The Myths of Islam Eye opening must read

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Thursday, February 08, 2007

A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Background and justification to Amendment 28

Whereas Religion is defined as an institution dedicated to improving social conscience and promoting individual and societal spiritual growth in a way that is harmless to others not participating in or practicing the same;

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the ideals of individual rights, including the individual right to practice one’s religion of choice, or no religion, and that there would be no compulsion of religion, nor state sanctioned religion, nor a “religious test” for participation in the body politic;

Whereas Islam includes a complete political and social structure, encompassed by its religious law, Sharia, that supersedes any civil law and that Islam mandates that no secular or democratic institutions are to be superior to Islamic law;

Whereas Islam preaches that it and it alone is the true religion and that Islam will dominate the world and supplant all other religions and democratic institutions;

Whereas Saudi Arabia, the spiritual home of Islam does not permit the practice of any other religion on its soil and even “moderate” Muslims states such as Turkey and Malaysia actively suppress other religions;

Whereas Islam includes as its basic tenet the spread of the faith by any and all means necessary, including violent conquest of non-believers, and demands of its followers that they implement violent jihad (holy war) against those un-willing to convert or submit to Islam, including by deception and subversion of existing institutions;

Whereas on 9/11/2001 19 Muslim hijackers acting in the name of Islam killed 3,000 Americans, and numerous other acts of terrorism have been directed at the American people around the world;

Whereas representatives of Islam around the world including Osama Bin Laden (architect of 9/11), the government of Iran including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, HAMAS, Hezbollah, and other Islamic groups have declared jihad (war) on America, and regularly declare that America should cease to exist;

Whereas there is no organized Islamic opposition to violent proponents of Islam;

Therefore: Islam is not a religion, but a political ideology more akin to Fascism and totally in opposition to the ideals of freedom as described in the United States Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Be it resolved that the following Amendment to the Constitution be adopted:

Article I

The social/political/ideological system known around the world as Islam is not recognized in the United States as a religion.

The practice of Islam is therefore not protected under the 1st Amendment as to freedom of religion and speech.

Article II

As representatives of Islam around the world have declared war, and committed acts of war, against the United States and its democratic allies around the world, Islam is hereby declared an enemy of the United States and its practice within the United States is now prohibited.

Article III

Immediately upon passage of this Amendment all Mosques, schools and Muslim places of worship and religious training are to be closed, converted to other uses, or destroyed. Proceeds from sales of such properties may be distributed to congregations of said places but full disclosure of all proceeds shall be made to an appropriate agency as determined by Congress. No compensation is to be offered by Federal or State agencies for losses on such properties however Federal funding is to be available for the demolishing of said structures if other disposition cannot be made.

The preaching of Islam in Mosques, Schools, and other venues is prohibited. The subject of Islam may be taught in a post high school academic environment provided that instruction include discussion of Islam’s history of violence, conquest, and its ongoing war on democratic and other non-Islamic values.

The preaching or advocating of Islamic ideals of world domination, destruction of America and democratic institutions, jihad against Judaism, Christianity and other religions, and advocating the implementation of Sharia law shall in all cases be punishable by fines, imprisonment, deportation, and death as prescribed by Congress. Violent expressions of these and other Muslim goals, or the material support of those both in the United States and around the world who seek to advance these Islamic goals shall be punishable by death.

Muslims will be denied the opportunity to immigrate to the United States.

Article IV

Nothing in this amendment shall be construed as authorizing the discrimination against, of violence upon, nor repudiation of the individual rights of those Americans professing to be Muslim. The individual right of conscience is sacrosanct and the practice of Islam within the privacy of home and self is strictly protected to the extent that such individuals do not violate the prohibitions described in Article III.

