Holy Week
James Fortune - I Believe
He’s Alive, Believe It!
The Price Has Been Paid, Believe It!
He Will See Us Through, Believe It!
Happy Easter
Mar 24, 2013
Mar 17, 2013
Locally Speaking
Christie Proposes To Toughen Rules On Those Seeking N.J. Unemployment Benefits
New Jerseyans hunting for jobs would have to climb an extra hurdle before they can collect weekly unemployment benefits under new regulations being proposed by Gov. Chris Christie’s administration.
Jobless residents would have to search for openings online, on a state-run jobs board called Jobs4Jersey.com, every week. The only current requirement is that they check in with state officials by phone, mail, in person or online.
The state Department of Labor and Workforce Development said a weekly search of the jobs board is "the very least that a claimant can do" and the governor expects to save money for New Jersey taxpayers by putting more people back to work.
"If a claimant fails to simply register with Jobs4Jersey, then he or she is not actively seeking work and should not collect benefits," Labor Department officials wrote in the New Jersey Register, detailing their proposal. "Each such effort benefits all taxpayers in that it helps to restore the solvency of the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund."
But some worry the added requirement could have unintended consequences for people who lack Internet access at home.
"To create these super-technical conditions on benefits for workers who are spending every waking hour trying to find a job, it looks pretty mean-spirited," said Maurice Emsellem, co-policy director at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for lower wage workers. "These are people who are already having trouble navigating the system."
Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Mercer), who has sponsored legislation to make it easier for residents to get unemployment benefits, said such a change "would prove very cumbersome for those without access to the Internet, those who may not feel comfortable using technology and those who may have trouble understanding the directions."
"Once again the administration is taking the wrong direction and seemingly making things unnecessarily difficult for working class New Jerseyans looking to get back on their feet," DeAngelo said.
Spokespeople for Christie and the Labor Department declined to comment, saying state officials would wait until April 20, the deadline for submitting public comments for the proposed change.
Approximately 150,000 residents file claims every week in New Jersey, according to the most recent data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. At last count, the state had the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the country, at 9.6 percent. New state unemployment figures will be released later this week.
Jennifer Burnett, a senior researcher at the Council of State Governments, said states commonly require proof that someone is actively seeking employment, and many require residents to enroll in a job search or career program.
Burnett said she does not know of any other state that mandates residents check a website at specific intervals. "That doesn’t mean there isn’t one," Burnett said. "I’m just not aware of one."
In Pennsylvania, residents are required to register on the state's job-matching website, but after that they can keep records of their work search on the web, over the phone, or in person, said Sara Goulet, a spokeswoman for the state's labor department.
"We hope they stay on our website, because it's a pretty cool tool," Goulet said. "But they are only required to register there."
The New Jersey trust fund that pays for unemployment compensation went broke in March 2009 after years in which state officials raided billions of dollars for other budget items. Since then, the state has been borrowing money from the federal government, and owed $1.8 billion to the feds as of April 2012, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services last year.
"Employers are currently paying higher federal and state (unemployment insurance) taxes and an additional annual assessment to reimburse the federal government for the principal and interest of the loan," OLS analysts wrote. Labor Department officials had been planning to "pay off the entire loan balance by June 30, 2013," the OLS added.
A public hearing on the rules change is scheduled for Friday, from 10 a.m. to noon, at the Labor Department’s offices in Trenton. To be added to the list of speakers, call (609) 292-2789. –By Brent Johnson/NJ.com/March 12, 2013
New Jerseyans hunting for jobs would have to climb an extra hurdle before they can collect weekly unemployment benefits under new regulations being proposed by Gov. Chris Christie’s administration.
Jobless residents would have to search for openings online, on a state-run jobs board called Jobs4Jersey.com, every week. The only current requirement is that they check in with state officials by phone, mail, in person or online.
The state Department of Labor and Workforce Development said a weekly search of the jobs board is "the very least that a claimant can do" and the governor expects to save money for New Jersey taxpayers by putting more people back to work.
"If a claimant fails to simply register with Jobs4Jersey, then he or she is not actively seeking work and should not collect benefits," Labor Department officials wrote in the New Jersey Register, detailing their proposal. "Each such effort benefits all taxpayers in that it helps to restore the solvency of the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund."
But some worry the added requirement could have unintended consequences for people who lack Internet access at home.
"To create these super-technical conditions on benefits for workers who are spending every waking hour trying to find a job, it looks pretty mean-spirited," said Maurice Emsellem, co-policy director at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for lower wage workers. "These are people who are already having trouble navigating the system."
Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo (D-Mercer), who has sponsored legislation to make it easier for residents to get unemployment benefits, said such a change "would prove very cumbersome for those without access to the Internet, those who may not feel comfortable using technology and those who may have trouble understanding the directions."
"Once again the administration is taking the wrong direction and seemingly making things unnecessarily difficult for working class New Jerseyans looking to get back on their feet," DeAngelo said.
Spokespeople for Christie and the Labor Department declined to comment, saying state officials would wait until April 20, the deadline for submitting public comments for the proposed change.
Approximately 150,000 residents file claims every week in New Jersey, according to the most recent data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. At last count, the state had the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the country, at 9.6 percent. New state unemployment figures will be released later this week.
Jennifer Burnett, a senior researcher at the Council of State Governments, said states commonly require proof that someone is actively seeking employment, and many require residents to enroll in a job search or career program.
Burnett said she does not know of any other state that mandates residents check a website at specific intervals. "That doesn’t mean there isn’t one," Burnett said. "I’m just not aware of one."
In Pennsylvania, residents are required to register on the state's job-matching website, but after that they can keep records of their work search on the web, over the phone, or in person, said Sara Goulet, a spokeswoman for the state's labor department.
"We hope they stay on our website, because it's a pretty cool tool," Goulet said. "But they are only required to register there."
The New Jersey trust fund that pays for unemployment compensation went broke in March 2009 after years in which state officials raided billions of dollars for other budget items. Since then, the state has been borrowing money from the federal government, and owed $1.8 billion to the feds as of April 2012, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services last year.
"Employers are currently paying higher federal and state (unemployment insurance) taxes and an additional annual assessment to reimburse the federal government for the principal and interest of the loan," OLS analysts wrote. Labor Department officials had been planning to "pay off the entire loan balance by June 30, 2013," the OLS added.
A public hearing on the rules change is scheduled for Friday, from 10 a.m. to noon, at the Labor Department’s offices in Trenton. To be added to the list of speakers, call (609) 292-2789. –By Brent Johnson/NJ.com/March 12, 2013
House Member’s Salaries & Benefits
Just some facts for everyone to think about. After they were voted in, this is the reward they gave themselves. What have they done to earn a salary?
The median wealth of a House member is $765,010... For a senator it’s $2.38 million. Yet, incredibly, they still enjoy all of this:
•$174,000 salary
•Free company car
•Free gas
•Free parking (even at airports)
•Free flights almost anywhere in the world
•Per diem travel allowance... up to $3,000 a trip
•A month’s paid vacation
•3-day work-weeks
•Free membership to a top-flight gym
•Pension plan and 401K plan
•Full retirement benefits (including up to 44% of their six figure salaries) at age 62
•Free top of the line health insurance with 10 plans to choose from
•Fully covered – even with pre-existing condition
The median wealth of a House member is $765,010... For a senator it’s $2.38 million. Yet, incredibly, they still enjoy all of this:
•$174,000 salary
•Free company car
•Free gas
•Free parking (even at airports)
•Free flights almost anywhere in the world
•Per diem travel allowance... up to $3,000 a trip
•A month’s paid vacation
•3-day work-weeks
•Free membership to a top-flight gym
•Pension plan and 401K plan
•Full retirement benefits (including up to 44% of their six figure salaries) at age 62
•Free top of the line health insurance with 10 plans to choose from
•Fully covered – even with pre-existing condition
Source Unknown
We Are Above The Law Of The Land'
Muslim leader's stunning claim at Texas rally for Islam
Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law, according to a leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who delivered the controversial message to a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas.
“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.
The rally in Austin was part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events.
According to the event website, Muslims from around Texas went to the capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”
The organizers said one major issue discussed “was the recent House and Senate bill proposals involving the implementation of ‘anti-Shariah’ legislation, where the First Amendment rights and freedoms of Muslims would ultimately be hindered.”
Critics argue Shariah prohibits other faiths from free exercise of religion when enforced, giving freedom only to Muslims.
Carroll’s statement was similar to a statement allegedly made by CAIR co-founder and former chairman Omar M. Ahmad. He was paraphrased by a reporter saying, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant” and the Quran “should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Carroll began joking about the widespread concern about Shariah, the religious code that governs Muslim civil and political life.
“We tried to downplay Shariah, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.
He dismissed critics who express concern about Shariah, calling them “anti-foreign.”
“When you even say the word Shariah, people get nervous. We are not advocating for Shariah. We are not trying to make Shariah the law of the land,” he said.
Carroll claimed Muslims only want the “right to practice our faith.”
But he also said, “If you understand Shariah, the foundation of our faith … how we treat our neighbor, how we treat our parents … how we participate in society, all of that is part of Shariah.”
Carroll is on record defending Hamas, classified by the U.S. as a terrorist group.
“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas,” he’s said.
At CAIR’s Dallas banquet in 2007, Carroll denied the Quran is the source of terrorism.
“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Quran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Quran told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”
Rev. Ronnie C. Lister, a social justice activist from the Houston area, spoke at Muslim Capitol Day.
“This country belongs to you. This state house is your state house. The police department is your police department,” he told the crowd. “This land is your land. … God is on your side … this is your house. [It] does not belong to the Republicans. It does not belong to the Democrats. It does not belong to just Americans. It belongs to all of us!
“We are looking for the day when a Muslim will become president of the United States; you heard it from me,” Lister said.
Islamic expert Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., told WND that Carroll’s declaration of Islamic supremacy was consistent with Muslim teaching.
“When you hear one of their speakers say, we are above the law of the land – take it to the bank. That is what they really believe,” he said. “That is what all Muslims believe. That is what Shariah teaches. To the extent that Muslims adhere to Shariah, they are obliged to try and impose it on the rest of us.”
“The organized spread of Shariah is what Gaffney calls “civilization jihad.”
Gaffney, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration, noted CAIR was founded in 1993 to serve as a fundraising and political arm for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Islam expert Daniel Pipes points out CAIR denied Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, even though bin Laden acknowledged his role on camera. In 1998, CAIR demanded removal of a billboard in Los Angeles that described bin Laden as “the sworn enemy,” saying that the description was “offensive to Muslims.”
CAIR also called the conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers “a travesty of justice.
CAIR had on its advisory board Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It was the same Siraj Wahhaj who was asked to deliver the “Juma,” or invocation, at the Democratic National Convention for President Obama. He also once remarked, “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”
Rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders
As former FBI agent Mike Rolf acknowledges in “Muslim Mafia,” “CAIR has had a number of people in positions of power within the organization that have been directly connected to terrorism and have either been prosecuted or thrown out of the country.” According to another FBI veteran familiar with recent and ongoing cases involving CAIR officials, “Their offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters.”
A review of the public record, including federal criminal court documents, past IRS 990 tax records and Federal Election Commission records detailing donor occupations, reveals that CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations. The list is long and includes:
Ghassan Elashi: One of CAIR’s founding directors, he was convicted in 2004 of illegally shipping high-tech goods to terror state Syria and is serving 80 months in prison. He was also convicted of providing material support to Hamas in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. He was chairman of the charity, which provided seed capital to CAIR. Elashi is related to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.
Muthanna al-Hanooti: The CAIR director’s home was raided in 2006 by FBI agents in connection with an active terrorism investigation. Agents also searched the offices of his advocacy group, Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, which al-Hanooti operates out of Dearborn, Mich., and Washington, D.C.Al-Hanooti, who emigrated to the U.S. from Iraq, formerly helped run a suspected Hamas terror front called LIFE for Relief and Development. Its Michigan offices also were raided in September 2006. In 2004, LIFE’s Baghdad office was raided by U.S. troops, who seized files and computers. Al-Hanooti is related to Sheik Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
“Al-Hanooti collected over $6 million for support of Hamas,” according to a 2001 FBI report, and was present with CAIR and Holy Land officials at a secret Hamas fundraising summit held in 1993 at a Philadelphia hotel. Prosecutors added his name to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.
Although Al-Hanooti denies supporting Hamas, he has praised Palestinian suicide bombers as “martyrs” who are “alive in the eyes of Allah.”
Abdurahman Alamoudi: Another CAIR director, he is serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism. Alamoudi, who was caught on tape complaining that bin Laden hadn’t killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Siraj Wahhaj: A member of CAIR’s board of advisers, Wahhaj was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The radical Brooklyn imam was close to convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and defended him during his trial.
“Muslim Mafia,” citing co-author’s Sperry’s previous book “Infiltration” as well as terror expert Steven Emerson’s research, reports that Wahhaj, a black convert to Islam, is converting gang members to Islam and holding “jihad camps” for them. With a combination of Islam and Uzis, he has said, the street thugs will be a powerful force for Islam the day America “will crumble.”
Wahhaj was a key speaker at CAIR’s 15th annual fund-raising banquet in Arlington, Va., in 2009.
Randall “Ismail” Royer: The former CAIR communications specialist and civil-rights coordinator is serving 20 years in prison in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network, which he led while employed by CAIR at its Washington headquarters. The group trained to kill U.S. soldiers overseas, cased the FBI headquarters and cheered the space shuttle Columbia tragedy. Al-Qaida operative Ahmed Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush, was among those who trained with Royer’s Northern Virginia cell.
Bassam Khafagi: Another CAIR official, Khafagi was arrested in 2003 while serving as CAIR’s director of community affairs. He pleaded guilty to charges of bank and visa fraud stemming from a federal counter-terror probe of his leadership role in the Islamic Assembly of North America, which has supported al-Qaida and advocated suicide attacks on America. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison and deported to his native Egypt.
