’s forces enter Benghazi, intermingle with civilians and use them as human shields.
There are several big questions that the Security Council resolution does little to resolve.
First, what exactly is the resolution excluding when it declares there will be no “occupation force” in Libya? One thinks of ground forces or, as they are colloquially referred to, “boots on the ground.” But this begs the question. For example, would search and rescue missions on the ground be permitted if pilots are shot down? Are Special Forces entering Libya solely to collect intelligence for the purpose of enabling more accurate air strikes considered an “occupation force?” When reporters at UN headquarters tried to get clarifications from various delegations before and after the Security Council vote, we were rebuffed.
Second, what does a real ceasefire mean in dealing with Qaddafi? How could it possibly be monitored? Qaddafi’s government had announced right after the UN Security Council vote that it would abide by a ceasefire, only to quickly break it. In letters to President Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Qaddafi made his intentions clear:

“Libya is not yours. Libya is for the Libyans. The Security Council resolution is invalid.”
On March 19th - two days after the UN Security Council passed its resolution - Qaddafi’s forces, tanks and warplanes swarmed Benghazi. There have been reports of shelling, gunfire and at least twenty-five fatalities in the rebel stronghold. If Qaddafi were to now truly stand down under withering fire from the international coalition and honor a cease fire, what then?
This brings us to the third question in connection with implementing the UN Security Council resolution. What is the eventual endgame? France is the only Western government so far to have formally recognized Libya’s rebels as the country’s legitimate government.
President Obama has stated that Qaddafi must go. However, unless he is forced to go and an interim government is formed and immediately recognized by the international community, there will be a long stalemate that will work in Qaddafi’s favor. Are we really prepared to babysit a de facto fragmentation of Libya into two or more parts by continuing to provide an open-ended shield to millions of people living in fear side by side with Qaddafi, who would remain in power next door? Are we prepared to take sides in what may amount to a prolonged civil war, or will we leave the rebels to their own devices in a matter of days or weeks? Qaddafi will simply wait it out, counting on the international community’s short attention span.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is said to have persuaded President Obama to support military intervention in Libya in the first place, appears to back regime change. She said:
“We do believe a final result of any negotiations would have to be a decision by Colonel Khadafy to leave.”
However, Obama’s latest pronouncement on the use of military force to stop Qaddafi’s murder of civilians stopped short of using force, if necessary, to compel Qaddafi to leave. Obama said on March 18th that “we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal—specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen said on March 20th that the mission he is overseeing is narrowly focused on ensuring humanitarian support for the civilians. He said that this mission could be achieved even if Qaddafi stayed in power.
The problem is that civilians are not safe in Libya unless Qaddafi leaves and his repressive apparatus is dismantled. But he will not leave voluntarily.
Here is what Qaddafi said on Al-Jamahiriya TV (Libya) on March 15, 2011, as transcribed by the Middle East Media Research Institute:
“They began saying that Al-Qadhafi must resign. Resign from what?! You should resign, you criminals, you colonialists. You resign! I dare them to grant their people freedom, like the freedom I granted the Libyan people. I dare them to. I dare them to. I dare them to grant freedom to the American, the British, and the French peoples. Let’s see them give up their seats. Let’s see them resign and let their people govern themselves. They should never do it. They rule their people through dictatorial means: a republican party, a democratic party, a Christian party, a centrist party, a right-wing party, a left-wing party… These are dictatorial, capitalist means that grind peoples.”
Qaddafi will not leave until enough of his own military and other armed supporters defect, and enough of his military infrastructure and encampments are destroyed, to put his personal security in jeopardy. We need not and should not deploy ground troops into Libya, as the President has said. However, we have enough air power that can be directed at Qaddafi’s own fortifications, military installations, tanks, rocket launchers and aircraft to intimidate his military and ultimately facilitate his passage into the dustbin of history. The question is how long it will take and whether the international coalition will remain united in the meantime. For example, although the African countries Gabon, Nigeria and South Africa voted in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, including its authorization of military force against Libya to save civilian lives, the African Union has since criticized the launching of military operations by U.S. and European countries against the Libyan regime to enforce this very resolution.
The Arab League, which asked for enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, is also wavering in its support of military force, much less take an active role in carrying out what it requested.
International consensus - so prized by the Obama administration as the sine qua non for U.S. action - is often just an illusion.
Finally, the stakes are bigger than just Qaddafi’s fate alone. Who exactly are the rebels whom we have elected to help? What ties, if any, do some of them have to radical Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood and even al Qaeda that may turn out to be a more serious strategic threat to U.S. interests than Qaddafi? 
Moreover, Iran is watching. While condemning Qaddafi’s crackdown on the Libyan people and at the same time denying any such repression of dissent by the Iranian regime against its own people, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Western powers early last week against imposing a no-fly zone or taking other military action in Libya.
Conventional wisdom would lead to the conclusion that a strong international community response to the crack-down in Libya might deter Iran from engaging in similar crack-downs in the future against its own dissidents and give it some pause on moving ahead with its nuclear program in violation of a succession of UN Security Council resolutions.  However, despite Ahmadinejad’s public pronouncement against outside intervention against Qaddafi, its Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese neighbor took a leading role in getting the UN Security Council to move against Libya. Iran could have used its considerable leverage on Lebanon to prevent its becoming the Arab face pushing the Security Council resolution forward if it really wanted to. Evidently, Iran chose not to do so.
Rather, I think that Iran sees Libya as a helpful diversion while it moves ahead in the shadows with its nuclear program. Given the difficulty in galvanizing the international community to finally move ahead with action to stop Qaddafi, Iran may be calculating that there will be little appetite for any similar move against Iran. While Russia and China ended up abstaining on the Libyan resolution after expressing their strong reservations about military intervention, they will be far more likely to veto any similar resolution against Iran where they have stronger strategic interests. And Iran has seen how reluctant Obama is to use force even with Security Council authorization.
Iran is also likely to score propaganda points by claiming the West is hypocritical in allowing protesters against its allied governments, such as in Yemen and Bahrain, to be killed without any similar efforts to stop the violence. Indeed, the day after the passage of the latest Security Council resolution on Libya, a senior Iranian cleric urged Bahrain’s majority Shiites to keep up their protests - until death or victory - against the Sunni monarchy. He accused the United States of being an “accomplice in all crimes.” Iran has threatened to intervene unilaterally in Bahrain if the UN does not take any action soon. If that happens, an all-out war could break out between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which has sent its own troops into its immediately adjoining neighbor Bahrain to restore order.
No doubt, there are troubling inconsistencies in the U.S. position in the region as we try to juggle our democratic values with our vital national security interests. But allowing Iran an entree into Bahrain directly, or indirectly through its terrorist network’s provision of support to the internal revolt, would serve neither U.S. values nor U.S. interests.  The United States 5th Fleet in Bahrain helps counter Iran’s military reach across the entire region, which Iran would love nothing better than to get rid of. The uprising in Bahrain provides Iran with a perfect opportunity to exploit.
While the present monarchy in Bahrain is certainly far from a model of democracy, do the people in Bahrain really prefer an Iranian Islamic style theocracy to replace it?  They only need look at how the Iranian government and mullahs brutally deal with their own protesters through executions, imprisonment and torture in order to discern their own fate under an Iran-friendly Shiite regime in Bahrain.
Had the Obama administration taken the lead several weeks ago in assembling a broad coalition, including the Arab League, while Qaddafi appeared to be on the ropes but continued slaughtering his own people, we may have been able to facilitate a quick regime change and had more influence in what followed. But this administration, as usual, waited until events pushed it into a corner and has made the final outcome far more uncertain and perilous.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:48 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34704