Labor Unions: Double-Edged Blade

Labor Unions: Double-Edged Blade

Liberals see labor unions through rose-colored glasses.  Reality is somewhat different.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
Tuesday’s edition of the Stamford Advocate, my local newspaper, has a front-page article about actor-director Tim Robbins’s attempt to revive public interest in his 1999 film “Cradle Will Rock.” Mr. Robbins, a resident of the adjoining Westchester County town of Pound Ridge, spoke to a Stamford audience the night before at the Avon Theatre Film Center on Bedford Street.

Mr. Robbins’s movie, according to the Wikipedia:

… chronicles the process and events that surrounded the production of the original 1937 musical The Cradle Will Rock by Marc Blitzstein. Tim Robbins, in his third film as director, adapts history to create this fictionalized account of the original production, bringing in other stories of the time to produce this commentary on the role of art and power in the 1930s, particularly amidst the struggles of the 1930s labor movement and the corresponding appeal of socialism and communism among many intellectuals and working class people of that time.

Mr. Robbins’s evidently identifies emotionally with labor unions of the 1930s and sees business as a source of evil. 

In a speech given at an antiwar rally in New York City’s Central Park on October 6, 2002, he said:

Let us find a way to resist fundamentalism that leads to violence–fundamentalism of all kinds, in Al Qaeda and within our own government. What is our fundamentalism? Cloaked in patriotism and our doctrine of spreading democracy throughout the world, our fundamentalism is business, the unfettered spread of our economic interests throughout the globe. Our resistance to this war should be our resistance to profit at the cost of human life. Because that is what these drums beating over Iraq are really about. This is about business.

Mr. Robbins’s view is straight out of the Socialist International’s appeal to the “workers of the world” to boycott World War I, on the theory that wars result only from capitalists struggling for monopoly market power, using the blood of the workers to achieve their goals.

In socialist doctrine, economic forces are the only factors having meaning for political societies.  The essential feature of that doctrine is that all elements of society must be organized to control production of economic goods.  From the very beginning of socialism as a cogent theory, Henri de Saint-Simon pictured the transition to socialism as one of conflict between capitalistic business owners and the workers. 

Thus labor unions are absolutely essential to socialism as the organizing mechanism of the entire labor force.  Unions are the heart of politics, which has no goal other than production by Marx’s “workers of the world.”

In the 1930s period of Mr. Robbins’s movie, industrial unions first became major factors in our economy.  The results then and now have been, on the whole, negative for the United States. 

The springboard for socialistic industrial unions was the New Deal’s 1935 Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act), which stacked the bargaining cards in labor’s favor.  Overnight, unions were able to employ almost any sort of coercive tactics against businesses, without fear of legal prosecution. 

Unions could legally seize private property and prevent businesses from operating.  They could prevent all workers from entering private businesses and could stop deliveries of all supplies, including food, to those businesses.  Having been exempted from anti-trust prosecution, unions could organize mass boycotts and demonstrations to prevent people from buying products of companies that they targeted.  And they did not hesitate to resort to violence to implement such tactics.

In 1936, business enjoyed its only significant rally under the Depression-era New Deal.  That rally came as a result of the Supreme Court’s declaring the National Recovery Administration (NRA) unconstitutional.  The NRA had been the most onerous of President Roosevelt’s agencies patterned on Mussolini’s Fascist state corporatism.

The rally was shortly thereafter curtailed by the onslaught of union tactics that caused a surge of labor costs.  Unable to raise prices to offset higher labor costs, major industries found production essentially unprofitable.  By the end of 1936 and into 1937 industrial production turned sharply downward, precipitating a stock market crash as severe as that of 1929.  Business never recovered until the nation began gearing up in 1940 for the probability of participating in the European war.

Automobile manufacturing was the union’s first and main target in 1936.  Then and after the end of World War II, industrial unions exacted extremely high wages and supplemental benefits for their non-skilled laborers.  In the brief period before European and Japanese industry recovered from the war and began exporting to the United States, automobile production costs were pushed completely out of line with those in the rest of the industrialized world.