Laura Jaghlit: A civil-rights coordinator for CAIR, her Washington-area home was raided by federal agents after 9/11 as part of an investigation into terrorist financing, money laundering and tax fraud. Her husband Mohammed Jaghlit, a key leader in the Saudi-backed SAAR network, is a target of the still-active probe.Jaghlit sent two letters accompanying donations – one for $10,000, the other for $5,000 – from the SAAR Foundation to Sami al-Arian, now a convicted terrorist. In each letter, according to a federal affidavit, “Jaghlit instructed al-Arian not to disclose the contribution publicly or to the media.”Investigators suspect the funds were intended for Palestinian terrorists via a U.S. front called WISE, which at the time employed an official who personally delivered a satellite phone battery to Osama bin Laden. The same official also worked for Jaghlit’s group.In addition, Jaghlit donated a total of $37,200 to the Holy Land Foundation, which prosecutors say is a Hamas front. Jaghlit subsequently was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
Nihad Awad: Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case puts CAIR’s executive director at the Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in 1993 that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charitable giving.During the meeting, according to FBI transcripts, Awad was recorded discussing the propaganda effort. He mentions Ghassan Dahduli, whom he worked with at the time at the Islamic Association for Palestine, another Hamas front. Both were IAP officers. Dahduli’s name also was listed in the address book of bin Laden’s personal secretary, Wadi al-Hage, who is serving a life sentence in prison for his role in the U.S. embassy bombings. Dahduli, an ethnic-Palestinian like Awad, was deported to Jordan after 9/11 for refusing to cooperate in the terror investigation. (An April 28, 2009, letter from FBI assistant director Richard C. Powers to Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. – which singles out CAIR chief Awad for suspicion – explains how the group’s many Hamas connections caused the FBI to sever ties with CAIR.)Awad’s and Dahduli’s phone numbers are listed in a Muslim Brotherhood document seized by federal investigators revealing “important phone numbers” for the “Palestine Section” of the Brotherhood in America. The court exhibit showed Hamas fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook listed on the same page with Awad.
Omar Ahmad: U.S. prosecutors also named CAIR’s founder and chairman emeritus as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Ahmad, too, was placed at the Philadelphia meeting, FBI special agent Lara Burns testified at the trial. Prosecutors also designated him as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee” in America. Ahmad, like his CAIR partner Awad, is ethnic-Palestinian.(Though both Ahmad and Awad were senior leaders of IAP, the Hamas front, neither of their biographical sketches posted on CAIR’s website mentions their IAP past.)
Nabil Sadoun: A CAIR board member, Sadoun has served on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, which investigators believe to be a key Hamas front in America. In fact, Sadoun co-founded UASR with Hamas leader Marzook. The Justice Department added UASR to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case. UPDATE: In 2010, Sadoun was ordered deported to his native Jordan. An immigration judge referenced Sadoun’s relationship with Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation during a deportation hearing.
Mohamed Nimer: CAIR’s research director also served as a board director for UASR, the strategic arm for Hamas in the U.S. CAIR neglects to mention Nimer’s and Sadoun’s roles in UASR in their bios.
Rafeeq Jaber: A founding director of CAIR, Jaber was the long-time president of the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2002, a federal judge found that “the Islamic Association for Palestine has acted in support of Hamas.” In his capacity as IAP chief, Jaber praised Hezbollah attacks on Israel. He also served on the board of a radical mosque in the Chicago area.
Rabith Hadid: The CAIR fundraiser was a founder of the Global Relief Foundation, which after 9/11 was blacklisted by the Treasury Department for financing al-Qaida and other terror groups. Its assets were frozen in December 2001. Hadid was arrested on terror-related charges and deported to Lebanon in 2003.
Hamza Yusuf: The FBI investigated the CAIR board member after 9/11, because just two days before the attacks, he made an ominous prediction to a Muslim audience.”This country is facing a terrible fate, and the reason for that is because this country stands condemned,” Yusuf warned. “It stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did. And lest people forget, Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands.”
CAIR’s founder Ahmad, while claiming to be a moderate and patriotic American, reportedly told a group of Muslims in Northern California in 1998 that they are in America not to assimilate, but to help assert Islam’s rule over the country.
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” a local reporter paraphrased him as saying. “The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Ahmad insists he was misquoted. However, the reporter stands by her story, and an FBI wiretap transcript quotes Ahmad agreeing with terrorist suspects gathered at the secret Philadelphia meeting to “camouflage” their true intentions.
He compared it to the head fake in basketball.
“This is like one who plays basketball: He makes a player believe that he is doing this, while he does something else,” Ahmad said. “I agree with you. Like they say, politics is a completion of war.”
Hooper, CAIR’s communications director, also has expressed a desire to overturn the U.S. system of government in favor of an Islamic state.
“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future,” Hooper said in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.” -By John Griffing/WND/March 3, 2013
About the Author: John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of conservative media, both in the realm of commentary and research.
Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law, according to a leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who delivered the controversial message to a crowd at a Muslim rally in Austin, Texas.
“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.
The rally in Austin was part of a nationwide effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events.
According to the event website, Muslims from around Texas went to the capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”
The organizers said one major issue discussed “was the recent House and Senate bill proposals involving the implementation of ‘anti-Shariah’ legislation, where the First Amendment rights and freedoms of Muslims would ultimately be hindered.”
Critics argue Shariah prohibits other faiths from free exercise of religion when enforced, giving freedom only to Muslims.
Carroll’s statement was similar to a statement allegedly made by CAIR co-founder and former chairman Omar M. Ahmad. He was paraphrased by a reporter saying, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant” and the Quran “should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Carroll began joking about the widespread concern about Shariah, the religious code that governs Muslim civil and political life.
“We tried to downplay Shariah, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.
He dismissed critics who express concern about Shariah, calling them “anti-foreign.”
“When you even say the word Shariah, people get nervous. We are not advocating for Shariah. We are not trying to make Shariah the law of the land,” he said.
Carroll claimed Muslims only want the “right to practice our faith.”
But he also said, “If you understand Shariah, the foundation of our faith … how we treat our neighbor, how we treat our parents … how we participate in society, all of that is part of Shariah.”
Carroll is on record defending Hamas, classified by the U.S. as a terrorist group.
“I think you can only blame Hamas for so long. It takes two to tango. And I think, you know, that what we’ve heard for a number of years is this terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, was not just Hamas,” he’s said.
At CAIR’s Dallas banquet in 2007, Carroll denied the Quran is the source of terrorism.
“Look at the true cause of the terrorism. It’s not somebody is reading a book, reading a Quran, and then go out and say, ‘Well, the Quran told me to blow this up. I’m gonna blow it up.’ The cause, the root cause of terrorism is oppression. The root cause of terrorism is oppression.”
Rev. Ronnie C. Lister, a social justice activist from the Houston area, spoke at Muslim Capitol Day.
“This country belongs to you. This state house is your state house. The police department is your police department,” he told the crowd. “This land is your land. … God is on your side … this is your house. [It] does not belong to the Republicans. It does not belong to the Democrats. It does not belong to just Americans. It belongs to all of us!
“We are looking for the day when a Muslim will become president of the United States; you heard it from me,” Lister said.
Islamic expert Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., told WND that Carroll’s declaration of Islamic supremacy was consistent with Muslim teaching.
“When you hear one of their speakers say, we are above the law of the land – take it to the bank. That is what they really believe,” he said. “That is what all Muslims believe. That is what Shariah teaches. To the extent that Muslims adhere to Shariah, they are obliged to try and impose it on the rest of us.”
“The organized spread of Shariah is what Gaffney calls “civilization jihad.”
Gaffney, assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration, noted CAIR was founded in 1993 to serve as a fundraising and political arm for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Islam expert Daniel Pipes points out CAIR denied Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, even though bin Laden acknowledged his role on camera. In 1998, CAIR demanded removal of a billboard in Los Angeles that described bin Laden as “the sworn enemy,” saying that the description was “offensive to Muslims.”
CAIR also called the conviction of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers “a travesty of justice.
CAIR had on its advisory board Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It was the same Siraj Wahhaj who was asked to deliver the “Juma,” or invocation, at the Democratic National Convention for President Obama. He also once remarked, “It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran.”
Rogues gallery of terror-tied CAIR leaders
As former FBI agent Mike Rolf acknowledges in “Muslim Mafia,” “CAIR has had a number of people in positions of power within the organization that have been directly connected to terrorism and have either been prosecuted or thrown out of the country.” According to another FBI veteran familiar with recent and ongoing cases involving CAIR officials, “Their offices have been a turnstile for terrorists and their supporters.”
A review of the public record, including federal criminal court documents, past IRS 990 tax records and Federal Election Commission records detailing donor occupations, reveals that CAIR has been associated with a disturbing number of convicted terrorists or felons in terrorism probes, as well as suspected terrorists and active targets of terrorism investigations. The list is long and includes:
Ghassan Elashi: One of CAIR’s founding directors, he was convicted in 2004 of illegally shipping high-tech goods to terror state Syria and is serving 80 months in prison. He was also convicted of providing material support to Hamas in the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial. He was chairman of the charity, which provided seed capital to CAIR. Elashi is related to Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook.
Muthanna al-Hanooti: The CAIR director’s home was raided in 2006 by FBI agents in connection with an active terrorism investigation. Agents also searched the offices of his advocacy group, Focus on Advocacy and Advancement of International Relations, which al-Hanooti operates out of Dearborn, Mich., and Washington, D.C.Al-Hanooti, who emigrated to the U.S. from Iraq, formerly helped run a suspected Hamas terror front called LIFE for Relief and Development. Its Michigan offices also were raided in September 2006. In 2004, LIFE’s Baghdad office was raided by U.S. troops, who seized files and computers. Al-Hanooti is related to Sheik Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
“Al-Hanooti collected over $6 million for support of Hamas,” according to a 2001 FBI report, and was present with CAIR and Holy Land officials at a secret Hamas fundraising summit held in 1993 at a Philadelphia hotel. Prosecutors added his name to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case.
Although Al-Hanooti denies supporting Hamas, he has praised Palestinian suicide bombers as “martyrs” who are “alive in the eyes of Allah.”
Abdurahman Alamoudi: Another CAIR director, he is serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism. Alamoudi, who was caught on tape complaining that bin Laden hadn’t killed enough Americans in the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, was one of al-Qaida’s top fundraisers in America, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Siraj Wahhaj: A member of CAIR’s board of advisers, Wahhaj was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The radical Brooklyn imam was close to convicted terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and defended him during his trial.
“Muslim Mafia,” citing co-author’s Sperry’s previous book “Infiltration” as well as terror expert Steven Emerson’s research, reports that Wahhaj, a black convert to Islam, is converting gang members to Islam and holding “jihad camps” for them. With a combination of Islam and Uzis, he has said, the street thugs will be a powerful force for Islam the day America “will crumble.”
Wahhaj was a key speaker at CAIR’s 15th annual fund-raising banquet in Arlington, Va., in 2009.
Randall “Ismail” Royer: The former CAIR communications specialist and civil-rights coordinator is serving 20 years in prison in connection with the Virginia Jihad Network, which he led while employed by CAIR at its Washington headquarters. The group trained to kill U.S. soldiers overseas, cased the FBI headquarters and cheered the space shuttle Columbia tragedy. Al-Qaida operative Ahmed Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assassinate President George W. Bush, was among those who trained with Royer’s Northern Virginia cell.
Bassam Khafagi: Another CAIR official, Khafagi was arrested in 2003 while serving as CAIR’s director of community affairs. He pleaded guilty to charges of bank and visa fraud stemming from a federal counter-terror probe of his leadership role in the Islamic Assembly of North America, which has supported al-Qaida and advocated suicide attacks on America. He was sentenced to 10 months in prison and deported to his native Egypt.
Laura Jaghlit: A civil-rights coordinator for CAIR, her Washington-area home was raided by federal agents after 9/11 as part of an investigation into terrorist financing, money laundering and tax fraud. Her husband Mohammed Jaghlit, a key leader in the Saudi-backed SAAR network, is a target of the still-active probe.Jaghlit sent two letters accompanying donations – one for $10,000, the other for $5,000 – from the SAAR Foundation to Sami al-Arian, now a convicted terrorist. In each letter, according to a federal affidavit, “Jaghlit instructed al-Arian not to disclose the contribution publicly or to the media.”Investigators suspect the funds were intended for Palestinian terrorists via a U.S. front called WISE, which at the time employed an official who personally delivered a satellite phone battery to Osama bin Laden. The same official also worked for Jaghlit’s group.In addition, Jaghlit donated a total of $37,200 to the Holy Land Foundation, which prosecutors say is a Hamas front. Jaghlit subsequently was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the case.
Nihad Awad: Wiretap evidence from the Holy Land case puts CAIR’s executive director at the Philadelphia meeting of Hamas leaders and activists in 1993 that was secretly recorded by the FBI. Participants hatched a plot to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charitable giving.During the meeting, according to FBI transcripts, Awad was recorded discussing the propaganda effort. He mentions Ghassan Dahduli, whom he worked with at the time at the Islamic Association for Palestine, another Hamas front. Both were IAP officers. Dahduli’s name also was listed in the address book of bin Laden’s personal secretary, Wadi al-Hage, who is serving a life sentence in prison for his role in the U.S. embassy bombings. Dahduli, an ethnic-Palestinian like Awad, was deported to Jordan after 9/11 for refusing to cooperate in the terror investigation. (An April 28, 2009, letter from FBI assistant director Richard C. Powers to Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. – which singles out CAIR chief Awad for suspicion – explains how the group’s many Hamas connections caused the FBI to sever ties with CAIR.)Awad’s and Dahduli’s phone numbers are listed in a Muslim Brotherhood document seized by federal investigators revealing “important phone numbers” for the “Palestine Section” of the Brotherhood in America. The court exhibit showed Hamas fugitive Mousa Abu Marzook listed on the same page with Awad.