The Blaze

The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: Coalition too Destroy US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth


The Blaze

The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: Coalition too Destroy US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth


Revealed The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: The Chase Campaign for a Coalition of Unions, Community Groups, Lawmakers and Students to Take Down US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth & Power

UNCUT TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan

 

The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: Coalition too Destroy US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth

 


The Left's Economic Terrorism Playbook: Coalition too Destroy US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth

 


UNCUT TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan

 

 

 

 

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#11 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:51 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34701

Libya: Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

Libya: Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

It is now well known that Obama pals and Marxists Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Jody Evans were instrumental in instigating the rebellion in Egypt

The far-left connection to the Near-East rebellion

Libya: Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution


Without this far-left intervention and the blessings of the White House there may well have been no rebellion in Egypt, and a stable (though imperfect) regime would still be in place, friendly to the US and tolerant of Israel.
Since then the rebellion has spread to Libya, and this too is arguably part of the Egyptian-Islamic / Western leftist-inspired revolution. Indeed there are reportedly at least 100 Egyptian operatives there, as well as US and British commandos.
A reader objected to my latest column critical of the Coalition’s Operation Odyssey Dawn, and this is my response to his objections.
You are free to support with heart, mind, propaganda and even finances whomever you please, but excuse me if I decline to be part of a rebellion instigated by the far left and strongly supported by friends of Islamic terror who deny Israel’s right to exist. Excuse me if I see gross hypocrisy in supporting an all-out attack on a Middle East dictator who has long been cooperative with the West, while turning a blind eye to more egregious dictatorships like China (where a Noble prize winner is now in jail for speaking his mind) and North Korea (where dissidents and their families are routinely jailed and it is a crime to own a radio with unlimited tuning).  You say I want to soft-pedal on Ghadaffi. Yet you are perfectly content to soft pedal on the undemocratic rogue regimes of China and North Korea that also kill their own people at times (eg, Tiananmen Square).
Where were the noble contenders for democracy when China was holding Liu Xiaobao? Oh, that’s right, democracy champion Barack Obama was fêting him at the White House. Further, China is one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which decided to attack Ghadaffi because he was behaving like a Chinese dictator. As for North Korea, we have sent them free food for years, and China, our “ally,” runs interference for that country. Apparently, the Koreans don’t need democracy.
But isn’t Iran also a dictatorship that suppresses democracy? Should we be soft pedaling on Iran? Well, judging by the silent consent of Western leaders, Iran is perfectly democratic. There was an uprising there during the one in Egypt, but Obama didn’t think it would be appropriate to demand that Ahmadinejad step down. After all, that dictator, who has reportedly been executing people at the rate of one every 9 hours, is anti-Israel.  No need to get rid of him.  He’s on “our” side.  A few years back, the US Energy Department even subsidized 2 Russian institutes that helped build parts of reactors for Iran.
So if the true motives of the Fabian leaders for the attack on Libya are not the noble ones they enunciate, what is the motivation? The Left never starts anything that will not likely further their cause of world domination or that will have the outcome expected and intended by the public. That explains Obama’s role in opposing a regime that in recent years has been forthcoming toward Western interests, while ignoring regimes antagonistic to our interests. Sarkozy has an additional motive: he is up for re-election soon and needs a good war at his back.
It is more than obvious that replacing regimes that support the US and Israel with our enemies (like the street mobs of Egypt — dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood; and of Libya — strongly allied with terror) will help the Left, as led by Obama and socialist Europe, to undermine Western culture and values.
The Fabian Socialists (of which Tony Blair is a member) were founded in the 1880s for the express purpose of spreading socialism and eliminating Christianity by stealth.
