Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Ima, Ima!


Recommended by CNN.Com
Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle


For 2 year old little boys the cry Ima (Mommy) comes when they are hurt or scared. And their mother comes running to see what is wrong. But for 2 year old Moshe Holtzberg, Mommy will not be coming to heal his hurts. His mother, Rivka Holtzberg was murdered at the Chabad Center in Mumbai, India last week.


Just before the body of Rivka Holtzberg, 28, her husband, Rabbi Gavriel, 29, and four other Jews killed by Muslim terrorists in Mumbai last week were flown back to Israel on Monday, her father promised that his family would continue her emissary work for Chabad in the same city where she died.

"My wife and I will continue their [Rivka and Gavriel's] mission, to carry out the work of the Rebbe here, at least until [their son], Moishe, grows up and then he will continue it," Afula's Rabbi Shimon Rosenberg told reporters, breaking into tears as he spoke.

His son, Yossi, told The Jerusalem Post from his Haifa home that it was still unclear whether it would be his parents or other members of the Holtzberg family who would return to Mumbai in the name of the couple who had lived there and operated the Chabad house since 2003.

"There is no comfort for what happened. But we can remember Gabi and Rivki if we are connected to the place where they lived. My parents are taking full responsibility for the continuation of my sister's work," he said. Shimon and his wife, Yehudit, had flown to India immediately after hearing of the attack.
One cannot stop good people from doing good deeds or works. Tragedies like these only reinforces the resolve of those trying to bring joy and peace to others.

They were due to arrive back in Israel late Monday night on an IDF plane that carried the six bodies, including those of Aryeh Leibish Teitelbaum, 37; Bentzion Chroman, 28; Yocheved Orpaz, 62, and Norma Shvarzblat Rabinovich, 50.

Upon their return late Monday night, the state was scheduled to hold a small private ceremony for the victims, after which a number of the families planned to hold burial ceremonies on Tuesday. The Holtzbergs' funeral will begin in Kfar Chabad on Tuesday. Mourners will proceed from there to Jerusalem to bury the couple on the Mount of Olives.

Among those on the flight back to Israel Monday night was Holtzberg's two-year-old son Moshe, who was saved from the building by his Indian nanny Sandra Samuel, to whom he has clung since the rescue.

An Interior Ministry spokeswoman said Monday that no formal request had been made as yet for Samuel to receive either permanent or temporary residency in Israel.

However, she added that Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit was willing to find a solution that would allow the woman, an Indian native, to stay here, at least for the short-term.

In Mumbai, Samuel worked on obtaining an entry visa up until the last minute and so missed the ceremony held earlier in the day at a Mumbai synagogue for the six victims.
If ever there was an angel during this massacre, it was the nanny,
Sandra Samuel. She gathered up little Moshe and dared the terrorists to kill her and the child too. There are no words of praise that one could use in regards to this fine lady. No reward on Earth is too good for her, and her greatest reward will come from God. For she has saved a life.



During the ceremony, Shimon Rosenberg quoted from the book of Job, and said, "The Lord giveth. The Lord taketh away. Blessed be the name of the Lord."

Wearing a green T-shirt and clutching a red ball, Moshe had a hard time sitting still in the synagogue as he sat on the lap of Samuel's friend and looked about for his missing parents.

"Mommy, Mommy," he cried out, with his head flung back, in a voice that echoed through the sanctuary and was filmed by Israeli television and showed a number of times in Israel throughout the evening.

Full Story






View at YouTube

What sorrow for these families. The 6 Americans and the 6 Israelis murdered. Killed in the name of Islam. How proud the murderers families must be! What great deeds they accomplished!

The true great deed came from Sandra Samuel who did the most courageous thing that day. She saved a little boy's life. It is written in the Talmud:


He who saves a life, saves the world entire.

Michelle Obama's Diamond "Thank You" Ring


Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook


According to the DailyMail, Michelle Obama's man, Barack, is saying "thank you" with a diamond encrusted ring made of rhodium, the most expensive metal in the world priced at about $7,400 per ounce. The $30,000.00 ring made by Italian designer Giovanni Bosco, will be ready in time for Obama's January 2009 inauguration.