Omar Ahmad: U.S. prosecutors also named CAIR’s founder and chairman emeritus as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case. Ahmad, too, was placed at the Philadelphia meeting, FBI special agent Lara Burns testified at the trial. Prosecutors also designated him as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Palestine Committee” in America. Ahmad, like his CAIR partner Awad, is ethnic-Palestinian.(Though both Ahmad and Awad were senior leaders of IAP, the Hamas front, neither of their biographical sketches posted on CAIR’s website mentions their IAP past.)
Nabil Sadoun: A CAIR board member, Sadoun has served on the board of the United Association for Studies and Research, which investigators believe to be a key Hamas front in America. In fact, Sadoun co-founded UASR with Hamas leader Marzook. The Justice Department added UASR to the list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case. UPDATE: In 2010, Sadoun was ordered deported to his native Jordan. An immigration judge referenced Sadoun’s relationship with Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation during a deportation hearing.
Mohamed Nimer: CAIR’s research director also served as a board director for UASR, the strategic arm for Hamas in the U.S. CAIR neglects to mention Nimer’s and Sadoun’s roles in UASR in their bios.
Rafeeq Jaber: A founding director of CAIR, Jaber was the long-time president of the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2002, a federal judge found that “the Islamic Association for Palestine has acted in support of Hamas.” In his capacity as IAP chief, Jaber praised Hezbollah attacks on Israel. He also served on the board of a radical mosque in the Chicago area.
Rabith Hadid: The CAIR fundraiser was a founder of the Global Relief Foundation, which after 9/11 was blacklisted by the Treasury Department for financing al-Qaida and other terror groups. Its assets were frozen in December 2001. Hadid was arrested on terror-related charges and deported to Lebanon in 2003.
Hamza Yusuf: The FBI investigated the CAIR board member after 9/11, because just two days before the attacks, he made an ominous prediction to a Muslim audience.”This country is facing a terrible fate, and the reason for that is because this country stands condemned,” Yusuf warned. “It stands condemned like Europe stood condemned because of what it did. And lest people forget, Europe suffered two world wars after conquering the Muslim lands.”
CAIR’s founder Ahmad, while claiming to be a moderate and patriotic American, reportedly told a group of Muslims in Northern California in 1998 that they are in America not to assimilate, but to help assert Islam’s rule over the country.
“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant,” a local reporter paraphrased him as saying. “The Quran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
Ahmad insists he was misquoted. However, the reporter stands by her story, and an FBI wiretap transcript quotes Ahmad agreeing with terrorist suspects gathered at the secret Philadelphia meeting to “camouflage” their true intentions.
He compared it to the head fake in basketball.
“This is like one who plays basketball: He makes a player believe that he is doing this, while he does something else,” Ahmad said. “I agree with you. Like they say, politics is a completion of war.”
Hooper, CAIR’s communications director, also has expressed a desire to overturn the U.S. system of government in favor of an Islamic state.
“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future,” Hooper said in a 1993 interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.” -By John Griffing/WND/March 3, 2013
About the Author: John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of conservative media, both in the realm of commentary and research.
Orange Dreamsicle Cake (makes you dream of summer!)
Ingredients:
1 Pkg Yellow Cake Mix
2 Pks Orange Jello
1 Pk Vanilla Instant Pudding
1 Cup 2% Milk
2 large eggs
2 Tsp Vanilla
1 Tub Cool Whip
Directions:
Bake the cake as directed in a 9x13" pan. Let cake cool completely. Poke holes in cooled cake. Mix 1 package orange gelatin dessert with 1 c. boiling water and 1 c. cold water. Pour over cake. Cover and refrigerate for 4 hours. Mix pudding mix with cold milk the other package of orange gelatin dessert and vanilla. Beat by hand with a whisk until thickened. Fold in the whipped topping. Frost the cake with the pudding mixture.
1 Pkg Yellow Cake Mix
2 Pks Orange Jello
1 Pk Vanilla Instant Pudding
1 Cup 2% Milk
2 large eggs
2 Tsp Vanilla
1 Tub Cool Whip
Directions:
Bake the cake as directed in a 9x13" pan. Let cake cool completely. Poke holes in cooled cake. Mix 1 package orange gelatin dessert with 1 c. boiling water and 1 c. cold water. Pour over cake. Cover and refrigerate for 4 hours. Mix pudding mix with cold milk the other package of orange gelatin dessert and vanilla. Beat by hand with a whisk until thickened. Fold in the whipped topping. Frost the cake with the pudding mixture.
Short And To The Point
Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reported that in fiscal year 2011, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid, and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line [and on welfare] received $168.00 a day in government support.
What's the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000.00 per year which averages out to $137.13 a day. Which means that a person on welfare actually gets $30.87 more per day than a person who works.
To put it another way, being on welfare today pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average worker is paid $25.00 an hour for a 40-hour week Additionally, since the person who works has to pay taxes also, his actual pay drops to $21.00 an hour. It is no wonder that welfare is now the biggest part of the budget, more than Social Security or defense. And why would anyone want to get off welfare when working means being paid $9.00 an hour less?
Author/Source Unknown
Don’t Mess With Seniors
An old married couple is traveling by car. Being seniors, after almost eleven hours on the road, they were too tired to continue and decided to take a room. But, they only planned to sleep for four hours and then get back on the road.
When they checked out four hours later, the desk clerk handed them a bill for $350.00.
The man explodes and demands to know why the charge is so high. He told the clerk although it's a nice hotel; the rooms certainly aren't worth $350.00 for four hours. Then the clerk tells him that $350.00 is the 'standard rate'. He insisted on speaking to the Manager.
The Manager appears, listens to him, and then explains that the hotel has an Olympic-sized pool and a huge conference centre that were available for us to use.
"But we didn't use them," the husband said.
"Well, they are here, and you could have," explained the Manager.
The Manager went on to explain that the couple could also have taken in one of the shows for which the hotel is famous. "We have the best entertainers from New York , Hollywood , and Las Vegas perform here," the Manager says.
"But we didn't go to any of those shows," the husband said.
"Well, we have them, and you could have," the Manager replied.
No matter what amenity the Manager mentioned, the husband replied, "But we didn't use it!"
The Manager is unmoved, and eventually the husband gave up and agreed topay. As he didn't have the check book, he asked his wife to write the check. She did and gave it to the Manager.
The Manager is surprised when he looks at the check. "But ma'am, this is made out for only $50.00."
"That's correct. I charged you $300.00 for sleeping with me," she replied.
"But I didn't!" exclaims the Manager.
"Well, too bad, I was here, and you could have."
Don't mess with senior citizens..... They didn't get there by being stupid.
When they checked out four hours later, the desk clerk handed them a bill for $350.00.
The man explodes and demands to know why the charge is so high. He told the clerk although it's a nice hotel; the rooms certainly aren't worth $350.00 for four hours. Then the clerk tells him that $350.00 is the 'standard rate'. He insisted on speaking to the Manager.
The Manager appears, listens to him, and then explains that the hotel has an Olympic-sized pool and a huge conference centre that were available for us to use.
"But we didn't use them," the husband said.
"Well, they are here, and you could have," explained the Manager.
The Manager went on to explain that the couple could also have taken in one of the shows for which the hotel is famous. "We have the best entertainers from New York , Hollywood , and Las Vegas perform here," the Manager says.
"But we didn't go to any of those shows," the husband said.
"Well, we have them, and you could have," the Manager replied.
No matter what amenity the Manager mentioned, the husband replied, "But we didn't use it!"
The Manager is unmoved, and eventually the husband gave up and agreed topay. As he didn't have the check book, he asked his wife to write the check. She did and gave it to the Manager.
The Manager is surprised when he looks at the check. "But ma'am, this is made out for only $50.00."
"That's correct. I charged you $300.00 for sleeping with me," she replied.
"But I didn't!" exclaims the Manager.
"Well, too bad, I was here, and you could have."
Don't mess with senior citizens..... They didn't get there by being stupid.
Author Unknown
Gay Couples Report Poorer Health Than Straight Married Counterparts
Gay and lesbian couples living together report poorer health than straight married couples, U.S. researchers said on Wednesday, speculating that legalizing same-sex marriage could reduce the disparities.
Studies have shown that married couples enjoy better health than people who are single, divorced or separated.
When Dr Hui Liu, an assistant professor of sociology at Michigan State University, and her team studied the health of gay and straight couples, they found marriage made a difference.
"When we controlled for socioeconomic status, the odds of reporting poor or fair health were about 61 percent higher for same-sex cohabiting men than for men in heterosexual marriage, and the odds of reporting poor to fair health were about 46 percent higher for same-sex cohabiting women than for women in heterosexual marriages," Liu said.
Although the researchers did not study the impact of legalizing gay marriage, Liu said it is plausible that if gay unions were sanctioned by law it could improve health by reducing stress and discrimination and providing health benefits enjoyed by married couples.
"If marriage can promote health, it is reasonable for us to expect that if same-sex couples had the advantage of legalized marriage their health may be boosted," Liu added in an interview.
Nine U.S. states and Washington, D.C., have legalized same-sex marriage, assuring gay couples the benefits of a legalized union.
The researchers compared the health of 1,659 gay couples living together and a similar number of married heterosexuals. They pooled data from 1997 to 2009 National Health Interview Surveys in which people across the country were asked to rate their overall health as excellent, very good, good, fair or poor.
The study, which is published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, showed that black women living together as a couple were the most disadvantaged. They reported worse health than any other non-married black women.
Liu and her co-authors, Corinne Reczek an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Cincinnati, and Dustin Brown, a post-graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, suggest that the discrimination and stress that gay couples experience could contribute to their poorer health.
"Legalizing same-sex marriage could also provide other advantages often associated with heterosexual marriage - such as partner health insurance benefits and the ability to file joint tax returns - that may directly or indirectly influence the health of individuals in same-sex unions," Liu added. –By Patricia Reaney/Huffingrton Post/February 27, 2013
Studies have shown that married couples enjoy better health than people who are single, divorced or separated.
When Dr Hui Liu, an assistant professor of sociology at Michigan State University, and her team studied the health of gay and straight couples, they found marriage made a difference.
"When we controlled for socioeconomic status, the odds of reporting poor or fair health were about 61 percent higher for same-sex cohabiting men than for men in heterosexual marriage, and the odds of reporting poor to fair health were about 46 percent higher for same-sex cohabiting women than for women in heterosexual marriages," Liu said.
Although the researchers did not study the impact of legalizing gay marriage, Liu said it is plausible that if gay unions were sanctioned by law it could improve health by reducing stress and discrimination and providing health benefits enjoyed by married couples.
"If marriage can promote health, it is reasonable for us to expect that if same-sex couples had the advantage of legalized marriage their health may be boosted," Liu added in an interview.
Nine U.S. states and Washington, D.C., have legalized same-sex marriage, assuring gay couples the benefits of a legalized union.
The researchers compared the health of 1,659 gay couples living together and a similar number of married heterosexuals. They pooled data from 1997 to 2009 National Health Interview Surveys in which people across the country were asked to rate their overall health as excellent, very good, good, fair or poor.
The study, which is published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, showed that black women living together as a couple were the most disadvantaged. They reported worse health than any other non-married black women.
Liu and her co-authors, Corinne Reczek an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Cincinnati, and Dustin Brown, a post-graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, suggest that the discrimination and stress that gay couples experience could contribute to their poorer health.
"Legalizing same-sex marriage could also provide other advantages often associated with heterosexual marriage - such as partner health insurance benefits and the ability to file joint tax returns - that may directly or indirectly influence the health of individuals in same-sex unions," Liu added. –By Patricia Reaney/Huffingrton Post/February 27, 2013
Dream Islands
The Oasis
Islands and yachts may have been the “it” destination for high-end tourists for years, but no more. The newest thing for the wealthy vacationer is a combination yacht and island: your own floating, move-able island.Floating islands have been in the works since people first imagined exploring the ocean, but technology is finally making that a reality.
The Wally Island premiered four years ago as a kind of giant floating home that’s 325 feet long, $200 million and comes with its own swimming pool. Yacht Island Designs also provides vacation-goers with a $50 million floating island that can be customized to look like a tropical paradise or the streets of Monaco – complete with small castle or fake volcano as you see fit.
The "Oasis" on the "Streets of Monaco" features upper pools cascading into a lower pool and Jacuzzi.
The Wally Island premiered four years ago as a kind of giant floating home that’s 325 feet long, $200 million and comes with its own swimming pool. Yacht Island Designs also provides vacation-goers with a $50 million floating island that can be customized to look like a tropical paradise or the streets of Monaco – complete with small castle or fake volcano as you see fit.
The "Oasis" on the "Streets of Monaco" features upper pools cascading into a lower pool and Jacuzzi.
ORSOS
What separates floating islands from just your run-of-the-mill mega-yacht is the feeling of actually being on land, yet living on the sea. Most floating islands aim to be sustainable and exist off the world they’re floating on top of. The ORSOS uses solar panels, wind power, and heat recovery from seawater to produce its own energy, which powers the island, converts seawater into drinking water and treats wastewater. ORSOS has no motor either; a tugboat or cargo ship is needed to change your vacation location.
Although much focus in recent years has been on exploring space and that final frontier, Hencken believes it makes more sense, and offers just as much for the high-end vacationers, to first explore what’s right beneath us.
“We already have the technology to live on the ocean,” he said. And, that technology can be yours – for just a few million dollars.
Although much focus in recent years has been on exploring space and that final frontier, Hencken believes it makes more sense, and offers just as much for the high-end vacationers, to first explore what’s right beneath us.
“We already have the technology to live on the ocean,” he said. And, that technology can be yours – for just a few million dollars.
ORSOS Island
The latest of these aqua-offerings, the ORSOS Island, announced last month, is smaller (at 65 feet by 121 feet) and cheaper (at just over $6 million) than its predecessors. The floating islands destinations, which really have no set destination, are the hottest trend in wealthy travel.