They believed that they could get away with anything as long as they pretended to be supporting worthy-sounding causes, and it is going swimmingly (Tony even has a religious foundation aimed at uniting all religions — that goes nicely with the Christian teaching: I [Jesus] am the way). They have managed to pretty much take over the West. You see, it wasn’t only Tony Blair. The entire power structure, top to bottom, is infested with globalist New World Order operatives, and “conservative” parties are in no way exempt. David Cameron used stealth to get elected, in keeping with the West’s trademark Fabian tactics. As head of the Conservative Party, he promised that, if elected, he would allow a referendum as to whether the UK should stay in the EU. Even though everyone now knows that was a lie, many see Dave acting like a “conservative” now, helping with a war effort in the tradition of “conservative” GW Bush (reminder: Blair’s staunchest ally). Yet starting wars that ultimately destroy Christianity and endanger Israel is not necessarily a conservative thing to do, though it can certainly be deemed within the scope of Fabian stealth activities. It is hard to believe that any true conservative could support this cheap and transparent stealth tactic of starting wars that ultimately culminate in regimes hostile to Western values — to Christianity in particular, and to the existence of Israel. In fact, judging by the popularity of my last column on this topic (which has been reposted at several sites) and also the next-to-last (which shocked even me with the boldness of its conclusions), I seriously doubt any true conservatives do fall for this.
There is no excuse for Europeans to believe in the sincerity of the Western coalition. The Western powers that now support the attack on Ghadaffi, replete as it is with abundant collateral civilian casualties, are essentially the same leaders who insist on importing millions of hostile Muslims to Europe who refuse to assimilate and who not infrequently kill Westerners (like the people who bombed Madrid and London, like the killer of Theo van Gogh, and like so many other Islamic terrorists and violent criminals who had enjoyed Western hospitality or claimed the West as their home) or deliberately configure the Southern US border as a welcome mat for terrorists (eg, some of the 911 attackers) or promote rabidly anti-US soldiers to high ranks (eg, the Fort Hood shooter).
Democracy sounds like a worthy cause and the vast hordes of politically unsophisticated (whose study of history – or even current events — is next to non-existent) and the spiritually blind are liable to fall for this ruse.
However, the rest of us generally realize that if democracy were really a cause worth the shedding of blood, then Iran, for example, would be a nation marked by justice and protection of the weak — now that Carter has gotten rid of the cruel dictatorial Shah and paved the way for democracy there.
But the dirty open secret of democracy (as distinct from the republican form of government our founders founded) is that it neither protects the weak nor promotes justice. Invariably, it eventually winds up protecting the majority or a very powerful group of oligarchs, just as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, N Korea, and just as it is now doing increasingly in the Americas and Europe.
And as for Christianity, by supporting the Coalition, we are contributing mightily – knowingly or unwittingly — to the demise of Judeo-Christianity in the world.
By supporting the Iraq war, we indirectly eliminated the Assyrian Christians in Iraq by toppling a dictatorship that protected them, and are now witnessing the genocide of the Egyptian Copts, who were at least allowed to exist under Mubarak. Within a week after Mubarak stepped down, at Obama’s behest, the democratic activist military that replaced him attacked a monastery and shot a monk and six church workers, and they’re just getting warmed up.
Behold democracy, a foul fruit with a noble-sounding name.
Remember these fruits of past Western adventures in the Middle East when the conflagration starts in earnest in North Africa and the torrent of crocodile tears from the instigators and participants from our own democracy movement starts to drown the West.
In the end, we all believe what we choose to – whether out of dangerously naïve or false altruism or because we are sympathetic to the far-left Fabian New World Order.
In either case, we reap the consequences.
Obama is already reaping some of his, both at home and abroad.
Originally posted on Laigle’s Forum

The terrorists fighting Qadaffi (he’s too moderate for them):
http://emperors-clothes.com/libya.htm
Further reading by a readers and friends:
http://www.ravenhill.org/prophet.htm

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:53 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34674

Why China Will Never Rule the World: Travels in the Two Chinas

China is NOT the Future


Why China Will Never Rule the World: Travels in the Two Chinas

China is NOT the Future


Last year I read a book, “ Megatrends: The 8 Pillars of a New Society” by John and Doris Naisbitt and was so entranced I completely neglected my normal skepticism and missed all the signals that what I was reading was essentially propaganda.