Supreme Court Sends Citizenship Appeal to an Anthrax Lab

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook


Who is this man?

U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) let yesterday's Supreme Court deadline to respond to Philip Berg's Writ of Certiorari slip by unanswered, but it appears even at the Supreme Court, a deadline is not really a deadline as the Court allows two additional days for "mail service."

Associate Justice David Souter denied an emergency appeal for the Court to halt the Electoral College's tabulation of votes to officially declare Barack Obama the President, until proof of his eligibility is affirmed. While Souter denied the appeal, he did set the above mentioned requirement for a response from Obama and the DNC.

Attorney Philip Berg, this morning, filed an emergency injunction with the Court to bar Obama from taking the oath of office of the Presidency. Jeff at America's Right interprets Berg's motion as follows:
From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court

(1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and

(2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.
Berg is quoted as saying that he is one-thousand percent certain that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Obama and the DNC are not "obligated" to file an answer, and Berg says that he "believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in procedure and more in audacity..." "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we're successful."

As November 4th neared, a few of us were desperately attempting to get this information to the public. Surely, we thought (bloggers) this was an important and valid issue. After all, the Supreme Court ordered Obama to provide proof of his U.S. birth. How many times has that happened? But the MSM wouldn't touch it. I thought the media, including cable television, viewed this as too ludicrous to even consider, but as time passed, credible reasons to believe that Obama could not provide proof of his U.S. birth, began piling up. Someone, for some reason, was able to keep this out of the MSM.

Here are other actions at work at the Supreme Court:

Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full Court with Justice Clarence Thomas chairing the Conference on December 5th. The purpose of the Conference is to consider granting Certiorari, which allows further review of the original lawsuit.
If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s [Donofrio] case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "has been officially tendered to the Supreme Court..." All things get weirder when it concerns Barack Obama. Wrotnowski, allegedly, was told by the Court that his emergency stay renewal was referred to an ANTHRAX CONTAINMENT FACILITY! A reader left this information on a Maggie's Notebook post, and it appears that is exactly what Wrotnowski is saying he was told in a telephone conversation (read more below).

Hunter v. Obama sent to the Supreme Court

For detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information:

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

The We the People Foundation placed a full page in the Chicago Tribune, running on December 1st and 3rd:
The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8.

A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama.

As a formal "Notice of a Constitutional Violation," the Petition naturally includes the People's inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

Dr. Orly Taitz reports numerous phone calls to the SC demanding to know why Cort Wrotnowski's Petition for Stay of Elections was delayed by 7 days because it was sent to an anthrax lab:
Mr. Wrotnowski is a law abiding citizen, a business owner, was never in trouble with the law. Why was his petition delayed by a week via sending it to the Anthrax lab. No response was received, no name of the clerk was given. These clerks are sabotaging anti Obama cases to put a foreigner in the White House, this is bordering on aiding and abetting treason.
Dr. Taitz is asking for our help:
Please write to all 9 judges, let them know what is going on, demand to join all 5 cases currently in the Supreme Court, you can send them a copy of our Keyes v Bowen petition for Writ of Mandate as a supporting document. Currently I am working on filing a second case, representing another group of candidates, party officials, Certified Electors and Registered voters and I am assisting other attorneys all around the country, that are preparing similar actions and trying to match voters and electors in different states with attorneys that can represent them.
Here's contact information (if you have previous written, please continue to do so):
The Honorable Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543

Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407

Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.
Also, send identical requests to the remaining Justices: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin G. Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer

Read more about Dr. Taitz's attempts to hold Barack Obama accountable.

America, this is no small thing.

Same Game, Different Players

Muslim-American women playing basketball in the U. S. 2008

Japanese-American women playing basketball at Manzanar. 1942



Update: Although originally published 4/4/08, this article directly relates to my recent From Mumbai to the United States of America: Are You Ready Now? The issues addressed here are particularly relevant to today's post-Mumbai world. The Japanese-American Internments in WWII are just one of that well-known list of so-called American atrocities. For those of you who have uncritically embraced these examples of historical American guilt, I ask that you take the time to read this article and at least be willing to reevaluate your conclusions. - rg


------------------------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite:
In the preceding article "Playing the Muslim Game" Planck's Constant laid out an original and cogent argument for confronting the Muslim immigrant situation in America. This present article is an attempt to further this important conversation
.