The ORSOS can be yours for a mere $6 million. A number of organizations and companies have even begun developing plans for floating cities, including a concept that would house 50,000 people in a floating lily pad-style island with the outside layer reacting with UV light to create an air-purifying effect. One plan, from the Seasteading Institute, hopes to create floating cities as a way to allow new, sustainable communities to be built outside the governments of existing countries.
All these ideas have been growing in popularity as property becomes increasingly expensive and in-demand. The ORSOS Island won’t be unveiled until 2013, but interest and orders have already been high, said ORSOS management assistant Jacqueline Jackson. The company is even considering chartering the island to make it more affordable for the masses.
“It’s human nature to want to pioneer new places,” said Randolph Hencken, senior director of the Seasteading Institute. -By Kelly O’Mara/Yahoo Travel/August 1, 2012
Yachts Designed by Yacht Island Designs'
The ORSOS can be yours for a mere $6 million. A number of organizations and companies have even begun developing plans for floating cities, including a concept that would house 50,000 people in a floating lily pad-style island with the outside layer reacting with UV light to create an air-purifying effect. One plan, from the Seasteading Institute, hopes to create floating cities as a way to allow new, sustainable communities to be built outside the governments of existing countries.
All these ideas have been growing in popularity as property becomes increasingly expensive and in-demand. The ORSOS Island won’t be unveiled until 2013, but interest and orders have already been high, said ORSOS management assistant Jacqueline Jackson. The company is even considering chartering the island to make it more affordable for the masses.
“It’s human nature to want to pioneer new places,” said Randolph Hencken, senior director of the Seasteading Institute. -By Kelly O’Mara/Yahoo Travel/August 1, 2012
Yachts Designed by Yacht Island Designs'
Obama Administration Throwing Medical Marijuana Patients Into Federal Prison at Unprecedented Rate
This month will see a number of patients sentenced, sent to prison despite compliance with state medical marijuana laws
Fallout from the Obama Administration's aggressive federal enforcement in medical marijuana states has reached a fever pitch this month with three people being sentenced, two others due to surrender to federal authorities to serve out sentences of up to five years in prison, and one federal trial in Montana currently scheduled for January 14th. Two of the three people being sentenced in the coming month -- Montana cultivator Chris Williams and Los Angeles-area dispensary operator Aaron Sandusky -- face five and ten years to life, respectively.
"The number of sick patients being locked up by the Obama Administration is unprecedented and deplorable," said Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy organization. "Aggressive enforcement is an unacceptable means of addressing medical marijuana as a public health issue," continued Hermes. "The Obama Administration is lying to the American people when it says it's not targeting individual patients and these cases are clear evidence of that." Montana patient cultivator Richard Flor died in August while serving out a 5-year prison sentence.
Five cultivators claiming to be in compliance with Michigan's medical marijuana law were sentenced in October. Two of the cultivators -- Jaycob Montague and Jeremy Duval -- are already serving their prison terms of 18 months and 5 years, respectively, and two others -- John Marcinkewciz and Shelley Waldron -- are scheduled to surrender to federal authorities on January 8th and 10th, respectively. Waldron will be imprisoned for 18 months and Marcinkewciz for 5 years. The fifth cultivator, Jerry Duval (Jeremy's father), was sentenced to 10 years, but has not yet been given a surrender date.
More than a dozen people were indicted after federal agents conducted raids on state compliant medical marijuana businesses throughout Montana in March 2011. Only one, Chris Williams, went to trial and, like all other medical marijuana defendants who are tried in federal court, was denied a defense and swiftly convicted. While facing more than 80 years of mandatory minimum sentencing, Williams accepted a rare post-conviction plea deal that reduced his charges and possible sentence to 5 years to life in exchange for his promise not to appeal his conviction. Williams, who is scheduled to be sentenced on February 1st, worked at Montana Cannabis with Chris Lindsey, another indicted cultivator. Lindsey, who testified against Williams at his trial, is expected to be sentenced today. Medical marijuana cultivator Jason Washington has one of the last unresolved federal cases in Montana. Washington is currently scheduled to go to trial on January 14th.
Aaron Sandusky operated G3 Holistic in Upland, California when he was federally indicted in June. Though Sandusky was arrested with several others, he was the only one who took his case to trial. In October, Sandusky was denied a defense in federal court and convicted at trial. He is scheduled to be sentenced on January 7th to a minimum of 10 years to life.
Far surpassing his predecessor George W. Bush, President Obama has conducted more than 200 SWAT-style raids on state-compliant medical marijuana businesses and has indicted more than 80 people since he took office. "How many medical marijuana patients is President Obama going to imprison before he considers other, more humane options," said Hermes. "The president must answer for why he's going against his earlier pledges by spending Justice Department funds in this way, especially at a time of fiscal crisis." -Common Dreams/January 4, 2013
Note: Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
Fallout from the Obama Administration's aggressive federal enforcement in medical marijuana states has reached a fever pitch this month with three people being sentenced, two others due to surrender to federal authorities to serve out sentences of up to five years in prison, and one federal trial in Montana currently scheduled for January 14th. Two of the three people being sentenced in the coming month -- Montana cultivator Chris Williams and Los Angeles-area dispensary operator Aaron Sandusky -- face five and ten years to life, respectively.
"The number of sick patients being locked up by the Obama Administration is unprecedented and deplorable," said Kris Hermes, spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy organization. "Aggressive enforcement is an unacceptable means of addressing medical marijuana as a public health issue," continued Hermes. "The Obama Administration is lying to the American people when it says it's not targeting individual patients and these cases are clear evidence of that." Montana patient cultivator Richard Flor died in August while serving out a 5-year prison sentence.
Five cultivators claiming to be in compliance with Michigan's medical marijuana law were sentenced in October. Two of the cultivators -- Jaycob Montague and Jeremy Duval -- are already serving their prison terms of 18 months and 5 years, respectively, and two others -- John Marcinkewciz and Shelley Waldron -- are scheduled to surrender to federal authorities on January 8th and 10th, respectively. Waldron will be imprisoned for 18 months and Marcinkewciz for 5 years. The fifth cultivator, Jerry Duval (Jeremy's father), was sentenced to 10 years, but has not yet been given a surrender date.
More than a dozen people were indicted after federal agents conducted raids on state compliant medical marijuana businesses throughout Montana in March 2011. Only one, Chris Williams, went to trial and, like all other medical marijuana defendants who are tried in federal court, was denied a defense and swiftly convicted. While facing more than 80 years of mandatory minimum sentencing, Williams accepted a rare post-conviction plea deal that reduced his charges and possible sentence to 5 years to life in exchange for his promise not to appeal his conviction. Williams, who is scheduled to be sentenced on February 1st, worked at Montana Cannabis with Chris Lindsey, another indicted cultivator. Lindsey, who testified against Williams at his trial, is expected to be sentenced today. Medical marijuana cultivator Jason Washington has one of the last unresolved federal cases in Montana. Washington is currently scheduled to go to trial on January 14th.
Aaron Sandusky operated G3 Holistic in Upland, California when he was federally indicted in June. Though Sandusky was arrested with several others, he was the only one who took his case to trial. In October, Sandusky was denied a defense in federal court and convicted at trial. He is scheduled to be sentenced on January 7th to a minimum of 10 years to life.
Far surpassing his predecessor George W. Bush, President Obama has conducted more than 200 SWAT-style raids on state-compliant medical marijuana businesses and has indicted more than 80 people since he took office. "How many medical marijuana patients is President Obama going to imprison before he considers other, more humane options," said Hermes. "The president must answer for why he's going against his earlier pledges by spending Justice Department funds in this way, especially at a time of fiscal crisis." -Common Dreams/January 4, 2013
Note: Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
Two hours into my first day of work as a WalMart greeter, an ugly woman came in with her two kids.
Hearing her swear at them, I said, "Good morning, welcome to WalMart. Nice kids, are they twins?"
The mom answered, "Hell no, they ain't twins. The oldest one's 9, and the other one's 7. Why would you think they're twins? Are you blind or stupid?"
I replied, "I'm not blind or stupid. I just couldn't believe someone slept with you twice. Have a good day, and thank you for shopping at WalMart."
My supervisor said I probably wasn't cut out for this line of work.
Hearing her swear at them, I said, "Good morning, welcome to WalMart. Nice kids, are they twins?"
The mom answered, "Hell no, they ain't twins. The oldest one's 9, and the other one's 7. Why would you think they're twins? Are you blind or stupid?"
I replied, "I'm not blind or stupid. I just couldn't believe someone slept with you twice. Have a good day, and thank you for shopping at WalMart."
My supervisor said I probably wasn't cut out for this line of work.
Author Unknown
8 Home Remedies That Actually Work
Nobody is naysaying the wonders of modern medicine-what would we do without a medication like penicillin to treat infections? But, as it turns out, everyday items have secret curing powers, too. Next time you don't want to fork over money to get a common wart removed, consider using duct tape. Already popped two aspirin but can't get rid of the headache? A pencil could do the trick. Below, get medical explanations behind a few bizarre-albeit brilliant-MacGyver-esque home remedies.
Duct Tape to Remove Warts
In 2002, a group of doctors compared duct tape's effectiveness with liquid nitrogen in removing warts. After two months of wearing duct tape on a daily basis and using a pumice stone about once a week to exfoliate the dead skin, 85 percent of patients' warts were gone, whereas freezing only removed 60 percent. "The question is whether there is something in the chemical adhesive itself, or if the occlusion (suffocation) causes the destruction of the wart," says New York City-based dermatologist, Robin Blum, MD. "The other thinking is that the duct tape causes irritation, which stimulates our body's immune cells to attack the wart."
Vapor Rub to Cure Nail Fungus
While there are no studies to prove coating infected toenails with vapor rub once or twice a day is an effective treatment for nail fungus, a basic Internet search results in a number of personal testaments to the medicinal ointment's fungus-killing powers. "I've heard many patients say that vapor rub does help, but I'm not exactly sure why," Dr. Blum admits. While some argue it's the menthol in the balm that kills the fungus and others say it's the smothering effect of the thick gel, if used consistently, vapor rub has been shown to get rid of not just the fungus, but the infected toenail, too, which will turn black and eventually fall off. When the new nail grows in, it should be fungus-free.
Oatmeal to Soothe Eczema
"This is absolutely true, as oats have anti-inflammatory properties," Dr. Blum says. Whether it's used as a paste or poured into a bath, most experts recommend choosing colloidal (finely ground) oatmeal and soaking the affected area for at least 15 minutes. In addition to reducing inflammation, oats are thought to have an antihistamine effect, Dr. Blum says. By lowering levels of histamine, which triggers inflammation as part of the immune system's recovery response, she explains, oats prevent or reduce the redness.
Yogurt to Cure Bad Breath
Bad breath comes from a number of places, the two most common being the mouth and the stomach. The neutralizing powers of yogurt and other probiotics treat the latter cause. "Yogurt shouldn't have any effect at all on the bacteria that live on the tongue because it's not there long enough," says Robert Meltzer, MD, a New York City-based gastroenterologist and attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital. However, it likely has a neutralizing effect on the acid that resides anywhere between the mouth and the stomach, including the back of the throat and the esophagus, he explains. "I think almost any milk product or food that contains live cultures would have the same effect." While yogurt can get rid of bad breath that results from gastrological conditions, like acid reflux, it won't have any real effect on bad breath that is the product of gum, liver or lung disease, says Ohio-based dentist Matthew Messina, DDS.
A Spoonful of Sugar to Cure Hiccups
In 1971, Edgar Engelman, MD, conducted a study to find out if a spoonful of sugar really is an effective cure for hiccups. He assembled a group of 20 patients who had been experiencing intractable hiccups for more than six hours, eight of whom had had them anywhere from a full day to six weeks. Each of the test subjects was given one teaspoon of white granulated sugar to swallow dry, and for 19 of the 20 hiccup patients, the cure was immediate. André Dubois, MD, a gastroenterologist in Bethesda, Maryland, noted in The Doctors Book of Home Remedies that "the sugar is probably acting in the mouth to modify the nervous impulses that would otherwise tell the muscles in the diaphragm to contract spasmodically."
Bite a Pencil to Cure a Headache
While doctors aren't sure why we do it, clenching our teeth is a common side effect of stress. According to Fred Sheftell, MD, director of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, when we clench up, we strain the muscle that connects the jaw to the temples, which can trigger a tension headache. By placing a pencil between our teeth-but not biting down-we relax our jaw muscles, which eradicates tension and reduces pain. Just remember, the remedy really only applies to tension headaches-not migraines or headaches caused by sinus pressure, etc.
Olives for Motion Sickness
According to the National Library of Medicine, there are a number of symptoms that present themselves as a result of motion sickness, including increased salivation, which is the body's way of protecting the teeth from the high doses of acid accompanied by vomit. Enter olives, which contain tannins that, when released in the mouth, work to dry saliva-first eliminating the symptom and then the body's instinct to follow suit. However, the treatment is only effective during the early stages of nausea, when the salivation changes first appear.
Gargle Salt Water for a Sore Throat
When you were a kid and had a sore throat, your mom likely made you gargle warm water with salt in it...and she was definitely on to something. According to Douglas Hoffman MD, PhD, author of the website The Medical Consumer's Advocate, a sore throat is an inflammatory response of the infected tissues, and the salt helps draw out the excess fluid to temporarily decrease swelling and the pain it causes. Most remedies call for a ratio of 1 tablespoon salt to 8 ounces of water, but it's always better to opt for more salt rather than less. Just keep in mind that you are treating the symptoms-not the illness. As Dr. Hoffman notes on his website: "The relief is very real, but also tends to be short-lived, since the gargle has done nothing to remove the cause of the sore throat." -By Brian Mannino/Yahoo Shine/February 21, 2012
Duct Tape to Remove Warts
In 2002, a group of doctors compared duct tape's effectiveness with liquid nitrogen in removing warts. After two months of wearing duct tape on a daily basis and using a pumice stone about once a week to exfoliate the dead skin, 85 percent of patients' warts were gone, whereas freezing only removed 60 percent. "The question is whether there is something in the chemical adhesive itself, or if the occlusion (suffocation) causes the destruction of the wart," says New York City-based dermatologist, Robin Blum, MD. "The other thinking is that the duct tape causes irritation, which stimulates our body's immune cells to attack the wart."
