Archive for racism

SLAVERY, TERRORISM AND ISLAM: THE HISTORICAL ROOTS AND CONTEMPORARY THREAT – Book by Dr Peter Hammond

Posted in GUN CONTROL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & THE HORRORS OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM!, MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 4, 2016 by drjgelb

 

Credit to Dr Peter Hammond:

539202_10151098469687740_1820751410_n

Islamisation begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse (multicultural) societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.  

     
Here’s how it works:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 3% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving Minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:      
                 United States — Muslim 2%
                  Australia — Muslim 2.5%
                  Canada — Muslim 2.8%
                  Norway — Muslim 2.8%
                  China — Muslim 2.9%
                  Italy — Muslim 2.5%        
       
At 3% to 8%, they begin to proselytise from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
               
                  This is happening in:
               
                  Denmark — Muslim 5%
                  Germany — Muslim 6.7%
                  United Kingdom — Muslim 7.7%
                  Spain — Muslim 8%
                  Thailand — Muslim 7.6%
       
       
From 8% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.      
    
                 This is occurring in:       
       
                  France — Muslim 12%
                  Philippines — 9%
                  Sweden — Muslim 8%
                  Switzerland — Muslim 8.3%
                  The Netherlands — Muslim 8.5%
                  Trinidad Tobago — Muslim 10.8%  

 
       
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.        
       
When Muslims approach 15% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:         
       
                  Guyana — Muslim 15%
                  India — Muslim 19.4%
                  Israel — Muslim 16%
                  Kenya — Muslim 18%
                  Russia — Muslim 21%        
       
After reaching 25%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:    
       
                  Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%         
       
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:        
       
                  Bosnia — Muslim 40%
                  Chad — Muslim 53.1%
                  Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%        
       
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non- believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:         
       
                  Albania — Muslim 70%
                  Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
                  Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
                  Sudan — Muslim 70%        
       
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:         
       
                  Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
                  Egypt — Muslim 90%
                  Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
                  Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
                  Iran — Muslim 98%
                  Iraq — Muslim 97%
                  Jordan — Muslim 92%
                  Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
                  Pakistan — Muslim 97%
                  Syria — Muslim 90%
                  Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
                  Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
                  UAE — Muslim 96%        
       
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace.. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:     

    
       
                  Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
                  Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
                  Somalia — Muslim 100%
                  Yemen — Muslim 100%        
       
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.      

 

“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel”. — Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’        
       
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.       
       
Today’s 2 billion Muslims make up 28% of the world’s population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world’s population by the end of this century.        
       
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: 
“Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat”. 

 

Advertisements

THE DEMOCRATS SHOCKING RACIST HISTORY – A CHRONOLOGY

Posted in ONLINE DEBATE with tags , , , , , on July 29, 2015 by drjgelb

The United States History of Racism Against Blacks by the Democrats, who have ALWAYS been the Party of Slavery and Racism. 

The Republican Party was formed in 1854 specifically to oppose the Democrats and for more than 150 years, they have done everything they could to block the Democrat agenda. As you read the following Democratic atrocities that span three centuries, imagine if you will, what a far different nation the United States would be had not the Republicans been around to block the Democrats’ efforts. 

(ALL CREDIT TO: Chattering Class of 58)

March 20, 1854 Opponents of Democrats’ pro-slavery policies meet in Ripon, Wisconsin to establish the Republican Party. 

May 30, 1854 Democrat President Franklin Pierce signs Democrats’ Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery into U.S. territories; opponents unite to form the Republican Party. 

June 16, 1854 Newspaper editor Horace Greeley calls on opponents of slavery to unite in the Republican Party. 

July 6, 1854 First state Republican Party officially organized in Jackson, Michigan, to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies. 

February 11, 1856 Republican Montgomery Blair argues before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of his client, the slave Dred Scott; later served in President Lincoln’s Cabinet. 

February 22, 1856 First national meeting of the Republican Party, in Pittsburgh, to coordinate opposition to Democrats’ pro-slavery policies. 

March 27, 1856 First meeting of Republican National Committee in Washington, DC to oppose Democrats’ pro-slavery policies. 

May 22, 1856 For denouncing Democrats’ pro-slavery policy, Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) is beaten nearly to death on floor of Senate by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks (D-SC), takes three years to recover. 

March 6, 1857 Republican Supreme Court Justice John McLean issues strenuous dissent from decision by 7 Democrats in infamous Dred Scott case that African-Americans had no rights “which any white man was bound to respect”. 