Japanese auto makers today gain a profit of about $2,000 per vehicle sold here (a great many of them manufactured here by non-union labor).  General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, in contrast, lose about $1,200 per passenger sedan made and sold in the United States.  They have roughly $2,500 more per vehicle in labor costs than Japanese auto companies manufacturing vehicles in the United States. 

Despite union boasts about union labor being better than non-union labor, the public finds the Japanese products to be of higher quality than the Big Three union-made variety.

General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are now teetering on the precipice of bankruptcy, with intransigent unions heedlessly pushing them.

Labor unions have benefited a limited portion of the American work force and they have been the principal financial and get-out-the-vote engine for their sponsors, the Democratic Party.

But it has been at tremendous cost to the rest of the nation.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

Liberals Should Chew and Try to Digest

Liberals Should Chew and Try to Digest

Liberals repeat ad nauseam the campaign mantra about “Bush tax cuts for the rich.” The facts don’t match that picture.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
Wall Street Journal columnist David Wessel observes what liberal-progressive-socialists can’t grasp: the economy isn’t a static “thing” that can be carved up and apportioned in accord with “social justice” to make us all equally poor.  As in physics, for every action, there is a reaction.  Results are counterintuitive. 

Liberals ignore it, but the rich pay almost all of the income taxes, while the bottom half of taxpayers pay very little of them.  Moreover, the administration’s tax cuts changed the distribution of wealth and taxes almost not at all.

For those who are not paid subscribers to the Wall Street Journal’s online publication, the following are some of Mr. Wessel’s points.

FACT ONE: Federal taxes make the distribution of income more equal, even after the Bush tax cuts. Taxes don’t undo all market forces pushing income toward the top—and there are good reasons they shouldn’t. Before taxes, the bottom 40% of U.S. households got 13% of the nation’s income in 2004; after federal taxes of all sorts they got about 15%, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s latest estimates. Because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a cash bonus the government offers low-wage workers, many Americans at the bottom get money from the government, rather than having to pay income taxes; they still face payroll taxes on their wages.
Before taxes, the top 1% got about 16% of income; after taxes they ended up with 14%. (Yes, you read that right: The 1.2 million best-off households got about as much income, even after taxes, as the 45.5 million worst-off.) That top 1%, by the way, pays about a quarter of all federal taxes.

CBO estimates aren’t perfect, but they represent the best available attempt to combine Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service data to get a comprehensive picture of who pays taxes.

FACT TWO: The Treasury benefits more when CEOs get bigger raises than when ordinary workers gain, and that, along with the buoyant economy, is a big reason for today’s surge in federal revenue.

It’s simple: Taking all federal taxes into account—including payroll as well as income taxes, and allocating corporate profits and taxes paid on them to those who hold shares—the CBO says those in the bottom fifth pay an average of $4.50 in taxes for every $100 they take in. Those in the top 1% pay $31.10 in taxes for every $100 they take in.

FACT THREE: The Bush tax cuts reduced income-tax rates across the spectrum. Some saved a lot more dollars than others—namely, the ones who make a lot of money. But, strangely, the percentage of taxes paid by different groups hasn’t changed very much.

Consider this calculation by James Poterba, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist: If the Bush tax cuts had never happened, and President Bill Clinton’s tax rates were applied to the 2004 economy, American households would have paid about 3% more of their income in taxes. (Mr. Poterba quickly adds that people would have behaved differently had taxes remained at Clinton levels. They would have sold fewer shares of stock, for instance, because capital-gains tax rates would have been higher. That means the 3% estimate overstates the actual effect somewhat.)

But Mr. Bush did cut taxes. So, Mr. Poterba looks at how that smaller tax bill was sliced—what percentage was paid by the best-off 1%, by the middle class, etc. It turns out the share of the income-tax tab actually picked up by each group in 2004 is close to what it would have been had Mr. Bush’s tax never happened. The CBO numbers show the same thing: The top 1% paid 25.5% of all federal taxes under Mr. Clinton’s tax rates and 25.3% under Mr. Bush’s.