Vapor Rub to Cure Nail Fungus
While there are no studies to prove coating infected toenails with vapor rub once or twice a day is an effective treatment for nail fungus, a basic Internet search results in a number of personal testaments to the medicinal ointment's fungus-killing powers. "I've heard many patients say that vapor rub does help, but I'm not exactly sure why," Dr. Blum admits. While some argue it's the menthol in the balm that kills the fungus and others say it's the smothering effect of the thick gel, if used consistently, vapor rub has been shown to get rid of not just the fungus, but the infected toenail, too, which will turn black and eventually fall off. When the new nail grows in, it should be fungus-free.
Oatmeal to Soothe Eczema
"This is absolutely true, as oats have anti-inflammatory properties," Dr. Blum says. Whether it's used as a paste or poured into a bath, most experts recommend choosing colloidal (finely ground) oatmeal and soaking the affected area for at least 15 minutes. In addition to reducing inflammation, oats are thought to have an antihistamine effect, Dr. Blum says. By lowering levels of histamine, which triggers inflammation as part of the immune system's recovery response, she explains, oats prevent or reduce the redness.
Yogurt to Cure Bad Breath
Bad breath comes from a number of places, the two most common being the mouth and the stomach. The neutralizing powers of yogurt and other probiotics treat the latter cause. "Yogurt shouldn't have any effect at all on the bacteria that live on the tongue because it's not there long enough," says Robert Meltzer, MD, a New York City-based gastroenterologist and attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital. However, it likely has a neutralizing effect on the acid that resides anywhere between the mouth and the stomach, including the back of the throat and the esophagus, he explains. "I think almost any milk product or food that contains live cultures would have the same effect." While yogurt can get rid of bad breath that results from gastrological conditions, like acid reflux, it won't have any real effect on bad breath that is the product of gum, liver or lung disease, says Ohio-based dentist Matthew Messina, DDS.
A Spoonful of Sugar to Cure Hiccups
In 1971, Edgar Engelman, MD, conducted a study to find out if a spoonful of sugar really is an effective cure for hiccups. He assembled a group of 20 patients who had been experiencing intractable hiccups for more than six hours, eight of whom had had them anywhere from a full day to six weeks. Each of the test subjects was given one teaspoon of white granulated sugar to swallow dry, and for 19 of the 20 hiccup patients, the cure was immediate. André Dubois, MD, a gastroenterologist in Bethesda, Maryland, noted in The Doctors Book of Home Remedies that "the sugar is probably acting in the mouth to modify the nervous impulses that would otherwise tell the muscles in the diaphragm to contract spasmodically."
Bite a Pencil to Cure a Headache
While doctors aren't sure why we do it, clenching our teeth is a common side effect of stress. According to Fred Sheftell, MD, director of the New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut, when we clench up, we strain the muscle that connects the jaw to the temples, which can trigger a tension headache. By placing a pencil between our teeth-but not biting down-we relax our jaw muscles, which eradicates tension and reduces pain. Just remember, the remedy really only applies to tension headaches-not migraines or headaches caused by sinus pressure, etc.
Olives for Motion Sickness
According to the National Library of Medicine, there are a number of symptoms that present themselves as a result of motion sickness, including increased salivation, which is the body's way of protecting the teeth from the high doses of acid accompanied by vomit. Enter olives, which contain tannins that, when released in the mouth, work to dry saliva-first eliminating the symptom and then the body's instinct to follow suit. However, the treatment is only effective during the early stages of nausea, when the salivation changes first appear.
Gargle Salt Water for a Sore Throat
When you were a kid and had a sore throat, your mom likely made you gargle warm water with salt in it...and she was definitely on to something. According to Douglas Hoffman MD, PhD, author of the website The Medical Consumer's Advocate, a sore throat is an inflammatory response of the infected tissues, and the salt helps draw out the excess fluid to temporarily decrease swelling and the pain it causes. Most remedies call for a ratio of 1 tablespoon salt to 8 ounces of water, but it's always better to opt for more salt rather than less. Just keep in mind that you are treating the symptoms-not the illness. As Dr. Hoffman notes on his website: "The relief is very real, but also tends to be short-lived, since the gargle has done nothing to remove the cause of the sore throat." -By Brian Mannino/Yahoo Shine/February 21, 2012
Mar 10, 2013
U.S. Warned: Al-Qaida Hit-Squads Coming
Source IDs water, transportation, power lines, cell towers, lawmakers as targets
A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander has warned America and Europe that al-Qaida operatives will soon attack them.
And a source in the Islamic regime’s Intelligence Ministry told WND that another terror team is about to enter the United States. Should the West not accept Iran’s rights to its nuclear program within six months, the terrorists will attack, he said.
The potential targets in the U.S. include high-voltage towers to create blackouts, cell towers, water supplies, public transportation and various buildings belonging to the Defense Department and military.
The source said six U.S. politicians who have promoted tougher measures against the regime are on the hit list, along with such targets as the Washington National Cathedral and Lincoln Memorial in D.C. and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
Two days of negotiations between Iran and the 5+1 countries (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) have just ended in Kazakhstan over Iran’s illicit nuclear program. The two parties agreed to meet again in March and April.
The source said an April deadline has been set for Iran to resolve issues over its nuclear program, one of which is to halt activity at Fordow and take concrete measures not to resume enrichment there. Iranian media are avoiding mentioning enrichment at Fordow in the wake of reports that explosions occurred there. The source said that proves explosions rocked Fordow and the West is now urging the regime not to restart enrichment at that site, which is deep underground and immune to conventional air strikes.
Read Reza Kahlili’s inside story of Iran, in “A Time to Betray.” Also look at the status of freedom in the repressive nation, in “A Cry From Iran: The Untold Story of Iranian Christian Martyrs.
WND exclusively reported the Jan. 21 explosions at Fordow, which have now dramatically altered the terms of the dialog between the 5+1 and Iran. Subsequent WND reports said dozens of scientists and technicians were killed in the blasts, scores more were injured, and that radiation leaks are sickening rescue workers and security personnel.
According to Fars News Agency, a media outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards, the regime’s armed forces deputy chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, last Thursday stated that, “Al-Qaida groups and other services which operate for the interest of America will soon change the region of their operations and thereafter create new problems for America and Europe.”
Jazayeri warned that the operatives have technological resources to threaten America and that, “if the people of America and Europe do not confront the aggressive policies of their governments, they cannot then remain far from the possible future events (terror attacks).”
WND reported exclusively on Dec. 11 and Dec. 18 that Islamic regime terror teams are not only ready to attack France and Germany but also the U.S.
Iran has been training, arming and funding al-Qaida elements for years. The regime’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Quds Force commanders have held several meetings in Tehran with al-Qaida leaders in which a plan was devised to attack the West.
The source told WND that a six-member team, including an explosives specialist, is to join 10 Quds Force commanders who already have a cell of 50 terrorists in the U.S. Collaboration with al-Qaida serves Iranian leaders well, the source added, as al-Qaida attacks will not leave behind a link to Tehran.
This information has been shared with U.S. intelligence agencies, which have followed suspected terrorists through three countries so far. The source is working with U.S. authorities to verify the information, though it has yet to be validated.
While Israel and the West have set their eyes on covert operations and increased sanctions to pressure the regime into ending its illicit nuclear program, the regime has its eyes on completing its nuclear bomb program by overcoming the last obstacle of arming its ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, according to the source.
The plan is, the source said, that if in the next six months America does not accept Iran’s nuclear program and does not ease sanctions or a military confrontation occurs, the terrorist assets have been ordered to carry out their missions. The regime feels it must act by then because current sanctions, which have already had a serious effect on Iran’s economy, could spark civil riots.
The International Atomic Energy Agency indicated in its Feb. 21 report that not only has Iran refused to allow inspection of several suspected nuclear sites but also has begun installing new-generation centrifuges at Natanz, which currently has 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. It said the regime’s Arak heavy-water plant is set to become operational by 2014, which would provide Iran with a second path to nuclear weapons by providing it with the needed plutonium for bombs. -Reza Kahlili, author of the award-winning book "A Time to Betray," served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East. –By Reza Kahlili/WND/March 5, 2013
UPDATE: The source informed WND hours after this story was posted that the Islamic regime ruling Iran is in preparation for a major cyber attack very soon on major U.S. facilities – to send a warning to the U.S. that the regime is capable of harming America’s infrastructure. It would be intended as a message to the Barack Obama administration that Iran’s nuclear rights must be accepted and sanctions relieved.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given the green light to the guard commanders to publicly make statements attacking the U.S. and the current negotiations and the head of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jafari, is to make a major speech in this regard.
About the Author: Reza Kahlili, author of the award-winning book "A Time to Betray," served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East.
A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander has warned America and Europe that al-Qaida operatives will soon attack them.
And a source in the Islamic regime’s Intelligence Ministry told WND that another terror team is about to enter the United States. Should the West not accept Iran’s rights to its nuclear program within six months, the terrorists will attack, he said.
The potential targets in the U.S. include high-voltage towers to create blackouts, cell towers, water supplies, public transportation and various buildings belonging to the Defense Department and military.
The source said six U.S. politicians who have promoted tougher measures against the regime are on the hit list, along with such targets as the Washington National Cathedral and Lincoln Memorial in D.C. and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
Two days of negotiations between Iran and the 5+1 countries (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) have just ended in Kazakhstan over Iran’s illicit nuclear program. The two parties agreed to meet again in March and April.
The source said an April deadline has been set for Iran to resolve issues over its nuclear program, one of which is to halt activity at Fordow and take concrete measures not to resume enrichment there. Iranian media are avoiding mentioning enrichment at Fordow in the wake of reports that explosions occurred there. The source said that proves explosions rocked Fordow and the West is now urging the regime not to restart enrichment at that site, which is deep underground and immune to conventional air strikes.
Read Reza Kahlili’s inside story of Iran, in “A Time to Betray.” Also look at the status of freedom in the repressive nation, in “A Cry From Iran: The Untold Story of Iranian Christian Martyrs.
WND exclusively reported the Jan. 21 explosions at Fordow, which have now dramatically altered the terms of the dialog between the 5+1 and Iran. Subsequent WND reports said dozens of scientists and technicians were killed in the blasts, scores more were injured, and that radiation leaks are sickening rescue workers and security personnel.
According to Fars News Agency, a media outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards, the regime’s armed forces deputy chief of staff, Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, last Thursday stated that, “Al-Qaida groups and other services which operate for the interest of America will soon change the region of their operations and thereafter create new problems for America and Europe.”
Jazayeri warned that the operatives have technological resources to threaten America and that, “if the people of America and Europe do not confront the aggressive policies of their governments, they cannot then remain far from the possible future events (terror attacks).”
WND reported exclusively on Dec. 11 and Dec. 18 that Islamic regime terror teams are not only ready to attack France and Germany but also the U.S.
Iran has been training, arming and funding al-Qaida elements for years. The regime’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Quds Force commanders have held several meetings in Tehran with al-Qaida leaders in which a plan was devised to attack the West.
The source told WND that a six-member team, including an explosives specialist, is to join 10 Quds Force commanders who already have a cell of 50 terrorists in the U.S. Collaboration with al-Qaida serves Iranian leaders well, the source added, as al-Qaida attacks will not leave behind a link to Tehran.
This information has been shared with U.S. intelligence agencies, which have followed suspected terrorists through three countries so far. The source is working with U.S. authorities to verify the information, though it has yet to be validated.
While Israel and the West have set their eyes on covert operations and increased sanctions to pressure the regime into ending its illicit nuclear program, the regime has its eyes on completing its nuclear bomb program by overcoming the last obstacle of arming its ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, according to the source.
The plan is, the source said, that if in the next six months America does not accept Iran’s nuclear program and does not ease sanctions or a military confrontation occurs, the terrorist assets have been ordered to carry out their missions. The regime feels it must act by then because current sanctions, which have already had a serious effect on Iran’s economy, could spark civil riots.
The International Atomic Energy Agency indicated in its Feb. 21 report that not only has Iran refused to allow inspection of several suspected nuclear sites but also has begun installing new-generation centrifuges at Natanz, which currently has 10,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. It said the regime’s Arak heavy-water plant is set to become operational by 2014, which would provide Iran with a second path to nuclear weapons by providing it with the needed plutonium for bombs. -Reza Kahlili, author of the award-winning book "A Time to Betray," served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East. –By Reza Kahlili/WND/March 5, 2013
UPDATE: The source informed WND hours after this story was posted that the Islamic regime ruling Iran is in preparation for a major cyber attack very soon on major U.S. facilities – to send a warning to the U.S. that the regime is capable of harming America’s infrastructure. It would be intended as a message to the Barack Obama administration that Iran’s nuclear rights must be accepted and sanctions relieved.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has given the green light to the guard commanders to publicly make statements attacking the U.S. and the current negotiations and the head of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jafari, is to make a major speech in this regard.
About the Author: Reza Kahlili, author of the award-winning book "A Time to Betray," served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board to Congress and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI). He regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East.
Are Big Banks a Bunch of Organized Criminal Conspiracies?
The record of deceit and deception that has surfaced in just the past two months points to yes.
Are too-big-to-fail banks organized criminal conspiracies? And if so, shouldn't we seize their assets, just like we do to drug cartels?