June 26, 1857 Abraham Lincoln declares Republican position that slavery is “cruelly wrong,” while Democrats “cultivate and excite hatred” for blacks. 

October 13, 1858 During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee. 

October 25, 1858 U.S. Senator William Seward (R-NY) describes Democratic Party as “inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders”; as President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State, helped draft Emancipation Proclamation. 

June 4, 1860 Republican U.S. Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) delivers his classic address, The Barbarism of Slavery. 

April 7, 1862 President Lincoln concludes treaty with Britain for suppression of slave trade. 

April 16, 1862 President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no. 

July 2, 1862 U.S. Rep. Justin Morrill (R-VT) wins passage of Land Grant Act, establishing colleges open to African-Americans, including such students as George Washington Carver. 

July 17, 1862 Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”. 

August 19, 1862 Republican newspaper editor Horace Greeley writes Prayer of Twenty Millions, calling on President Lincoln to declare emancipation. 

August 25, 1862 President Abraham Lincoln authorizes enlistment of African-American soldiers in U.S. Army. 

September 22, 1862 Republican President Abraham Lincoln issues Emancipation Proclamation. 

January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, implementing the Republicans’ Confiscation Act of 1862, takes effect. 

February 9, 1864 Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton deliver over 100,000 signatures to U.S. Senate supporting Republicans’ plans for constitutional amendment to ban slavery. 

June 15, 1864 Republican Congress votes equal pay for African-American troops serving in U.S. Army during Civil War. 

June 28, 1864 Republican majority in Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Acts. 

October 29, 1864 African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth says of President Lincoln: “I never was treated by anyone with more kindness and cordiality than were shown to me by that great and good man”. 

January 31, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition. 

March 3, 1865 Republican Congress establishes Freedmen’s Bureau to provide health care, education, and technical assistance to emancipated slaves. 

April 8, 1865 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition. 

June 19, 1865 On “Juneteenth,” U.S. troops land in Galveston, TX to enforce ban on slavery that had been declared more than two years before by the Emancipation Proclamation. 

November 22, 1865 Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination. 

December 6, 1865 Republican Party’s 13th Amendment, banning slavery, is ratified. 

February 5, 1866 U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves. 

April 9, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law. 

April 19, 1866 Thousands assemble in Washington, DC to celebrate Republican Party’s abolition of slavery. 

May 10, 1866 U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no. 

June 8, 1866 U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no. 

July 16, 1866 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of Freedman’s Bureau Act, which protected former slaves from “black codes” denying their rights. 

July 28, 1866 Republican Congress authorizes formation of the Buffalo Soldiers, two regiments of African-American cavalrymen. 

July 30, 1866 Democrat-controlled City of New Orleans orders police to storm racially-integrated Republican meeting; raid kills 40 and wounds more than 150. 

January 8, 1867 Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C. 

July 19, 1867 Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans. 

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”. 

May 20, 1868 Republican National Convention marks debut of African-American politicians on national stage; two – Pinckney Pinchback and James Harris – attend as delegates, and several serve as presidential electors. 

September 3, 1868 25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress. 

September 12, 1868 Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress. 

September 28, 1868 Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana murder nearly 300 African-Americans who tried to prevent an assault against a Republican newspaper editor. 

October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”. 

October 22, 1868 While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan. 

November 3, 1868 Republican Ulysses Grant defeats Democrat Horatio Seymour in presidential election; Seymour had denounced Emancipation Proclamation. 

December 10, 1869 Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office. 

February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race. 

May 19, 1870 African-American John Langston, law professor and future Republican Congressman from Virginia, delivers influential speech supporting President Ulysses Grant’s civil rights policies. 

May 31, 1870 President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights. 

June 22, 1870 Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South. 

September 6, 1870 Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell. 

February 28, 1871 Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters. 

March 22, 1871 Spartansburg Republican newspaper denounces Ku Klux Klan campaign to eradicate the Republican Party in South Carolina. 

April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans. 

October 10, 1871 Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands. 

October 18, 1871 After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan. 

November 18, 1872 Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”. 

January 17, 1874 Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government. 

September 14, 1874 Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed. 

March 1, 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition. 

September 20, 1876 Former state Attorney General Robert Ingersoll (R-IL) tells veterans: “Every man that loved slavery better than liberty was a Democrat… I am a Republican because it is the only free party that ever existed”. 