On December 7, 1941, Japanese warplanes attacked Pearl Harbor without warning, killing approximately three thousand people, and thus Japan declared war on America. Confronted with the existence of a large Japanese population on American soil, of demonstrably dubious loyalty, our government decided to take action. Thousands of Japanese and Japanese Americans were uprooted and removed from American society, and the still highly-controversial program of Relocation and Internment was initiated.

On September 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists drove hijacked American airliners into highly-populated buildings in New York City and Washington DC. without warning, killing approximately three thousand people, and thus Islam declared war on America. Confronted with the existence of a large Muslim population on American soil, of demonstrably dubious loyalties, we decided to provide them with more foot baths at our universities and our airports.

Do those bold preemptive, but still-contentious actions in 1942 provide us with an instructional precedent for our current immigrant problems? Or are they to be viewed, as many still proclaim, as merely an eradicable moral stain on our national character? Let's take a closer look at some of the similarities and some of the differences.

In 1942, some 112,000 Japanese were living on the Pacific Coast. About 40 percent were resident aliens and the remainder, by virtue of U.S. birth, were American citizens. The citizens, however, were mostly children, and when the U.S. declared war on Japan, their parents became enemy aliens. Moreover the Japanese emperor claimed all Japanese, wherever born, as subjects. They were referred to as doho, meaning countrymen. Japanese residents in the U.S. sent their children to “Japanese school” on Saturdays. A teacher in one of the schools told his American-born students, “You must remember that only a trick of fate has brought you so far from your homeland, but there must be no question of your loyalty. When Japan calls, you must know that it is Japanese blood that flows in your veins.”

Resident Japanese also sent their children to Japan for schooling. By 1940, more than 20,000 American-born Japanese had been educated in Japan. Known as kibei, they were fluent in Japanese, steeped in Japanese history and culture, and supporters of Japanese expansion in the Far East. They could hardly be distinguished from young militarists in Japan. Lt. Cmdr. K.D. Ringle of the Office of Naval Intelligence had been investigating the kibei for several months when the Japanese perpetrated their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. In January 1942, he submitted a report saying:

[T]he most potentially dangerous element of all are those American citizens of Japanese ancestry who have spent the formative years of their lives, from 10 to 20, in Japan and have returned to the United States to claim their legal American citizenship within the last few years. Those people are essentially and inherently Japanese and may have been deliberately sent back to the United States by the Japanese government to act as agents.


The notorious Kokuryukai (Black Dragon) Japanese espionage network had been operating since at least the early thirties throughout North America. They had successfully penetrated the Boeing Plant and stolen the blueprints for a new American bomber. Their extremely effective espionage operations in Hawaii had assured the success of the Pearl Harbor attacks.

Question: Given this known threat, how was our government expected to deal with the Japanese population on the West Coast? What possible tests could they have improvised to determine with any degree of certainty whether a Japanese-American's loyalties lay with the US or with their original homeland? According to the best statistics found on this subject, approximately 80-85% of the interned Japanese were actually loyal American citizens. But this still would have left us with the threat of 15-20% (or approximately 15-20,000) of those Japanese of questionable loyalty -- not to mention the unknowable threat from the Kokuryukai network. Faced with an extremely difficult situation, with major moral ramifications, our American government, rather than overreacting, did the best job it could do under the circumstances to protect Americans. We have been morally chastised by the universal Pacifist Left relentlessly for a half century for having had the courage to make these difficult wartime decisions.

In 2003, Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.), introduced House Resolution 56, which would make February 19 a National Day of Remembrance for those Japanese who were “interned” during World War II. It was on February 19, 1942, that President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, requiring the evacuation of Japanese aliens and American-born Japanese along with German and Italian aliens from the Pacific Coast. After a year in the House Committee on the Judiciary, the resolution was then placed on the House calendar.