Let's examine their sorry record of deceit and deception that has surfaced in just the past two months:
Loan Sharking
You want to get really, really pissed off? Then read "Major Banks Aid in Payday Loans Banned by States" by Jessica Silver-Greenberg in the New York Times (2/23/13). In sickening detail, she describes how the largest banks in the United States are facilitating modern loansharking by working with Internet payday loan companies to escape anti-loansharking state laws. These payday firms extract enormous interest rates that often run over 500 percent a year. (Fifteen states prohibit payday loans entirely, and all states have usury limits ranging from 8 to 24 percent. See the list.)
The big banks, however, don't make the loans. They hide behind the scenes to facilitate the transactions through automatic withdrawals from the victim's bank account to the loansharking payday companies. Without those services from the big banks, these Internet loansharks could not operate.
Enabling the payday loansharks to evade the law is bad enough. But even more deplorable is why the big banks are involved in the first place.
For the banks, it can be a lucrative partnership. At first blush, processing automatic withdrawals hardly seems like a source of profit. But many customers are already on shaky financial footing. The withdrawals often set off a cascade of fees from problems like overdrafts. Roughly 27 percentof payday loan borrowers say that the loans caused them to overdraw their accounts, according to a report released this month by the Pew Charitable Trusts. That fee income is coveted, given that financial regulations limiting fees on debit and credit cards have cost banks billions of dollars.
Take a deep breath and consider what this means. Banks like JPMorgan Chase provide the banking services that allow Internet payday loansharks to exist in the first place, with the sole purpose of breaking the state laws against usury. Then Chase vultures the victims, who are often low-wage earners struggling to make ends meet, by extracting late fees from the victims' accounts. So impoverished single moms, for example, who needed to borrow money to make the rent, get worked over twice: First they get a loan at an interest rate that would make Tony Soprano blush. Then they get nailed with overdraft fees by their loansharking bank.
Are too-big-to-fail banks organized criminal conspiracies? And if so, shouldn't we seize their assets, just like we do to drug cartels?
Let's examine their sorry record of deceit and deception that has surfaced in just the past two months:
Loan Sharking
You want to get really, really pissed off? Then read "Major Banks Aid in Payday Loans Banned by States" by Jessica Silver-Greenberg in the New York Times (2/23/13). In sickening detail, she describes how the largest banks in the United States are facilitating modern loansharking by working with Internet payday loan companies to escape anti-loansharking state laws. These payday firms extract enormous interest rates that often run over 500 percent a year. (Fifteen states prohibit payday loans entirely, and all states have usury limits ranging from 8 to 24 percent. See the list.)
The big banks, however, don't make the loans. They hide behind the scenes to facilitate the transactions through automatic withdrawals from the victim's bank account to the loansharking payday companies. Without those services from the big banks, these Internet loansharks could not operate.
Enabling the payday loansharks to evade the law is bad enough. But even more deplorable is why the big banks are involved in the first place.
For the banks, it can be a lucrative partnership. At first blush, processing automatic withdrawals hardly seems like a source of profit. But many customers are already on shaky financial footing. The withdrawals often set off a cascade of fees from problems like overdrafts. Roughly 27 percentof payday loan borrowers say that the loans caused them to overdraw their accounts, according to a report released this month by the Pew Charitable Trusts. That fee income is coveted, given that financial regulations limiting fees on debit and credit cards have cost banks billions of dollars.
Take a deep breath and consider what this means. Banks like JPMorgan Chase provide the banking services that allow Internet payday loansharks to exist in the first place, with the sole purpose of breaking the state laws against usury. Then Chase vultures the victims, who are often low-wage earners struggling to make ends meet, by extracting late fees from the victims' accounts. So impoverished single moms, for example, who needed to borrow money to make the rent, get worked over twice: First they get a loan at an interest rate that would make Tony Soprano blush. Then they get nailed with overdraft fees by their loansharking bank.
For Subrina Baptiste, 33, an educational assistant in Brooklyn, the overdraft fees levied by Chase cannibalized her child support income. She said she applied for a $400 loan from Loanshoponline.com and a $700 loan from Advancemetoday.com in 2011. The loans, with annual interest rates of 730 percent and 584 percent respectively, skirt New York law.
Ms. Baptiste said she asked Chase to revoke the automatic withdrawals in October 2011, but was told that she had to ask the lenders instead. In one month, her bank records show, the lenders tried to take money from her account at least six times. Chase charged her $812 in fees and deducted over $600 from her child-support payments to cover them.
Let's be clear: JPMorgan Chase, the big bank that supposedly is run oh-so-well by Obama's favorite banker, Jamie Dimon, is aiding, abetting and profiting from screwing loanshark victims.
What possible justification could anyone at Chase have for being involved in this slimy business? The answer is simple: profit. Dimon and company can't help themselves. They see a dollar in someone else's pocket, even a poor struggling single mom, and they figure out how to put it in their own. Of course, everyone at the top will play dumb, order an investigation and then if necessary, dump some lower-level schlep. More than likely, various government agencies will ask the bank to pay a fine, which will come from the corporate kitty, not the pockets of bank executives. And the banks will promise -- cross their hearts -- never again to commit that precise scam again.
(Update: After the publication of Jessica Silver-Greenberg's devastating article, Jamie Dimon "vowed on Tuesday to change how the bank deals with Internet-based payday lenders that automatically withdraw payments from borrowers’ checking accounts," according to the New York Times. Dimon called the practices "terrible." In a statement, the bank said, it was “taking a thorough look at all of our policies related to these issues and plan to make meaningful changes.”)
Money Laundering for the Mexican Drug Cartels and Rogue Nations
HSBC, the giant British-based bank with a large American subsidiary, agreed on Dec. 11, 2012 to pay $1.9 billion in fines for laundering $881 million for Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel. The operation was so blatant that "Mexican traffickers used boxes specifically designed to the dimensions of an HSBC Mexico teller's window to deposit cash on a daily basis," reports Reuters. They also facilitated "hundreds of millions more in transactions with sanctioned countries," according to the Justice Department.
Our banks got nailed as well. "In the United States, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wachovia Corp and Citigroup Inc have been cited for anti-money laundering lapses or sanctions violations," continues the Reuters report. My, my, JPMorgan Chase, the biggest bank in the U.S. sure does get around.
And the penalty? A fine (paid by the HSBC shareholders, of course, that amounts to 5.5 weeks of the bank's earnings) and we promise – honest -- never to do it again.
Too Big to Indict?
Wait, it gets worse. Why weren't criminal charges filed against the bank itself? After all, the bank overtly violated money laundering laws. This was no clerical error. The answer is simple: "Too big to Indict," screams the NYT editorial headline. You see federal authorities are worried that if they indict, the bank would fail, which in turn would lead to tens of thousands of lost jobs, just like what happened to Arthur Anderson after its Enron caper, or like the financial hurricane that followed the failure of Lehman Brothers. So if you're a small fish running $10,000 in drug money, you serve time. But if you're a big fish moving nearing a billion dollars, you can laugh all the way to your too-big-to-jail bank.
Fleecing Distressed Homeowners
The big banks, in collusion with hedge funds and the rating agencies, puffed up the housing bubble and then burst it. Nine million workers, due to no fault of their own, lost their jobs in a matter of months. Entire neighborhoods saw their home values crash. Tens of millions faced foreclosure.
The big banks, which were bailed out and survived the crash, sought to foreclose on as many homes as possible, as fast as possible. Hey, that's where the money was. In doing so they resorted to many unsavory practices including illegal robo-signing of foreclosure documents. When nailed by the government, the big banks agreed to provide billions in aid for distressed homeowners. Were they finally forced to do the right thing? Not a chance. (See "Homeowners still face foreclosure despite billion in aid" NYT 2/22.)
The big banks, despite what they say in their press statements, found a convenient loophole in the government settlement. The banks began forgiving second mortgages, and then foreclosing on the first mortgage. That's a cute maneuver because in a foreclosure, the bank rarely can collect on the second mortgage anyway. So they're giving away something of no value to distressed sellers and getting government credit for it. Just another day at the office for our favorite banksters.
The Indictments Go On...
I could write a book about all the ways in which banks and their hedge fund cousins have turned cheating into a way of life. (In fact, I just did: "How to Earn a Million Dollars an Hour: Why Hedge Funds Get Away With Siphoning off America's Wealth. Here's the AlterNet interview. )
JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs have been fined over a billion dollars for creating and selling mortgage-related securities that were designed to fail so their hedge fund buddies could make billions. And then we've got the recent LIBOR scandal where the biggest banks colluded to manipulate interest rates for fun and profit.
It's not about good people or bad people running these banks and hedge funds. It's the very nature of these institutions. That's what they do. They make big money by doing what the rest of us would call cheating. As the record clearly shows, they cheat the second they get the chance.
What kind of institution would loanshark, money launder, fix rates, game mortgage relief programs, and produce products designed to fail? Answer: An institution that should not exist.
Nationalize Now and Create State Banks
There are about 20 too-big-to fail banks which have been designated "systematically significant." These should be immediately nationalized. Shareholder value should be wiped out because these banks are repeatedly violating the law, including aiding and abetting criminal enterprises. All employees should be placed on the federal civil service scale, where the top salary is approximately $130,000.
Can the government run banks? Yes, if we break up the big banks and turn them over to state governments so that each state would have at least one public bank. (North Dakota has a strong working model.) The larger states would have several public state banks. But never again would we allow banks to grow so large as to threaten our financial system and violate the public trust. Let FDIC regulate the state banks. They're actually good at it.
(We'd also have to do something about the shadow banking industry -- the large hedge funds and private equity firms. Eliminating their carried-interest tax loophole and slapping on a strong financial transaction tax would go a long way toward reining them in.)
Won't the most talented bankers leave the industry?
Hurray! It can't happen soon enough. It's time for the best and the brightest to rejoin the human race and help produce value for their fellow citizens. Let them become doctors, research scientists, teachers or even wealthy entrepreneurs who produce tangible goods and services that we want and need. What we don't need are more banksters.
Isn't This Socialism?
We already have socialism for rich financiers. They get to keep all of the upside of their shady machinations and we get to bail them out when they fail. This billionaire bailout society is now so entrenched that our nascent economic recovery of the last two years has been entirely captured by the top 1 percent. Meanwhile the rest of have received nothing. Nada. (See "Why Is the Entire Recovery Going to the Top One Percent?")
I know, I know, people say, "Next time, just don't bail them out!" Meanwhile, they get to rip us off, day in and day out, until the next crash? No thanks. Put them out of business now. If you have a better idea, let's hear it. –By Les Leopold/AlterNet/February 27, 2013
About the Author: Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute in New York, and author of How to Make a Million Dollars an Hour: Why Hedge Funds Get Away with Siphoning Off America's Wealth (J. Wiley and Sons, 2013).
Penis’s Demands
The Penis requests a promotion and a raise for the following reasons:
-has to work hard;
-has to work at great depths
-has to work upside down
-has no ventilation or air-conditioned environment at work
-has to work in a high humidity environment
-has to work at high temperatures
-does not get weekends and holidays off
-does not get time off after extra hours of work
-sometimes has to work with assholes
-has a hazardous work environment that often causes illness.
Request denied for the following reasons:
- does not work 8 hours in a row
- does not answer immediately to all requests
- after a short activity period, falls asleep at work
- shows no fidelity to the workplace
- retires too early
- does not work at all unless pushed from behind
- does not leave the workplace clean after finishing work
- sometimes leaves work too early.
❤Anita
-has to work hard;
-has to work at great depths
-has to work upside down
-has no ventilation or air-conditioned environment at work
-has to work in a high humidity environment
-has to work at high temperatures
-does not get weekends and holidays off
-does not get time off after extra hours of work
-sometimes has to work with assholes
-has a hazardous work environment that often causes illness.
Request denied for the following reasons:
- does not work 8 hours in a row
- does not answer immediately to all requests
- after a short activity period, falls asleep at work
- shows no fidelity to the workplace
- retires too early
- does not work at all unless pushed from behind
- does not leave the workplace clean after finishing work
- sometimes leaves work too early.
❤Anita
Obama’s Brief Against Proposition 8 Goes Far
Thursday night, just hours before a filing deadline, President Obama’s Justice Department submitted an amicus curiae brief asking the Supreme Court to strike down Proposition 8—California’s gay-marriage ban. Even more importantly, it did so by asserting a bold claim to full equality for gay and lesbian Americans, which is a significant development in the nation’s rapidly moving consideration of the issue.
The brief—which President Obama, according to a report on SCOTUSblog, personally helped craft—did not directly ask the Supreme Court to declare marriage equality a constitutional right. Even so, its legal reasoning points squarely in that direction. If the Court accepts the full weight and reasoning of the President’s arguments, any state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would fail the test of constitutionality. Twenty-nine states, in addition to California, have such amendments now.
Theodore Boutrous, one of the lead attorneys in the small group of legal heavyweights representing the Proposition 8 plaintiffs (a team including David Boies and Ted Olson), said on a conference call for reporters which was quickly arranged after the brief was filed, that they were “extremely pleased” that the government had taken a strong stand for marriage. He added, with respect to other anti-gay marriage bans, “I don’t see any way these laws could survive” under the legal test urged by the Justice Department in its brief.
It would have been close to impossible to imagine these developments less than a year ago.
Until last May, the President was not even on record as supporting same-sex marriage. Early on during his first term, gay-rights advocates were enraged when the Justice Department filed a grossly insensitive, Bush-era brief in a lesser known gay-rights case. Because the federal government is not a party to the California case, he could have sat this one out, or asked the Supreme Court to rule on narrow procedural grounds that would bring marriage only to California.
Instead, his Administration has filed a brief that goes further than he ever has before, and further than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals went in its reasoning when it affirmed the lower court’s ruling throwing out Proposition 8. Nor is Obama alone on this one: a group of prominent Republicans submitted an amicus brief of their own against Proposition 8, and dozens of corporations have signed one, too. Even the State of California, which had refused to defend the law, submitted a new amicus brief on Thursday, asking the Court to declare its own law unconstitutional.