January 10, 1878 U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. 

July 14, 1884 Republicans criticize Democratic Party’s nomination of racist U.S. Senator Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) for vice president; he had voted against the 13th Amendment banning slavery. 

August 30, 1890 Republican President Benjamin Harrison signs legislation by U.S. Senator Justin Morrill (R-VT) making African-Americans eligible for land-grant colleges in the South. 

June 7, 1892 In a FIRST for a major U.S. political party, two women – Theresa Jenkins and Cora Carleton – attend Republican National Convention in an official capacity, as alternate delegates. 

February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote. 

December 11, 1895 African-American Republican and former U.S. Rep. Thomas Miller (R-SC) denounces new state constitution written to disenfranchise African-Americans. 

May 18, 1896 Republican Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting from Supreme Court’s notorious Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision, declares: “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens”. 

December 31, 1898 Republican Theodore Roosevelt becomes Governor of New York; in 1900, he outlawed racial segregation in New York public schools. 

May 24, 1900 Republicans vote no in referendum for constitutional convention in Virginia, designed to create a new state constitution disenfranchising African-Americans. 

January 15, 1901 Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans. 

October 16, 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to dine at White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country. 

May 29, 1902 Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%. 

February 12, 1909 On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP. 

June 18, 1912 African-American Robert Church, founder of Lincoln Leagues to register black voters in Tennessee, attends 1912 Republican National Convention as delegate; eventually serves as delegate at 8 conventions. 

August 1, 1916 Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes, former New York Governor and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, endorses women’s suffrage constitutional amendment; he would become Secretary of State and Chief Justice. 

May 21, 1919 Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no. 

April 18, 1920 Minnesota’s FIRST-in-the-nation anti-lynching law, promoted by African-American Republican Nellie Francis, signed by Republican Gov. Jacob Preus. 

August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures. 

January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster. 

June 2, 1924 Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans. 

October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention. 

December 8, 1924 Democratic presidential candidate John W. Davis argues in favor of “separate but equal”. 

June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country. 

August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation. 

June 24, 1940 Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it. 

October 20, 1942 60 prominent African-Americans issue Durham Manifesto, calling on southern Democrats to abolish their all-white primaries. 

April 3, 1944 U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Texas Democratic Party’s “whites only” primary election system. 

August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “[t]he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.” 

February 18, 1946 Appointed by Republican President Calvin Coolidge, federal judge Paul McCormick ends segregation of Mexican-American children in California public schools. 

July 11, 1952 Republican Party platform condemns “duplicity and insincerity” of Democrats in racial matters. 

September 30, 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 

December 8, 1953 Eisenhower administration Asst. Attorney General Lee Rankin argues for plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education. 

May 17, 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren, three-term Republican Governor (CA) and Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948, wins unanimous support of Supreme Court for school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education. 

November 25, 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel. 

March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation. 

June 5, 1956 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law. 

October 19, 1956 On campaign trail, Vice President Richard Nixon vows: “American boys and girls shall sit, side by side, at any school – public or private – with no regard paid to the color of their skin. Segregation, discrimination, and prejudice have no place in America”. 

November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President. 

September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act. 

September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools. 

June 23, 1958 President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights. 

February 4, 1959 President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats. 

May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats. 

July 27, 1960 At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform. 

May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights. 

June 1, 1963 Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama. 

September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School. 

June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate. 

June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. 

June 20, 1964 The Chicago Defender, renowned African-American newspaper, praises Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for leading passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

March 7, 1965 Police under the command of Democrat Governor George Wallace attack African-Americans demonstrating for voting rights in Selma, AL. 

March 21, 1965 Republican federal judge Frank Johnson authorizes Martin Luther King’s protest march from Selma to Montgomery, overruling Democrat Governor George Wallace. 

August 4, 1965 Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. 

August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor. 

July 8, 1970 In special message to Congress, President Richard Nixon calls for reversal of policy of forced termination of Native American rights and benefits. 

September 17, 1971 Former Ku Klux Klan member and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D-AL) retires from U.S. Supreme Court; appointed by FDR in 1937, he had defended Klansmen for racial murders. 

February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII. 

September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs. 

June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

August 10, 1988 Republican President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR. 

November 21, 1991 Republican President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation. 

August 20, 1996 Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law. 

April 26, 1999 Legislation authored by U.S. Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) awarding Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks is transmitted to President. 