 

wonder now how I could have missed this after reading just the first page in which the authors said, “the constancy of the Communist Party has worked not against but for the well-being of the Chinese people. Long-term strategic planning could be carried out without the distractions and disruptions of that characterize western democracies.”

Oh, wow! This line from the second paragraph of the book says everything you want to know about its justification of a completely authoritarian system whose brief history has put millions of Chinese in their graves, invaded and occupies Tibet, and is most famous for the slaughter in Tiananmen Square where mostly young Chinese were expressing a desire for real democracy.

The other clue about John Naisbitt is that he is “currently a professor at both Nankai University and Tianjin University of Finance and Economics. His wife has been a professor at Yunnan University and now directs the Naisbitt China Institute in Tianjin. Did I really expect to read a book that was anything but pro-China in every respect?

A new book provides a far different perspective. Troy Parfitt is a Canadian who has lived for years in South Korea and in Taiwan as a teacher of English. He has previously written “Notes on the Other China”, but his new book is titled, “Why China Will Never Rule the World: Travels in the Two Chinas” ($20.95, Western Hemisphere Press, New , Canada, softcover). It is, for all intents and purposes, a travelogue of a three-month odyssey the former Taiwan-based author took throughout 17 provinces of China until he could no longer stand being in the Middle Kingdom.

Parfitt is his own man and one with an eye for detail and a talent for describing his journey in ways that do not ignore some obvious and ugly truths about the real China, not the tourist China, and most certainly not the China created by media myths.

He has the added benefit of having actually studied the history of China, past and modern, to the point where the book’s “select bibliography” runs to nearly 70 titles. As much as he made a point of visiting the places a tourist is expected to visit, because he spoke Chinese he was able to speak with the locals along the way in ways most tourists cannot. He was not taken in by the “exotic” aspects of China because he had spent enough time in Asia to have lost any naiveté.

Thus, Parfitt, looking for a description, concludes that China is “the epitome of George Orwell’s most famous novel. It is ‘Nineteen-Eighty Four with Chinese characteristics.”

Orwell’s book is about an authoritarian future ruled by Big Brother where truth is what the state says it is. It is a world inhabited by “proles” who are not encouraged to have any thoughts other than those approved by the state. It is, in short, Communism.

“China’s great rise is a great illusion,” says Parfitt. “Modernization in Chinese society is little more than window-dressing, the welding of superficial constructs—Pepsi signs, department stores, state-of-the-art production methods—onto an antique mindset. To say that China is rising is exceedingly vague. To say that it is already great or slated for greatness is a mindless mantra at best and a cheap marketing ploy at worst.”

One is brought up short when told that “China’s economic advances are certainly impressive, although it’s important to remember that foreign companies are responsible for roughly 60 percent of all Chinese exports and 85 percent of all high-tech exports.” (Emphasis added)

And then Parfitt adds, “Politically, culturally, socially, and historically, China has practically nothing to offer the Western world…or any other non-Confucian country or culture.”

“China does not even meet the definition of a developed state,” notes Parfitt. “As of 2009, it was listed on the United Nations Human Development Index as being in the 92nd spot.”

“Chinese culture remains locked in a self-replicating state of chaos, myopia, inefficiency, intolerance, violence, and irrationality. It is, in a word, backward,” says Parfitt. “China may be embracing Western trends and technology, but so what? It’s been doing that for more than a century. Culturally, and psychologically, it remains anchored to the distant past.”

For my part, I have long thought that a nation with 1.3 billion people is not likely to function well under the best of circumstances, even with the most enlightened leadership. If you want to see a country that has real potential to emerge in a leadership position among nations, look instead to India which had the great good fortune of being a British colony long enough to adopt its best qualities.

If the U.S. ever gets around to reducing its hideous debt and, in particular, reducing the amount of it owned by China, we may also begin to treat China more realistically. In the meantime, let’s not romanticize China.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:55 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34699

Obama claims his attack on Libya was cool because he sent Congress a note

Hypocrite Of The Day

 

 

Barack loves to talk. To whom and when is another issue.

 

He had time to talk to United Nations to garner 10 votes, time to talk to Arab League, obviously he talked to NATO and worked out a partnership with France and Great Britain. It seems like he talked to everyone except the United States Congress. There is no excuse that is constitutionally acceptable. — Rep. Dennis Kucinich, 3/21/11

What a difference a few years make….

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.— Senator Barack Obama, 12/20/07

While he claims his attack on Libya was cool because he sent a note, it looks like the president still has some ‘splainin’ to do, that is, after he comes back from vacation.