Some of the arguments in Obama’s brief are particular to California, or to states that have full domestic-partnership or civil-union laws. California, it says provides to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners all the legal incidents of marriage, but it nonetheless denies them the designation of marriage allowed to their opposite-sex counterparts. Particularly in those circumstances, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage does not substantially further any important governmental interest. Proposition 8 thus violates equal protection.
Importantly, however, the Administration goes on to say that any legislative classifications based upon sexual orientation—like laws that limit marriage to heterosexuals—in order to be justified constitutionally, should be subject to a standard of review known as “heightened scrutiny.” The implications of this argument are extremely broad.
Under heightened scrutiny, laws that hinge on sexual orientation are only constitutional if they are needed to advance a compelling or important government interest. Uniformly, in the gay-marriage cases, the only justifications put forth by opponents of marriage equality are those based on tradition, custom, or prejudice. Because those reasons are not ”compelling,” the gay-marriage bans cannot survive the test. The government has advanced a similar argument in the Defense of Marriage Act cases—which involve not the right to marry but the federal recognition of otherwise valid marriages—but never in a pure marriage case. (The Court will hear the Proposition 8 case on March 26th and the DOMA case on March 27th.)
Attorney General Eric Holder, in his own statement following the submission of the brief, called the issues in the case “not just important to the tens of thousands [of] Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole.”
Administration officials speaking immediately after the filing on background characterized the deliberations leading up to it as a balancing act in which the final result was both consistent with the President’s pro-equality values, yet also politically strategic. It does not call for gay marriage immediately in all fifty states. Yet, the President and his staff felt strongly that he had to come out fully in favor of gay rights, as he had done in his Inaugural Address—and it achieved that, too, making a legal argument breathtaking in its full embrace of gay rights.
Richard Socarides is an attorney, political strategist, writer, and longtime gay-rights advocate. He served as White House Special Assistant and Senior Adviser during the Clinton Administration. –By Richard Socarides/The New Yorker/March 1, 2013
The brief—which President Obama, according to a report on SCOTUSblog, personally helped craft—did not directly ask the Supreme Court to declare marriage equality a constitutional right. Even so, its legal reasoning points squarely in that direction. If the Court accepts the full weight and reasoning of the President’s arguments, any state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would fail the test of constitutionality. Twenty-nine states, in addition to California, have such amendments now.
Theodore Boutrous, one of the lead attorneys in the small group of legal heavyweights representing the Proposition 8 plaintiffs (a team including David Boies and Ted Olson), said on a conference call for reporters which was quickly arranged after the brief was filed, that they were “extremely pleased” that the government had taken a strong stand for marriage. He added, with respect to other anti-gay marriage bans, “I don’t see any way these laws could survive” under the legal test urged by the Justice Department in its brief.
It would have been close to impossible to imagine these developments less than a year ago.
Until last May, the President was not even on record as supporting same-sex marriage. Early on during his first term, gay-rights advocates were enraged when the Justice Department filed a grossly insensitive, Bush-era brief in a lesser known gay-rights case. Because the federal government is not a party to the California case, he could have sat this one out, or asked the Supreme Court to rule on narrow procedural grounds that would bring marriage only to California.
Instead, his Administration has filed a brief that goes further than he ever has before, and further than the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals went in its reasoning when it affirmed the lower court’s ruling throwing out Proposition 8. Nor is Obama alone on this one: a group of prominent Republicans submitted an amicus brief of their own against Proposition 8, and dozens of corporations have signed one, too. Even the State of California, which had refused to defend the law, submitted a new amicus brief on Thursday, asking the Court to declare its own law unconstitutional.
Some of the arguments in Obama’s brief are particular to California, or to states that have full domestic-partnership or civil-union laws. California, it says provides to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners all the legal incidents of marriage, but it nonetheless denies them the designation of marriage allowed to their opposite-sex counterparts. Particularly in those circumstances, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from marriage does not substantially further any important governmental interest. Proposition 8 thus violates equal protection.
Importantly, however, the Administration goes on to say that any legislative classifications based upon sexual orientation—like laws that limit marriage to heterosexuals—in order to be justified constitutionally, should be subject to a standard of review known as “heightened scrutiny.” The implications of this argument are extremely broad.
Under heightened scrutiny, laws that hinge on sexual orientation are only constitutional if they are needed to advance a compelling or important government interest. Uniformly, in the gay-marriage cases, the only justifications put forth by opponents of marriage equality are those based on tradition, custom, or prejudice. Because those reasons are not ”compelling,” the gay-marriage bans cannot survive the test. The government has advanced a similar argument in the Defense of Marriage Act cases—which involve not the right to marry but the federal recognition of otherwise valid marriages—but never in a pure marriage case. (The Court will hear the Proposition 8 case on March 26th and the DOMA case on March 27th.)
Attorney General Eric Holder, in his own statement following the submission of the brief, called the issues in the case “not just important to the tens of thousands [of] Americans who are being denied equal benefits and rights under our laws, but to our Nation as a whole.”
Administration officials speaking immediately after the filing on background characterized the deliberations leading up to it as a balancing act in which the final result was both consistent with the President’s pro-equality values, yet also politically strategic. It does not call for gay marriage immediately in all fifty states. Yet, the President and his staff felt strongly that he had to come out fully in favor of gay rights, as he had done in his Inaugural Address—and it achieved that, too, making a legal argument breathtaking in its full embrace of gay rights.
Richard Socarides is an attorney, political strategist, writer, and longtime gay-rights advocate. He served as White House Special Assistant and Senior Adviser during the Clinton Administration. –By Richard Socarides/The New Yorker/March 1, 2013
Sobering Words
The United States of America, at one time, was considered to be one of the greatest, if not the "greatest country in the world". Unfortunately, America today is not the greatest anymore, especially after the current administration took over in 2009.
Watch the video clip from the relatively new HBO series entitled Newsroom. The dialogue in the video is sobering, albeit profane. The relatively short video clip (3.5 minutes long) is worth watching and listening to all the way to the end. Listen very carefully and absorb what was said by the major character/speaker in the video. The HBO series might be fictional but its message is very realistic and truthful/truth-filled.
^^^*^^^
The most honest three and a half minutes of television, EVER...
Why Do Good Men Cheat?
“It is necessary to the happiness of men that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or disbelieving it consists in professing to believing what he does not believe.” ~Thomas Paine
“No adultery is bloodless.” Natalia Ginsburg
As Jenny walked through the door, just back from a three day visit to see her sister, she felt something strange come over her as she entered the house. She brushed it off immediately and moved her luggage into the bedroom so she could unpack. Her husband Jack was still at work and would not be home until later. As she pulled out her clothes and was putting them away her little Yorkie popped up from under their bed with a shiny thing in its mouth. She ignored it at first but then something seemed peculiar; instead of it being one of Binkies’ toys it looked metallic. She snatched the item from her doggy’s mouth and suddenly it struck like a thunderbolt to her gut that the lipstick was not hers. At first she couldn’t quite comprehend it, she went into denial, perhaps one of her girlfriends had dropped it. She realized immediately that none of them wore glitter lipstick. Surely she must be mistaken.
“No adultery is bloodless.” Natalia Ginsburg
As Jenny walked through the door, just back from a three day visit to see her sister, she felt something strange come over her as she entered the house. She brushed it off immediately and moved her luggage into the bedroom so she could unpack. Her husband Jack was still at work and would not be home until later. As she pulled out her clothes and was putting them away her little Yorkie popped up from under their bed with a shiny thing in its mouth. She ignored it at first but then something seemed peculiar; instead of it being one of Binkies’ toys it looked metallic. She snatched the item from her doggy’s mouth and suddenly it struck like a thunderbolt to her gut that the lipstick was not hers. At first she couldn’t quite comprehend it, she went into denial, perhaps one of her girlfriends had dropped it. She realized immediately that none of them wore glitter lipstick. Surely she must be mistaken.
When Jack got home she confronted him with the lipstick. At first he lied about it but he was caught red handed. Eventually he confessed to having a woman over when she was out of town. She implored him to tell her why but he could not give her an adequate answer. They had been estranged since the children were born when she became a stay-at-home Mom and they had fought often about a variety of issues, his long hours, her not feeling loved, his not feeling appreciated, the list had grown larger over time.
So why did he cheat? Is it inherent in men to cheat or are there environmental factors that contribute to this circumstance that destroys relationships and the trust that holds them together? Do men cheat for different reasons than women and is there anything we could know that would help save relationships if there is infidelity? Turns out there are some very profound reasons beyond just something new and exciting.
When Jenny and Jack came in to talk about their issues some very interesting ideas came out that have helped them reaffirm their relationship. Jenny was very angry not only about the infidelity but with Jack’s judgmental attitude toward her and his inability to take responsibility for how he was acting towards her. As we looked deeper into what was motivating Jack we discovered something that he was reluctant to talk about. When they were first married they both worked in the same industry and had lots to talk about, but after the children were born they lost touch with each other. He felt that she had abandoned him for the children and had let herself go. That she no longer cared about looking good for him. He didn’t feel that she appreciated how hard he was working to support the family and instead was angry with him most of the time. Both of them had difficulty talking about their needs and what was not working in their relationship without getting angry at each other. They had drifted apart and didn’t know how to come back together again without it turning negative. He had taken motherhood as a rejection of him and acted out as a form of revenge. She felt that he had abandoned the family for his friends and work and didn’t take an active role as a parent.
Dr. Gary Neuman interviewed over 200 couples for his book The Truth About Cheating. He discovered that 48% of men rated emotional dissatisfaction as the primary reason for infidelity. Only 8% of men rated sexual dissatisfaction as the reason. “They want their wives to show them that they are appreciated, they want women to know how hard they are trying.” He goes on to point out that men have difficulty expressing these feelings because they believe it is “unmanly” to ask for a pat on the back. Most affairs occur because people are emotionally lonely.
Another reason why men cheat is the “birds of a feather” phenomena. Neuman offers that 77% of the men he interviewed said they had a friend who cheated. It appears that when guys get together and they all agree to cheat it legitimizes their behavior and diminishes their sense of guilt. If men are hanging out in bars where there are available women they are much more likely to fall off the fidelity wagon. If they socialize with other couples who are faithful they are far less likely to find themselves in compromising situations with a belly full of booze and even less inhibition. Neuman also points out that only 12% of men who cheated thought that their mistress was more attractive than their wives. This leads us back to the more intriguing aspects of marital infidelity, like the unexpressed underpinnings of emotional need.
All men know that cheating is socially unacceptable. They learn about monogamy through family values, religious training, education, marriage vows; movies, television and music. Men who decide to behave counter to cultural norms develop their own personal codes for cheating. They use rationales like: It’s ok to cheat just not in your own zip code or they believe that it’s their birthright to cheat. For these men cheating is their measure of success in the act of living life to the fullest. There are many psychological methods that men use to give themselves permission to cheat: she doesn’t put out, she cheated on me, it’s fun, it’s ok as long as you don’t get caught, she doesn’t turn me on, she’s a nag, the opportunity was there, I don’t love her anymore, it’s an ego boost or the thrill of the chase. Men often feel trapped and drained and yearn for the courtship they lost when they got married. Most often they blame the lack of sex or nagging as their reason for cheating. Inevitably it comes down to a choice that men make in spite of the risk to their reputation, their faith and their marriage.
Pop culture and the culture at large both touts the virtues of true love and monogamy while propelling sex into a myriad of ads and television commercials. This hypocrisy is never more revealing than in tantalizing Victoria Secret commercials that serve up soft porn for the whole family. What are we saying about moral virtue and what will keep a man’s mind monogamous with all these sexual images coming at them with such ferocity and availability? What forms the bulwark that enables men and women to be faithful in a marital state? Certainly the loss of community support, the ebbing of religious, social and family values have made an impact on the overall sense of values toward monogamy. The formation of solid moral values and the development of moral character in men is one answer to the compelling social issue of infidelity. The highest level of moral development in a man or woman is when they must face themselves as the final arbiter for their moral behavior.
Science suggests that there are three hormones that regulate monogamy. It is the combination of oxytocin, arginine vasopressin and testosterone that make up the chemical concoction for the inner workings of men. Oxytocin stimulates the brains of primates to maintain pair bonds in males and females through its release during sex, touch or any positive social signal. Arginine Vasopressin creates mate and offspring guarding in male socially monogamous mammals, which is critical to pair bonding. Testosterone is the stimulant for libido that includes larger muscles and drive that attract females who are of child bearing age and thus are unconsciously seeking the best gene pool for offspring.
The incidence of oxytocin and vasopressin receptors in the brain reveal a tendency for monogamy amongst humans. These hormones have lead to the belief that we are a monogamous species. The culprit in this mix is testosterone. As it turns out testosterone is in conflict with the paring effects of oxytocin. Testosterone inhibits the uptake of oxytocin in the brain and then injects men with five times more testosterone than women and stimulates the desire for more sexual partners. Testosterone interestingly enough, responds to social cues. Win a game and your testosterone gets a bump. Make a killing in the stock market and it jumps off the map. This is why very successful men are at more risk than mere mortals. This news does not mean men can’t keep their proverbial penis in their pants but it does require a strong marriage and some killer values to prevent those temptations from getting the best of us.
For most species, dominate males tend to be more reproductive. Based on our primal past where the strongest sperm won it appears that there is still a piece of that original urge that lives on in men. Cut to our modern world with love and romance being our primary culture goal while leaving men with this legacy of survival. With attractive females everywhere and the mix of media and the loosening of religious and cultural limits on promiscuous behavior, it makes for a very heady set of challenges for our modern couples. How then are men and women able to stay true to their promise of fidelity while keeping their primal tendencies at bay?