Honda’s resolution contains a series of misrepresentations that have passed for fact for so many years that they are now generally accepted without question. Moreover, the resolution posits (surprise, surprise) President Jimmy Carter’s Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment and its report, “Personal Justice Denied,” as the final authority on the subject. After “20 days of hearings” and “over 750 witnesses,” the commission concluded that the Relocation and Internment was not justified by military necessity but was the result of “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”

That conclusion, however, is contrary to the facts as revealed by MAGIC, the decryptions of coded Japanese transmissions. The commission ignored MAGIC entirely in its original report, as it did witnesses who were available to proffer information supporting Roosevelt’s order. The few witnesses who attempted to testify in support of E.O. 9066 were drowned out by an unruly mob of spectators.

Throughout 1941, the U.S. frequently intercepted reports of resident aliens and Japanese Americans providing information to Japanese agents. In a decrypted message on May 9, for example, a Japanese agent in Los Angeles reports, “We have already established contact with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials .... We shall maintain connection with our second generations who are at present in the [U.S.] Army, to keep us informed of various developments in the Army. We also have connections with our second generations working in airplane plants for intelligence purposes.”

After Japanese warplanes attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, thousands of Japanese Americans ended up being interned in camps for the duration of World War II. Despite the abridgement of their constitutional rights, the vast majority of Japanese Americans remained strongly loyal to the United States. As one wartime Japanese American said, “Yes, the United States did make a mistake [about the internment] but we felt it was our country–right and wrong.”

Such pro-U.S. sentiment among Japanese Americans was due, in large part, to the strong assimilation process that existed before the war. Rather than today’s multiculturalism, which believes that all cultures are equally good and which Balkanizes immigrants and separates them from historic American culture, immigrant Japanese and their children were expected to become mainstream Americans. Japanese-American community leaders and organizations emphasized this goal.

A 1942 Japanese-American creed stated: “I believe in [America’s] institutions, ideals and traditions; I glory in her heritage; I boast of her history; I trust in her future. Because I believe in America, and I trust she believes in me, and because I have received innumerable benefits from her, I pledge myself to do honor to her at all times and in all places.” The result of this assimilation process was a sincere and deep patriotism on the part of most Japanese Americans.

Perhaps the most visible sign of this patriotism was the willingness of legions of young Japanese-American men to join specially formed combat units of the U.S. Army. The 442nd Regimental Combat Team, composed of Japanese Americans, became the most highly decorated unit of the war for its bravery in the European theater. It’s worth noting that many Japanese Americans had wanted to fight against Japan. One Japanese-American recruit said, “I was excited and felt we were going to the Pacific Theater at that time. I talked to a number of officers and enlisted men of Japanese American ancestry about the possibility of going to the Far East. No one had any objections. We were ready to go.”


Contrast those sentiments with the pronouncements and actions of Muslim American spokesmen and groups in the wake of the September 11th attack by Muslim terrorists, many of whom had illegally immigrated to the U.S.. There have been no stirring pleas for young Muslim Americans to enlist in the American military or organizing of patriotic rallies in Muslim communities. Indeed, on a recent segment of 60 Minutes, a supposedly moderate Muslim American cleric, citing U.S. foreign policies, accused the U.S. of being an “accessory” to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Although condemning terrorism in general, officials for key Muslim American groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations CAIR)have been hesitant to condemn Osama bin Laden, the all but certain mastermind behind the September 11 terror attacks. This is unsurprising given that CAIR and other Muslim groups such as the American Muslim Council (AMC) have in the past refused to condemn known Islamic terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah and have criticized the conviction of the Islamic extremists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. Adopting the strategy of other ethnic-based groups, CAIR and AMC prefer to fight perceived biases against Muslims in American society rather than making immigrant Muslims better Americans.

In a survey of Muslims in Los Angeles County, Kambiz Ghanea Basiri, a fellow of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions, found that “a significant number of Muslims, particularly immigrant Muslims, do not have close ties or loyalty to the United States.” Indeed, he found that 12 out of 15 immigrants feel more allegiance to a foreign country than to the United States.


One can only wonder how that patriotic 1942 Japanese American creed would be received in the Muslim American community of today.



The same game, different players? You decide.