 

Quote    Reply   

#14 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:56 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34696

Gallup Polls, The Battleground Polls

In Every State

 

 have written often about the salient but overlooked fact in public opinion polls:  conservatives represent a huge group of America while “liberals” are a much smaller percentage of our nation.  The Battleground Poll, for example, is a bipartisan poll put together by a Democrat polling organization and a polling organization.  It asked in every poll the same demographic data about those polled.  The results, year after year, are almost identical:  about sixty percent of Americans call themselves “conservative” and about thirty-five percent of Americans call themselves “liberal.”  The “moderate” or “don’t know” respondents fill up the tiny remainder.

 

It is surprising how little comfort many conservatives wish to take from this data.  Respondents, many who comment on these articles of mine write, do not know what “conservative” and “liberal” mean.  (Why, then, do the respondents not respond “Don’t know” or the ever safe “moderate”?)  Others caution that this conservatism is wallpaper, and when a Social Security rise is at issue, these self-described conservatives will act contrary to their professed ideology.  (So why describe themselves as “conservative” at all?)  Other conservatives, who refuse to be consoled by good news, argue that the poll results are an aberration.  (“Statistical aberrations” in nineteen consecutive highly controlled Battleground Polls over ten years are, simply, not “statistical aberrations” at all.)

Even more heartening, for conservatives, ought to be the fact polling organizations who report the huge conservative predominance in politics appear, if anything, interested in concealing this fact.  The vast majority of polls simply do not ask questions about ideology or, if the question is asked, the answer is not reported.  We recognize these polling sponsors, like CBS News, USA Today, the New York Times, etc. as hostile to conservatives.  So if liberals outnumbered conservatives, wouldn’t these polls be trumpeting that fact? Yet no polling organization – not a single one – is making that claim.

Gallup has trekked cautiously into this area and reported, in several polls over several years, how Americans in different states identify themselves ideologically.  Rather quietly, on February 25, Gallup published its latest findings.  Are there more conservatives than liberals in America?  Yes, but more:  there are more conservatives than liberals in every single one of the fifty states – Vermont, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Hawaii – everywhere in America.  When Gallup has asked this question before, in August 2009 and in February 2010 and in August 2010, the results were almost identical.

In the August 2009 poll, conservatives outnumbered liberals in every single state.  In the February 2010 poll, the same was true.  In the August 2010, liberals outnumbered conservatives by three percent in Rhode Island.  Stop for a moment and absorb those polling numbers:  the four Gallup Polls asked Americans their ideological identification for each of the fifty states or 200 state results (four polls multiplied by the fifty states.)  In those 200 state poll results, conservatives outnumbered liberals 199 times out of 200 state polls.

Do we need more evidence that these are valid and vital numbers?  Consider how Gallup chose to describe its polls, what title did it give to the news stories it generated from these polls?  Surely the utter domination of conservatives over liberals would be stunning political fact, trumpeted by the polling organization that discovered this fact?  Well…no.

In August 2009, Gallup shot up flares with the dumbfounding news “Political Ideology:  Label ‘Conservative’ Label Prevails in South.”  Six months after that, in February 2010 Gallup revealed the stunning news “Ideology:  Deep Three South States Most Conservative.”  Six months later, when Gallup polled this question again in August 2010, this news was revealed with the sizzling title “Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah Rank as Most Conservative States.”  What was the headline grabbing title of the article Gallup published with its February 2011 poll results?  (Don’t faint from shock!)  Gallup reported the story with the headline “Mississippi Rates as Most Conservative US State.”

The pattern is clear.  Gallup is not particularly interested in proclaiming the good news that it found for conservatives in America.  Anyone truly enlightened by the news that the South is the most conservative part of America or that Wyoming and Utah are very conservative is not a true student of American society or government.  The fact, however, that Gallup found in New York, Massachusetts, , and Vermont in four straight polls more conservatives than liberals in each of those states is big news.  As I wrote in August 2008, the huge advantage that conservatives have over liberals is the “Biggest Missing Story in Politics.”  It was then, and it is now. 


Quote    Reply   

#15 [url]

Mar 22 11 12:58 PM

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34688

A letter to Congress two days after bombing began

Obama’s Letter To Congress Regarding Libya


THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release March 21, 2011
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya.
As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.
Although Qadhafi’s Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi’s continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security.
His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi’s defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.
The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime’s air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi’s armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition
of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.
I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.
BARACK OBAMA

Quote    Reply   

#16 [url]

Mar 22 11 1:01 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/the_lefts_economic_terrorism_p.html

The Left's Economic Terrorism Plans for America


What the Bolsheviks and communists did to their own people with violence, indiscriminate murder, starvation, torture, and concentration camps, union leaders in America want to accomplish via plans to destroy our financial system, undermine the stock market, disrupt capitalism, redistribute the wealth, and destabilize the country.


The Blaze has obtained a taped recording of the radical plans of Stephen Lerner, a former official of SEIU, on of the most powerful unions in the country.  In a meeting held on March 19, 2011, Lerner is heard talking to a group of community organizers, socialists, and union members in a discussion about tactics and strategies on how to disrupt and destabilize the American economy and create widespread uncertainty and fear.