How can that be? Clearly the well-off saved many bucks. For one thing, tax rates were cut for the bottom and middle as well as the top, a fact often lost in public debate over taxes on the rich. Second, there’s so little income earned and so little tax paid at the bottom that a tax cut of $100 is a big change in the taxes that group pays, and conversely at the top.

FACT FOUR: Rising spending on government retirement and health benefits almost surely will force tax increases in the next decade or so; the issue is who will be taxed.

Visit MoveOff Network Members

Labor Controls the Liberals

Labor Controls the Liberals

American labor unions are pushing candidates for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination toward expansion of the welfare-state and massive inflation of the sort that the Great Society spawned.

Read More…

function showHide(entryID, entryLink, htmlObj, type) { if (type == “comments”) { extTextDivID = (‘comText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘comLink’ + (entryID)); } else { extTextDivID = (‘extText’ + (entryID)); extLinkDivID = (‘extLink’ + (entryID)); } if( document.getElementById ) { if( document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display ) { if( entryLink != 0 ) { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “block”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “none”; htmlObj.blur(); } else { document.getElementById(extTextDivID).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(extLinkDivID).style.display = “block”; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } } else { location.href = entryLink; return true; } }
After both World War I and World War II, the British Labour Party led England into its destructive liaison with socialism that destroyed British industry and reduced England to the “sick man of Europe.”

Harold Meyerson’s January 31, 2007, column in the Washington Post describes the behind-the-scenes power exerted by labor unions, especially the government employees unions.  Their immediate goal is imposition of universal, socialized medicine, of the sort championed in 1993 by Hillary Clinton.

If labor unions succeed, two results are inevitable.

First is a resumption of the devastating inflation caused by President Johnson’s Great Society, the most recent push forward of socialism.  Raising taxes to pay for socialized medicine will throw business into another recession, thereby reducing income tax revenues at the same time that Federal expenditures will be required to expand.  Even if business later booms, the funding requirements for present Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs, before universal socialized medicine, dwarf the prospective tax revenues.

The only way to finance socialized medicine, in the final analysis, will be the Federal Reserve’s creating more money via bookkeeping entries.  By definition, more money without an offsetting increase in production of goods and services is inflation.  And it is always the working people who get wiped out by inflation. 

The second result will be the sine qua non of socialism: further steps toward collective tyranny.

Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, opposing Marxian collectivism in 1872, described what life was to be under socialism:

The government will not content itself with administering and governing the masses politically, as all governments do today.  It will administer the masses economically, concentrating in the hands of the State the production and division of wealth, the cultivation of land…All that will demand the reign of scientific intelligence, the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and elitist of all regimes.  There will be a new class, a new hierarchy…the world will be divided into a minority ruling in the name of knowledge, and an immense ignorant majority.  And then, woe unto the mass of ignorant ones! (quoted in David Horowitz’s, The Politics of Bad Faith).

Sir William Beveridge, one of the British Labour Party authors of socialized medicine and other welfare-state services after World War II, stated the necessity quite forthrightly. 

…the State,” he wrote, “ in this field is not wholly master of events so long as it desires to preserve the freedom of individuals……the State cannot undertake the responsibility for full employment without full powers.

In other words, central planning necessary for imposition of socialism can not become effective without subordinating the rights of individuals to the goals of the planners.

Socialist Paul Ricoeur, writing in the American socialist journal Dissent, put it this way: 

…the problem of political power in a socialist economy is not fundamentally different from the same problem in a capitalist economy;…political power in a socialist economy offers comparable or even greater possibilities of tyranny.…One must go still further and assert that the socialist state requires a more vigilant popular control than the bourgeois state.  And this precisely because the socialist state is the more rational, extending design and planning to areas of human existence that previously had been left to chance or improvisation.  Since the rationality of a state which plans to end class division is greater than that of its predecessors, its potential power and the opportunities offered to tyranny are also greater.