Anthropologists point out that men have two minds, one is on home and hearth and the other is a roving eye. This dichotomy makes it clear that a strong relationship with couples who make time for each other, for fun, regular sex and put their relationship on a high priority create some protection from that wandering eye breaking free. Couples who have developed skills for solving problems efficiently and have created a dialogue that includes positive affirmations and appreciation can often avoid the pitfalls of resentment, entitlement and frustration which can lead to cheating. Notwithstanding that there are men but less so women who feel that it is their birthright and are committed to cheating, there are plenty of men and women who are interested in keeping it true blue. The question is how do they do it?
Fundamentally men and women need to understand and accept that infidelity psychologically disconnects them from their mate. It’s a secret they must keep and therefore it puts a wedge between them. It’s a clandestine lifestyle and creates distance. Men need to consider who they become when they cheat. They become liars, cheaters and they have broken the promise of their relationship to be faithful. To be fully responsible is to understand the risk to their marriage, how it would affect their children, extended family and friends with a mountain of pain that often destroys entire lives. The truth that men who cheat must confront is that they get to choose what kind of man they want to be. The challenge for men is to be in harmony with their family, personal values and to do the work that relationships require to make them viable and satisfying instead of escaping into another world.
For men and women to be faithful they need to affirm towards one another that they:
- Make a commitment to creating a positive, supportive, honest, high priority marriage or relationship.
- Introduce fun, recreation, mutual interests and other couples who are also faithful.
- Don’t let resentments build; make a space to resolve them.
- As loneliness and the lack of appreciation and affirmation are one of the main causes of cheating behavior, the obvious answer would be to show appreciation, affirm and validate one another’s efforts, ideas, thoughts and feelings.
- Work towards a resolution centered relationship. Getting mired in who said what to whom, one upsmanship, tit for tat, winning, being right, yelling, nagging, screaming, shutting down or acting out of revenge provides the entitlement to seek sexual solace elsewhere.
- Learn how to manage anger, come from a positive or level place; get to know who you are and what you want and need so you don’t re-create dysfunctional family patterns.
- Practice tolerance, compassion, empathy and kindness.
- Develop a value system that includes monogamy.
- Monogamy requires that men accept that they may have to give up some freedom for a greater good.
- Honesty and transparency are the only sure fire methods for creating and maintaining a monogamous intimate and loving relationship. If the rule is that you must tell your mate everything you are thinking about doing would you still do it?
With all the daunting challenges of monogamy it would seem that a casual sexual encounter would be such a natural and easy outcome for this dilemma. Truth is it’s not. The devastation, emotional distance, secrecy and guilt are enough to kill a horse let alone your relationship. There is no ultimate panacea for relationship monogamy but the ability to talk openly about the subject helps to keep it out of the shadows. It’s the clandestine quality about sexual infidelity that so often makes it so alluring, especially if it is mixed with longing and entitlement. In truth you can allow yourself to use the fantasy of a new sexual partner to stimulate yourself and connect with your mate. Bringing it all in instead of keeping it all out is the key to connecting with your partner. Knowing that you have to give up something to have a happy life, free of guilt and shame is part of what it means to be an adult. Sure, that female version of a chocolate layer cake looks so sweet, but remember, it also clogs the arteries. In the classic story of The Odyssey of Ulysses the Sirens call him from the shore. Temptation gets the best of him and he ends up crashing his ship on the rocks. Like Ulysses modern men find themselves being called from the shore on their Odyssey through life only to find the same conclusion. The secret is to learn from the past and not be doomed to repeat it. –By Dr. Bill Cloke/Care2/January 3, 2013
Is Sharia Law Compatible With Democracy?
The judge held that according to the Islamic religion, the woman should submit completely to her husband's will, thus effectively accepting rape.
In European and American communities the principle of a secular law equally applied to everyone is today being challenged, if not yet under assault, by Muslim communities wanting to insert decisions made in Islamic sharia ["the path"] courts and tribunals into the normal , common-law, legal system.
The question has arisen of whether legal decisions based on cultural values at odds with democratic principles be accepted and incorporated into laws of democratic countries in the name of religious freedom.
A proposed amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma, State Question 755, stating that, "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or sharia law," was blocked by an order of U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. Her decision was upheld by the Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on January 10, 2012.
Proponents of the amendment argue that only the federal and state laws of the U.S. should apply before the courts. Judge Miles-LaGrange, however, in issuing a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the amendment, said that the amendment conveyed a message that the state favored one religion or belief over others. She argued it singled out sharia law,conveying a message of disapproval of the Muslim faith, and had the effect of inhibiting the Muslim religion. The Federal Court similarly held that the proposed amendment was discriminatory because it twice specifically mentioned sharia law.
A cardinal principle in democratic systems is that the same law applies to everyone in the society -- and that this law is secular. In European countries and in the United States, concepts of multiculturalism and cultural relativism have led many groups in the social fabric to assert their cultural heritage. In some cases, as in the arts and literature, the result has been an eloquent profusion of different heritages. In the political arena, however, the result has been more problematic, sometimes threatening the rights of freedom of expression and behavior as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof…."
Within the United States voluntary systems of rabbinical courts and American Indian tribal courts have existed for some time, but they have not intruded into the general legal system. The problem remains, however, as stated in 2008 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to "what degree of accommodation the laws of the land can and will give to minority communities within their strongly entrenched legal and moral codes." The American philosopher John Rawls proposed a "comprehensive doctrine" by which reasonable people accept the existence of different beliefs about life and law, and do not impose their own doctrine on others who are equally willing to abide by this principle.
The answer given by the Oklahoma electorate, in trying to prevent the introduction of other systems of law, is that the secular state must have a monopoly of legal authority. Because the proposed amendment refers specifically to sharia law, it implies that Islamic values and law might be harmful to individual rights and the rule of law.
Ironically, if the proposed amendment had not twice mentioned sharia law, it might have been passed without effort.
The Supreme Court will have to face the constitutional question of whether the judicial branch of government can block or veto a decision of the people made in proper legal fashion -- the amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution was approved by 70 percent of the electorate in November 2010. But that question should not override the issue, already a significant one in European countries, especially in Britain, of whether Islamic sharia law is compatible with a democratic legal system, or can be integrated into it. Can the Islamic law applying to Muslims on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody of children be accepted as part of the regular civil code?
This problem had already arisen in New Jersey. In August 2010, Judge Joseph Charles, a family court judge, refused to grant a restraining order to a woman who had been sexually abused by her Moroccan husband. The judge held that the man thought he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs. His argument was that according to the Islamic religion the woman should submit completely to her husband's will, a submission which in this instance meant having sex whenever he desired, thus effectively accepting rape. The judge's decision was overruled by the Appellate Court of New Jersey, which held that the religious beliefs of the husband were irrelevant to the case and that assault was illegal. This ruling follows the well -known decision of the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, 1878, that the claimed religious duty of a Mormon to engage in bigamy was not a defense against criminal indictment.
No doubt there are some myths and social stereotypes that have been articulated in the West, and may not be accurate representations about behavior and relationships in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the starting point of objective analysis is that sharia law is not compatible with democratic law.
Sharia law, which regulates all aspects of Muslim communal and private life, is discriminatory against women and children, denying them rights that have been won over the last two centuries in democratic countries. Muslim women, treated as inferiors, are often not allowed to take advantage of the protection from discrimination or abuse provided by the secular courts. They are often pressured by their families to go to tribunals where the principles of Sharia law are applied. That law is implemented by councils, or arbitration tribunals, that operate on religious principles, derived from a number of sources: the Koran, the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad, Islamic jurisprudence, and rulings or fatwas issued by scholars. Can this law be compatible with that of law in states not constructed on a religious basis? Can decisions from those courts be considered part of the ordinary legal system?
It is difficult to envisage the compatibility of alternative legal systems with the law in democratic societies, particularly with an Islamic legal system that calls for the death penalty for apostasy, sexual "crimes" of women including adultery, and homosexuality. Women are handicapped on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. A Muslim man is permitted to have four wives and can divorce one of them with ease, but women must follow a difficult path to obtain a divorce. At the worst,women can be stoned to death for sex outside marriage. Judgment in criminal cases can be harsh; thieves may be punished by amputation.
The cases in Oklahoma and New Jersey have paved the way for an important decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. Will it allow Muslim law to be used in civil cases relating to the Muslim community? Will the decisions of Sharia tribunals become legally binding? Or will the Supreme Court decide, as did the highest court in Britain, the Law Lords, when it ruled in a case involving a woman and custody of her child in 2008, that the Sharia law applied in that particular case was discriminatory and a violation of human rights?
It is not a manifestation of xenophobia or prejudice that the voters in Oklahoma acted on the belief that Muslim Sharia law is antithetical to democratic values. The courts and legislators in the United States must be conscious of a real and growing difficulty in our society. –By Michael Curtis/Gatestone Institute/February 23, 2012
In European and American communities the principle of a secular law equally applied to everyone is today being challenged, if not yet under assault, by Muslim communities wanting to insert decisions made in Islamic sharia ["the path"] courts and tribunals into the normal , common-law, legal system.
The question has arisen of whether legal decisions based on cultural values at odds with democratic principles be accepted and incorporated into laws of democratic countries in the name of religious freedom.
A proposed amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma, State Question 755, stating that, "The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or sharia law," was blocked by an order of U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. Her decision was upheld by the Federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on January 10, 2012.
Proponents of the amendment argue that only the federal and state laws of the U.S. should apply before the courts. Judge Miles-LaGrange, however, in issuing a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the amendment, said that the amendment conveyed a message that the state favored one religion or belief over others. She argued it singled out sharia law,conveying a message of disapproval of the Muslim faith, and had the effect of inhibiting the Muslim religion. The Federal Court similarly held that the proposed amendment was discriminatory because it twice specifically mentioned sharia law.
A cardinal principle in democratic systems is that the same law applies to everyone in the society -- and that this law is secular. In European countries and in the United States, concepts of multiculturalism and cultural relativism have led many groups in the social fabric to assert their cultural heritage. In some cases, as in the arts and literature, the result has been an eloquent profusion of different heritages. In the political arena, however, the result has been more problematic, sometimes threatening the rights of freedom of expression and behavior as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof…."
Within the United States voluntary systems of rabbinical courts and American Indian tribal courts have existed for some time, but they have not intruded into the general legal system. The problem remains, however, as stated in 2008 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to "what degree of accommodation the laws of the land can and will give to minority communities within their strongly entrenched legal and moral codes." The American philosopher John Rawls proposed a "comprehensive doctrine" by which reasonable people accept the existence of different beliefs about life and law, and do not impose their own doctrine on others who are equally willing to abide by this principle.
The answer given by the Oklahoma electorate, in trying to prevent the introduction of other systems of law, is that the secular state must have a monopoly of legal authority. Because the proposed amendment refers specifically to sharia law, it implies that Islamic values and law might be harmful to individual rights and the rule of law.
Ironically, if the proposed amendment had not twice mentioned sharia law, it might have been passed without effort.
The Supreme Court will have to face the constitutional question of whether the judicial branch of government can block or veto a decision of the people made in proper legal fashion -- the amendment of the Oklahoma Constitution was approved by 70 percent of the electorate in November 2010. But that question should not override the issue, already a significant one in European countries, especially in Britain, of whether Islamic sharia law is compatible with a democratic legal system, or can be integrated into it. Can the Islamic law applying to Muslims on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody of children be accepted as part of the regular civil code?
This problem had already arisen in New Jersey. In August 2010, Judge Joseph Charles, a family court judge, refused to grant a restraining order to a woman who had been sexually abused by her Moroccan husband. The judge held that the man thought he had behaved according to his Muslim beliefs. His argument was that according to the Islamic religion the woman should submit completely to her husband's will, a submission which in this instance meant having sex whenever he desired, thus effectively accepting rape. The judge's decision was overruled by the Appellate Court of New Jersey, which held that the religious beliefs of the husband were irrelevant to the case and that assault was illegal. This ruling follows the well -known decision of the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, 1878, that the claimed religious duty of a Mormon to engage in bigamy was not a defense against criminal indictment.
No doubt there are some myths and social stereotypes that have been articulated in the West, and may not be accurate representations about behavior and relationships in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the starting point of objective analysis is that sharia law is not compatible with democratic law.
Sharia law, which regulates all aspects of Muslim communal and private life, is discriminatory against women and children, denying them rights that have been won over the last two centuries in democratic countries. Muslim women, treated as inferiors, are often not allowed to take advantage of the protection from discrimination or abuse provided by the secular courts. They are often pressured by their families to go to tribunals where the principles of Sharia law are applied. That law is implemented by councils, or arbitration tribunals, that operate on religious principles, derived from a number of sources: the Koran, the sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad, Islamic jurisprudence, and rulings or fatwas issued by scholars. Can this law be compatible with that of law in states not constructed on a religious basis? Can decisions from those courts be considered part of the ordinary legal system?
It is difficult to envisage the compatibility of alternative legal systems with the law in democratic societies, particularly with an Islamic legal system that calls for the death penalty for apostasy, sexual "crimes" of women including adultery, and homosexuality. Women are handicapped on issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. A Muslim man is permitted to have four wives and can divorce one of them with ease, but women must follow a difficult path to obtain a divorce. At the worst,women can be stoned to death for sex outside marriage. Judgment in criminal cases can be harsh; thieves may be punished by amputation.
The cases in Oklahoma and New Jersey have paved the way for an important decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. Will it allow Muslim law to be used in civil cases relating to the Muslim community? Will the decisions of Sharia tribunals become legally binding? Or will the Supreme Court decide, as did the highest court in Britain, the Law Lords, when it ruled in a case involving a woman and custody of her child in 2008, that the Sharia law applied in that particular case was discriminatory and a violation of human rights?
It is not a manifestation of xenophobia or prejudice that the voters in Oklahoma acted on the belief that Muslim Sharia law is antithetical to democratic values. The courts and legislators in the United States must be conscious of a real and growing difficulty in our society. –By Michael Curtis/Gatestone Institute/February 23, 2012
About the Author: Michael Curtis is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University, and author of Should Israel Exist? A Sovereign Nation under attack by the International Community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)