 
Here are some of Lerner's key comments on the Left's plans for America:

 
"We need to figure out in a much more through direct action, much more concrete way, how we really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital, for how corporations operate" ...

"There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now that would start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement"  ...

"We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything." ...

"if we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of what's happening in capitalism, then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop really ability to put a boot in the wheel, then we have to think not about labor and community alliances  we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates" ...

"We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down" ...

"what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room, but the goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas:

- that we are not broke there is plenty of money

- they have the money  - we need to get it back ...

- and so we need to take on those folks at the same time and that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city"

 
Stephen Lerner then concludes:

 
"There is going to be a ten state mobilization it try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can't do itself that community groups can't do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing."  

It's absolutely clear that the communist revolutionary bloodlust runs very deep through the veins and psyche of many union leaders and socialists in America.  Their hatred for democratic free-market economies, unbridled greed for the wealth and property rights of individuals, and desire for chaos and revolution can no longer be contained. Give these guys the power and enough AK47s and they would do to us what the Bolsheviks, Maoists, and Vietcong did to their own people. 

 
The union/communist/radical rotten fruit did not fall very far from the Marxist-radical tree that has caused so much bloodshed, suffering, and death throughout the ages. The communist terrorists are here in America actively working to destabilize and destroy this blessed country.  They will not stop until they bring about the same catastrophic results their spiritual brethren have brought since Marxism began.  Apparently 100 million victims of the Communist Holocaust is not enough for these evildoers, they want more! 

 

Quote    Reply   

#17 [url]

Mar 22 11 1:03 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/the_legality_of_the_act_of_war.html

The 'Legality' of the Act of War in Libya


Liam Ryan presents a very good argument that the Obama administration's participation in a military strike on Libya is legal.


There is, of course, room for debate about many constitutional powers.  Even the War Powers Resolution is subject to interpretation.

 
I also see a number of Republicans defending President Obama's actions as consistent with his powers as Commander in Chief.  I read that the Commander in Chief has the inherent, unilateral power to engage in military acts short of a declaration of war, the latter being a power conferred in Article I of the Constitution upon
 
Congress only.
Consider, however, this one fact:  the last time the United States declared a "war" was in 1941.  Is it conceivable -- is it credible -- that the United States has not been at war since 1941?  Of course not.

The Tea Party and the constitutional conservative movements are not at all monolithic, but perhaps the biggest single driving force for them has been that the United States has gotten away from a government limited by the Constitution.

The Executive branch claims domestic powers unforeseen by the Founders.  Some in Congress mock the Constitution.  The courts -- ugh -- have upheld government power in contravention of express provisions of authority, and in ways that harm individual rights that the courts are supposed to protect.

There's precedent for this abuse of power and that abuse of power.  Our rights are governed more by lawyers than the People.

We are in a moment of history, however, where citizens are beginning to push back and reclaim what has been lost.  We are clarifying what big government has muddled and usurped.

The Commander in Chief must have the power to use military force for the self-preservation of this nation and its people.  A conservative reading of the War Powers Resolution seems to suggest it is an attempt to clarify the role of the Commander in Chief, not to expand it.

A non-emergency attack on a sovereign nation is not consistent with the unilateral power of the Commander in Chief to act without the express authority of Congress.  To consult with a few Members of Congress is not the same as getting the authorization of Congress, which acts as a single body.  We are a nation of laws and not men.

Quote    Reply   

#18 [url]

Mar 22 11 3:15 PM

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-glenn-beck-find-bring-down-govt.html

 

This morning, the Blaze and the Glenn Beck show revealed a plan they uncovered, that if proven to be true, is a deliberate attempt to collapse the economic system of the United States. Led by Steven Lerner, a former leader in the country's most-powerful union, SEIU,  the plan seeks to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

The event was the annual Left Forum and in gathering of leftist intellectuals at Pace University, this year's topic was ""Towards a Politics of Solidarity :"

The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have provided inspiring images of a popular will for change, but in the US, Europe and other developed nations, the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis has created the conditions for a new conservative fiscal orthodoxy and a concerted push by the right for cuts in government spending and public services. Despite protests for union rights in Wisconsin and elsewhere, the future is in the balance. What are the prospects for any movement towards an alternative vision of greater economic equality and social justice? This series is run in association with Left Forum 2011, the largest gathering in North America of the US and international left, which meets 18-20 March at Pace University, New York.
The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks, at one of the "break out" sessions Building Solidarity through Community Power: Community-Labor Coalitions. What it reveals is a "destabilization" plan that is incredibly startling in its specificity'

Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore--the redistribution of wealth and the return of "$17 trillion" stolen from the middle class by Wall Street--is to "destabilize the country."
Remember what we heard from people like Michael Moore, who said last week that governments had tons of money they just had to take it back from the rich.

Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans. This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.

Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.

Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations. Below it the initial video released by the Blaze and Key points of the "plan" from Business Insider. For those of you who have read the works of Frances Fox Piven, the plan described below will be very familiar?

Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn't be paying anything...

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
How do we bring down the stock market
How do we bring down their bonuses
How do we interfere with there ability to be rich...

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
that we are not broke there is plenty of money
they have the money - we need to get it back
and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us


And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.


FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE BLAZE

SPEAKER: Steven Lerner. Speaker at the Left Forum 2011 "Towards a Politics of Solidarity" Pace University March 19, 2011

Speaker Bio: Stephen Lerner is the architect of the SEIU's groundbreaking Justice for Janitors campaign.  He led the union's banking and finance campaign and has partnered with unions and groups in Europe, South American and elsewhere in campaigns to hold financial institutions accountable. As director of the union's private equity project, he launched a long campaign to expose the over-leveraged feeding frenzy of private equity firms during the boom years that led to the ensuing economic disaster.

TRANSCRIPT:

It feels to me after a long time of being on defense that something is starting to turn in the world and we just have to decide if we are on defense or offense

Maybe there is a different way to look at some of theses questions  it’s hard for me to think about any part of organizing without thinking what just happened with this economic crisis and what it means

I don't know how to have a discussion about labor and community if we don't first say what do we need to do at this time in history what is the strategy that gives us some chance of winning because I spent my life time as a union organizer justice for janitors a lot of things
It seems we are at a moment where the world is going to get much much worse or much much better

Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.
What's changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us

They figured out that they don't need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.

We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate

The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would  you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well  we wouldn't be paying anything.

Government is being strangled by debt

The four things we could do that could really upset wall street

One is if city and state and other  government entities demanded to renegotiate their debt
and you might say why would the banks ever do it  - because city and counties could say we won’t do business with you in the future if you won’t renegotiate the debt now

So we could leverage the power we have of government and say two things  we won’t do business with you JP Morgan Chase anymore unless you do two things: you reduce the price of our interest  and second you rewrite the mortgages for everybody in the communities

We could make them do that

The second thing is there is a whole question in Europe about students’ rates in debt structure. What would happen if students said we are not going to pay.  It’s a trillion dollars. Think about republicans screaming about debt a trillion dollars in student debt

There is a third thing we can think about what if public employee unions instead of just being on the defensive  put on the collective bargaining table when they negotiate they say we demand as a condition of negotiation that the government renegotiate - it’s crazy that you’re paying too much interest to your buddies the bankers it’s a strike issue  - we will strike unless you force the banks to renegotiate/

Then if you add on top of that if we really thought about moving the kind of disruption in Madison but moving that to Wall Street and moving that to other cities around the country

We basically said you stole seventeen trillion dollars - you've improvised us and we are going to make it impossible for you to operate

Labor can’t lead this right now so if labor can’t lead but we are a critical part of it  we do have money we have millions of members who are furious

But I don't think this kind of movement can happen unless community groups and other activists take the lead.
If we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of  what's happening in capitalism

Then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop really ability to put a boot in the wheel  then we have to think not about labor and community alliances  we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates

We need to think about a whole new way of thinking about this not as a partnership but building something new.

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

  • How do we bring down the stock market
  • How do we bring down their bonuses
  • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich

And that means we have to politically isolate them, economically isolate them  and disrupt them

It’s not all theory i’ll do a pitch.

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase  and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at  is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

  • that we are not broke there is plenty of money
  • they have the money  - we need to get it back
  • and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and  destroy us

And so we need to take on those folks at the same time

and that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city
then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization it try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country  and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.



Quote    Reply   

#19 [url]

Mar 22 11 3:16 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/seiu-union-plan-to-destroy-jpmorgan#ixzz1HLBauPMd

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America


A former official of one of the country's most-powerful unions, SEIU, has a secret plan to "destabilize" the country.
The plan is designed to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market, and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.
The former SEIU official, Stephen Lerner, spoke in a closed session at a Pace University forum last weekend.
The Blaze procured what appears to be a tape of Lerner's remarks. Many Americans will undoubtely sympathize with and support them. Still, the "destabilization" plan is startling in its specificity, especially coming so close on the heels of the financial crisis.
Lerner said that unions and community organizations are, for all intents and purposes, dead. The only way to achieve their goals, therefore--the redistribution of wealth and the return of "$17 trillion" stolen from the middle class by Wall Street--is to "destabilize the country."
Lerner's plan is to organize a mass, coordinated "strike" on mortgage, student loan, and local government debt payments--thus bringing the banks to the edge of insolvency and forcing them to renegotiate the terms of the loans.  This destabilization and turmoil, Lerner hopes, will also crash the stock market, isolating the banking class and allowing for a transfer of power.
Lerner's plan starts by attacking JP Morgan Chase in early May, with demonstrations on Wall Street, protests at the annual shareholder meeting, and then calls for a coordinated mortgage strike.
Lerner also says explicitly that, although the attack will benefit labor unions, it cannot be seen as being organized by them. It must therefore be run by community organizations.
Lerner was ousted from SEIU last November, reportedly for spending millions of the union's dollars trying to pursue a plan like the one he details here.  It is not clear what, if any, power and influence he currently wields. His main message--that Wall Street won the financial crisis, that inequality in this country is hitting record levels, and that there appears to be no other way to stop the trend--will almost certainly resonate.
A transcript of Lerner's full reported remarks is below, courtesy of The Blaze. We have heard the tape, but we have not independently verified that the voice is Lerner's.  You can listen to the tape here.
Here are the key remarks:

Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would  you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well  we wouldn't be paying anything...