Radarsite gratefully acknowledges its debt to the two following articles:
Internment Scandal Roger D. McGrath
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_03_15/article.html

and
December 7th, September 11th and Immigrant Assimilation Lance T. Izumi
http://www.vdare.com/misc/izumi_assimilation.htm

Monday, December 1, 2008

CAIR Statement on Mumbai


Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR


Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


For the past several days, I have been checking the website of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Today is the first time I have seen any mention of the events in Mumbai. The below post is dated November 27, so I could be in error as to exactly when this item appeared on the website.


"CAIR Condemns Mumbai Attacks
Posted 11/27/2008 12:44:00 PM

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/27/08) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today condemned attacks on a number of sites in the Indian financial capital of Mumbai that left at least 100 people dead and many more injured.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also called for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages taken during the attacks. Witnesses say the attackers sought out American and British citizens.

SEE: Dozens Die in Mumbai Attacks (Washington Post)


In a statement, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

“We condemn these cowardly attacks and demand that all hostages taken by the attackers be released immediately and unconditionally. We offer sincere condolences to the loved ones of those killed or injured in these senseless and inexcusable acts of violence against innocent civilians. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens of all faiths in repudiating acts of terror wherever they take place and whomever they target.”

SEE: CAIR’s Anti-Terrorism Campaigns


The Washington-based group also asked the Indian government to protect all its citizens from the type of retaliatory attacks that have taken place following similar incidents in the recent past.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

- END -

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787


In addition, I have been checking other regional CAIR sites in Los Angeles, Chicago and Cincinnati. I have seen no other references to Mumbai. I have also checked a couple of Muslim Student Union sites (UC-Irvine and UCLA) and have seen nothing mentioned. Of course, there could be many other MSU sites at other universities that have spoken on the issue.

I do want to say something about the CAIR comment. First of all, it is right that they make some comment condemning what happened in Mumbai. CAIR's official position is that they condemn terrorism. What I find lacking is that CAIR feels the need to skirt around the fact that most terrorism in the world today is being carried out by Muslims and usually in the name of Islam. Note that the above statement makes no reference to the identity of the culprits. Were they Swedish extremists trying to gain the independence of Lapland? CAIR also makes no mention of the Jewish victims at Mumbai's Chabad House, who were obviously singled out by the Muslim attackers because they were Jewish.

CAIR does make a point, however, to urge Indian authorities to protect people from "retaliatory attacks". Of course, that means protecting Muslims in India from retaliatory attacks. (I also hope Indian authorities will protect Indian Muslims from being attacked.)

It seems to me that CAIR walks a very careful line when it comes to this issue of Islamic terrorism. They will, of course, condemn acts of terror publicly. Yet, they will not come clean and acknowledge that Islam is afflicted with a cancer called hatred, intolerance and terrorism, a cancer that must be excised. They cannot publicly state that they are ashamed at the acts of Muslim killers who act in the name of Islam. Indeed, in browsing through a couple of Islamic blogs, what I see as a trend is condemnation of Mumbai but a refusal to be apologetic for Islam itself.

That is clearly understandable. When I read about the Inquisition, I condemn that in the strongest terms. It doesn't make me ashamed to be Christian because it happened centuries ago, and Christianity went through a Reformation. (I am Protestant.)

In contrast, Islamic terrorism is now, and it threatens everyone in the world today. It must be dealt with. Why is it that organizations like CAIR and so many Imams cannot openly confront the cancer? Is it because the cancer exists in the Qu'ran itself? Is it because to emulate the life of the Prophet Mohammed is to follow the path of Jihad?

CAIR, which likes to think of itself as the Muslim equivalent of the NAACP (maybe today's NAACP-certainly not the NAACP of the Civil Rights era), stands ready at a pin-drop to sue anybody who they think may have discriminated against a Muslim. Their websites are quick to publish any perceived slight or hate crime-real or made up (witness the recent Elmhurst College hoax). When Muslims are arrested in the US, CAIR can be counted upon to take the position that an injustice is being done. Their philosophy seems to be that they can litigate their way to acceptance by the American people in spite of the continuing scourge of Islamic terror. They are mistaken.