January 25, 2001 U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee declares school choice to be “Educational Emancipation”. 

March 19, 2003 Republican U.S. Representatives of Hispanic and Portuguese descent form Congressional Hispanic Conference. 

May 23, 2003 U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduces bill to establish National Museum of African American History and Culture. 

February 26, 2004 Hispanic Republican U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX) condemns racist comments by U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL); she had called Asst. Secretary of State Roger Noriega and several Hispanic Congressmen “a bunch of white men…you all look alike to me” 

I should also point out that The Klu Klux Klan was created by the democrats for the express reason of terrorizing blacks and republicans in the south to prevent them from voting, and that every known Klansman that were members of congress have been democrats.

“JIHADIS ARE JUST FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLE OF MUHAMMAD” – DANISH PROFESSOR

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 5, 2015 by drjgelb

Tina MagaardFor three years, a Danish linguist, Tina Magaard, analyzed the basic texts of ten religions. Her conclusion is that the texts of Islam stand out by encouraging terrorism and violence more than those of other religions.

Now Tina Magaard speaks out again. Translated by Nicolai Sennels, via 10News.dk:

Tina Magaard has great knowledge about Islam, both personally and academically. She believes that Danish experts in Islam fail to disclose what is in Islam’s holy scriptures, and the extent to which extremism draws its ammunition from these scriptures.…

She studied Arabic and read both the Qur’an and the hadiths. Here she recognized many of the repressive tendencies she had experienced [in her travels in Muslim countries].

“What is striking is not in itself that one can find murderous passages in the Islamic texts, as such passages can also be found in other religions. But it is striking how much space these passages take up in the Islamic texts, and how much they focus on an us-and-them logic in which infidels and apostates are characterized as dirty, rotten, criminal, hypocritical and dangerous. It it also striking how much these texts demand that the reader fight the infidels, both with words and with the sword. In many passages, Muhammad plays a central role as one who encourages the use of violence, whether it comes to stonings, beheadings, acts of war or execution of critics and poets.”

Tina Magaard finds it particularly objectionable that so many Islamic scholars in her opinion knowingly fail to disclose these facts, and use their positions of power to create specific standards for what you can say. Often, they also blame Danish racism rather than objectively stating that extremists actually find justifications for using violence and threats in Islam’s holy scriptures.…

Asked whether after Krudttønden (the terror attack in Copenhagen, February 2015) and the attack on Charlie Hebdo it is desirable for future harmony and coexistence to stop drawing Muhammad, Tina Magaards answers unequivocally:

“The only thing we get out of saying that we must not draw Muhammad is that there will be more religiously motivated restrictions on our freedoms. Rather, we must take the bull by the horns and question whether Muhammad did the right thing when he, for example, ordered his critics murdered. This is the discussion we need to have with European Muslims.”

The most thought-provoking thing, according to Tina Magaard, is that it is so difficult to find an imam who dares or wants to criticize the aspects of Islam which contradict liberal freedoms…

“Instead, you get a chitchat like: ‘It is not relevant to discuss this in Denmark now,’ or ‘this is a misunderstanding.’ But they refuse to criticise the concrete passages that terrorists use to justify their actions,” Magaard says.

DEBATE, DISCUSSION AND EVEN CRITICISM OF ISLAM IS NOT RACIST!!

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2014 by drjgelb

This post is in response to a comment posted on the Victorian Police Commissioner’s Blog in the last few days. The commenter addressed the person she was “speaking” to as “Darling”.

“Darling”, you are incorrect! Racism is the act of harbouring hatred towards others on the basis of ethnicity…ie. RACE. As Chrissy correctly states, Islam is a politico-religious institution whose members reside in nearly every country on earth and whose various ethnicities number in the dozens , if not more. Criticism of a religion does not equate with negative attitudes towards its followers, although some members may be criticised depending on individual behaviour. This fundamental logical error has given rise to the unfortunate outcome that “Islamophobia” has become a term constantly misused by Muslims who claim that it is racist to comment, analyse, debate and challenge the organised religion that they follow. No other religions refuse to discuss or even countenance healthy debate both amongst its members and those of other faiths or no faith at all. There are prominent Muslims across the world who have suggested reform and modernisation of Islam but strict adherents of Islam point out that Muhammad prohibited any substantive reform of Islam and even disallowed interpretation of Islam’s holy scriptures and his original regulations. The penalty for attempting the above, is death.