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down

The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

  • How do we bring down the stock market
  • How do we bring down their bonuses
  • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich...

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase  and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.

And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

  • that we are not broke there is plenty of money
  • they have the money  - we need to get it back
  • and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and  destroy us


And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.

There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

 
FULL TRANSCRIPT FROM THE BLAZE

SPEAKER: Stephen Lerner. Speaker at the Left Forum 2011 "Towards a Politics of Solidarity" Pace University March 19, 2011

Speaker Bio: Stephen Lerner is the architect of the SEIU's groundbreaking Justice for Janitors campaign.  He led the union's banking and finance campaign and has partnered with unions and groups in Europe, South American and elsewhere in campaigns to hold financial institutions accountable. As director of the union's private equity project, he launched a long campaign to expose the over-leveraged feeding frenzy of private equity firms during the boom years that led to the ensuing economic disaster.

TRANSCRIPT:

It feels to me after a long time of being on defense that something is starting to turn in the world and we just have to decide if we are on defense or offense

Maybe there is a different way to look at some of theses questions  it’s hard for me to think about any part of organizing without thinking what just happened with this economic crisis and what it means

I don't know how to have a discussion about labor and community if we don't first say what do we need to do at this time in history what is the strategy that gives us some chance of winning because I spent my life time as a union organizer justice for janitors a lot of things
It seems we are at a moment where the world is going to get much much worse or much much better

Unions are almost dead we cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also and if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge - the big banks and everything - what they want is stability

Every time there is a crisis in the world they say, well, the markets are stable.
What's changed in America is the economy doing well has nothing to do with the rest of us

They figured out that they don't need us to be rich they can do very well in a global market without us so what does this have to do with community and labor organizing more.

We need to figure out in a much more through direct action more concrete way how we are really trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital for how corporations operate

The thing about a boom and bust economy is it is actually incredibly fragile.

There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.

For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that's totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up

If you could double that number you would  you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.

Students have a trillion dollar debt

We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree  it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well  we wouldn't be paying anything.

Government is being strangled by debt

The four things we could do that could really upset wall street

One is if city and state and other  government entities demanded to renegotiate their debt
and you might say why would the banks ever do it  - because city and counties could say we won’t do business with you in the future if you won’t renegotiate the debt now

So we could leverage the power we have of government and say two things  we won’t do business with you JP Morgan Chase anymore unless you do two things: you reduce the price of our interest  and second you rewrite the mortgages for everybody in the communities

We could make them do that

The second thing is there is a whole question in Europe about students’ rates in debt structure. What would happen if students said we are not going to pay.  It’s a trillion dollars. Think about republicans screaming about debt a trillion dollars in student debt

There is a third thing we can think about what if public employee unions instead of just being on the defensive  put on the collective bargaining table when they negotiate they say we demand as a condition of negotiation that the government renegotiate - it’s crazy that you’re paying too much interest to your buddies the bankers it’s a strike issue  - we will strike unless you force the banks to renegotiate/

Then if you add on top of that if we really thought about moving the kind of disruption in Madison but moving that to Wall Street and moving that to other cities around the country

We basically said you stole seventeen trillion dollars - you've improvised us and we are going to make it impossible for you to operate

Labor can’t lead this right now so if labor can’t lead but we are a critical part of it  we do have money we have millions of members who are furious

But I don't think this kind of movement can happen unless community groups and other activists take the lead.
If we really believe that we are in a transformative stage of  what's happening in capitalism

Then we need to confront this in a serious way and develop really ability to put a boot in the wheel  then we have to think not about labor and community alliances  we have to think about how together we are building something that really has the capacity to disrupt how the system operates

We need to think about a whole new way of thinking about this not as a partnership but building something new.

We have to think much more creatively. The key thing... What does the other side fear the most - they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:

  • How do we bring down the stock market
  • How do we bring down their bonuses
  • How do we interfere with there ability to be rich

And that means we have to politically isolate them, economically isolate them  and disrupt them

It’s not all theory i’ll do a pitch.

So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase  and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at  is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don't want to give any details because I don't know if there are any police agents in the room.

The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas

  • that we are not broke there is plenty of money
  • they have the money  - we need to get it back
  • and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and  destroy us

And so we need to take on those folks at the same time

and that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience - direct action all over the city
then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization it try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country  and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense

Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough  and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.

Listen to the tape here >


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/seiu-union-plan-to-destroy-jpmorgan#ixzz1HMxWgPRI

Quote    Reply   

#20 [url]

Mar 22 11 3:17 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/22/eric_holder_gaddafis_presence_in_libya_has_got_to_end.html

Eric Holder: Gaddafi's Presence In Libya "Has Got To End"

 
Eric Holder says since Gaddafi has lost all legitimacy with his people and is ruling in an unstable way, he must go.

PLEASE GO TO THE WEBSITE TO LISTEN TO THIS  and many more videos :)

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help