CAIR's statement on Mumbai is woefully insufficient. Instead of making generic statements about condemning terrorism in all its forms, CAIR and millions of Imams should be calling for a worldwide movement to call a halt to hatred toward Jews and other "non-believers". If that means re-evaluating certain passages in the Qu'ran or making some critical judgements about the Prophet Mohammed, or simply issuing Fatwahs to the effect that Islam needs to accommodate itself to a modern and diverse world, then so be it.

Of course, that will not happen. Instead, what we see is CAIR looking for the next "Islamophobe" to expose or drag into court while their allies at the United Nations try to pressure free democracies into taking away the right of free speech and outlawing any criticism or "defamation" of Islam.

Of course, CAIR itself is under suspicion in many quarters. The organization was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the recent Holy Land Foundation trial. If, as many charge, CAIR is linked to Hamas, then how far can you expect them to go in trying to "fight" Islamic terror?

Another UN Resolution



Is this the UN General Assembly?


Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


On November 24, the UN General Assembly added to its legacy of uselessness with the infamous "Defamation of Religion" measure. The vote was 85 in favor, 50 against with 42 abstentions. The draft measure, which sounds great on the surface, calls on all nations to alter their legal and constitutional systems to ban "defamation of all religions". The problem is that the measure only refers to one religion being "defamed". That, of course, is Islam, which, according to the UN, "is frequently and wrongfully associated with human rights violations and terrorism." (like Mumbai, perhaps?)

The measure, which was sponsored by Muslim nations with the support of Belarus and Venezuela, has drawn protests from various human rights and legal groups. It seeks to force nations (including ours) to crack down on any criticism of Islam and any speech that links Islam to acts of terror. That is the intent. In reality, the UN and the sponsors of this resolution could care less about anyone criticizing Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or Judaism (which to the UN of course is part of the whole racist problem anyway-they call it "Zionism".)

You might ask which nations voted for this resolution. Well, to begin with, the Islamic nations all voted in favor. Virtually all of the Western European nations abstained-being the moral cowards that they are. Most Latin American nations abstained with the notable exception of America's greatest Latin American ally, Colombia, which voted against. The US, Australia and Canada all voted against.

So what is the intent in this resolution by the UN? To silence those who speak out against Islamic terror, of course, but how specifically? What this means is that all free nations would turn their constitutions and laws upside down and prohibit any "defamation of Islam". Danish cartoons? Illegal. Geert Wilders' film about Islam entitled "Fitna"? Illegal. How about international arrest warrants issued for Wilders and the Danish cartoonist and his publishers?

You laugh.

Already, judges in places like Syria have issued arrest warrants for Danish cartoonists. Dutch authorities have been diplomatically requested to file charges against Wilders for blasphemy against Islam.

What about talk radio commentators who are already referred to by the left as "Hate Radio" and are threatened by the Fairness Doctrine that the Democrats in Congress want to impose? What about conservative bloggers, especially those who regularly write about the outrages of international terrorism, correctly identifying its perpetrators?

What about me?

Actually, I consider my language to be much more temperate than many when it comes to this issue. I doubt, however, that I could convince the talk police at the UN of my sincere intentions.

Have you heard the term, creeping Shariah? (you can even link from here to a blog by that name). That is precisely what this is. It is directed at the West-those nations like ours which defend freedom of speech-even when it is offensive.

I myself have spoken out many times about defamation of the Jewish religion and pointed out that the speakers are invariably Muslim speakers sponsored by the Muslim Student Union at the University of California at Irvine. I have never, however, called for the speakers to be arrested. What I have called for is that the leadership of the university follow up anti-Semitic hate speech with their own condemnation of such speech. I have also called for hate merchants to be re-directed from the university to a local park soapbox to conduct their discourse.

But for the UN to try and pass an international law aimed directly at those who speak out against Islamic terror and try to get free nations to throw out free speech altogether is just another concrete example of why the United States has no business being in this organization.

AIDS: Overblown Global Crisis?


Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle

Today is World AIDS Day. The day the whole world is suppose to remember that there is an pandemic happening through out the world. Right now, about 40 million people in the world are living with HIV infection or AIDS. This estimate includes 37 million adults and 2.5 million children. In the United States alone, more than 1 million people are living with HIV. A large number, but there are other diseases that infect more people and take more lives each year.
As World AIDS Day is marked on Monday, some experts are growing more outspoken in complaining that AIDS is eating up funding at the expense of more pressing health needs.

They argue that the world has entered a post-AIDS era in which the disease's spread has largely been curbed in much of the world, Africa excepted.
In Africa some nations are almost 100% infected. Uganda is one of these. And those infected are not able to receive the necessary medical treatment needed for long term survival. Drugs that can slow the infection rate down, or prevent secondary infections from occurring are not being given to those most needy. Some of this is due to the cost of the drugs, other is the bureaucracy in many of the developing world.
Roger England of Health Systems Workshop, a think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada, goes further. He argues that UNAIDS, the U.N. agency leading the fight against the disease, has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.

"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, ... too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory," he wrote in the British Medical Journal in May.
Just like every other UN Agency it seems. This is nothing new. Just another bit of wasteful money mostly donated by American Taxpayers.
Paul de Lay, a director at UNAIDS, disagrees. It's valid to question AIDS' place in the world's priorities, he says, but insists the turnaround is very recent and it would be wrong to think the epidemic is under control.

"We have an epidemic that has caused between 55 million and 60 million infections," de Lay said. "To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath that would be disastrous."
The estimate of 55 to 60 million people is a bit high. It is more like 35 to 40 million people, many of which would not have been infected if the men of their nations would wear a condom. But that would mean that they aren't masculine enough. It would demean their manhood to wear one. So they don't, they visit prostitutes who are infected, they become infected and then infect their wives. Nice gift honey but I wanted a new washing machine!
U.N. officials roughly estimate that about 33 million people worldwide have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Scientists say infections peaked in the late 1990s and are unlikely to spark big epidemics beyond Africa.

In developed countries, AIDS drugs have turned the once-fatal disease into a manageable illness.
And the rate of infection is also down. The highest risk groups today are drug users and teenagers. I guess teens don't believe in safe sex either.
England argues that closing UNAIDS would free up its $200 million annual budget for other health problems such as pneumonia, which kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

"By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia," England said.
Measles can be prevented by inoculations. They are low cost and do work. Pneumonia kills millions each year, but we keep hearing there isn't any money to help these people.

His comments touch on the bigger complaint: that AIDS hogs money and may damage other health programs.

By 2006, AIDS funding accounted for 80 percent of all American aid for health and population issues, according to the Global Health Council.

In Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and elsewhere, donations for HIV projects routinely outstrip the entire national health budgets.

In a 2006 report, Rwandan officials noted a "gross misallocation of resources" in health: $47 million went to HIV, $18 million went to malaria, the country's biggest killer, and $1 million went to childhood illnesses.
It is time that these nations get to use the donated funds where they need it the most. If malaria is killing more people each year, then they should use the funds there. It is the logical approach to a health crisis that these nations are facing.
AIDS advocates say their projects do more than curb the virus; their efforts strengthen other health programs by providing basic health services.

But across Africa, about 1.5 million doctors and nurses are still needed, and hospitals regularly run out of basic medicines.

Experts working on other health problems struggle to attract money and attention when competing with AIDS.
What good is basic medical services when there are no medicines to treat the basics? In Africa there is a shortage of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and medicines. There is no shortage of suffering though.
"Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS," said John Oldfield, executive vice president of Water Advocates, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes clean water and sanitation.

"Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties," Oldfield said. "But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea," he said.

Full Story
I'm sorry Mr. Oldfield, but there is no way you are going to ever get anyone to talk about diarrhea at a cocktail party. At a frat house party, maybe. But the average person doesn't even like to think about diarrhea.

AIDS is a glamor disease. Scores of the A-List celebrities just have to come out and say something about AIDS every year. If you don't, then your career is ruined. But Roger England is correct. The world is spending too many resources on one illness and neglecting other serious problems. It is time that the individual nations involved in this have a bigger say on where donated monies should be spent. Yes AIDS patients should receive the medicines that will help them survive many years, but money should be spent to prevent treatable illnesses like measles, to help patients with malaria, and even start providing the basic health care that would prevent all these illnesses.

And on this World AIDS Day, I think that my tax money would be spent in a better way.