So, Commissioner Lay is sensible to demand civility towards Muslims and the use of the Law and the Police if Muslims appear to be breaking the Law or there is a likelihood that they will do so. He must not demand the muzzling of theological debate regarding Islam but should in fact, encourage Muslims to accept that discussion, debate, study and comparative research of Islam is NOT prohibited and can be very healthy. Muslims who protest violently against this normal aspect of Australian intellectual and social life, should have that fact made perfectly clear and must cease attempting to stifle all examination of a religious institution whose membership numbers 1.5Billion people worldwide and which has been wracked with bloody internal division and rivalry since Mohammad’s death. In the name of Islam, historians have calculated that approximately 275 Million people have lost their lives, the majority being rival Muslims. This figure is more than for all major world religions combined and has occurred in the relatively short period since Mohammad lived ( early to mid-7th Century).

I hope, Comm Lay acknowledges the potential harm in preventing normal freedom of speech and will ensure that the public, both Muslim & Non-Muslim alike, understand the important distinction that I have drawn.

LETTER TO MY MEMBER OF FEDERAL PARLIAMENT

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 16, 2014 by drjgelb

Dear Kelly,

I hope this email finds you well.

No doubt, you have been appalled at the swift and horrific rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

The article attached herein is truly a timely warning that Western governments would be very foolish to ignore. The author, whom I have personally met, is a thoughtful, highly intelligent and scholarly researcher of Islam and provides his readers with evidence based opinion that is independently verifiable.

I hope that you have recognised, as have I, that the preferred approach of the Obama administration to Islamic imperialist aspirations has been to deny their existence, to order all references to “Islamic Extremism” and “Jihad” removed from Federal publications and to label terrorist attacks such as the Fort Hood shootings with euphamisms such as “workplace incident”.

The result has been the total failure to accurately assess the consequences of American policy in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Gaza, Israel and Iran. Former U.S. Intelligence leaders are extremely worried about U.S. foreign policy settings and are incredulous of Obama’s choice of Muslim Brotherhood linked advisors.

The attached document, published today in the online Mid-East Forum by Mark Durie, provides a well researched explanation for the behaviour of the Islamic State and warns that adherents of Islam are mandated by Islamic scriptures to treat non-Muslims in exactly the manner we are seeing today.

Furthermore, widespread theological illiteracy in the government and public alike, renders our community extremely vulnerable to the dissimulation of Islam perpetrated by the increasing number of Saudi sponsored chairs of Islamic Studies being established across Australia. With professors in these institutions being constantly quoted as the sole experts in Islamic jurisprudence, both public and government are extraordinarily vulnerable to the deliberate untruths favoured by Islam as an instrument to protect Islam’s real intentions. This strategy, formally named “Taqqiya”, appears to be a concept unknown to journalists, who accept false statements without any apparent fact checking. The ABC is a serious offender in this regard.

Please read the attached article and could I please come and talk with you about my concerns and ideas in respect of the increasing threat posed by the tens of thousands of Islamic militants currently volunteering amongst the murderers of the Islamic State, who are certain to return to their parent nations (thousands expected to return to Indonesia) with committed Jihadist intentions.

Kind Regards,

Jerry GELB

    How Dissimulation about Islam is Fuelling Genocide in the Middle East
    Middle East Forum 16/08/2014 12:09 am

    Tens of thousands of Yazidis have been driven from their homes in northern Iraq.
    In northern Iraq religious genocide is reaching end-game stage. Islamic State (IS) soldiers, reinforced with military equipment originally supplied by the US, are driving  back Kurdish defenders who had been protecting Christians and other religious minorities. While hundreds of thousands of refugees have been fleeing into Kurdistan, around 40,000 Yazidis and some Christians are trapped on Mount Sinjar, surrounded by IS jihadis. (Yazidis are Kurdish people whose pre-Christian faith derives from ancient Iranian religious traditions, with overlays and influences from other religions.)

    The Assyrian Aid Society of Iraq has reported that children and the elderly are dying of thirst on Sinjar. Parents are throwing their children to their deaths off the mountain rather than see them die of thirst or be taken into slavery  by IS. The IS jihadis are killing the men they capture. In one recent incident 1500 men were executed in front of their wives and families. In another incident 13 Yazidi men who refused to convert to Islam had their eyes plucked out, were doused with gasoline and burned alive. When the men are killed, captured women and children are enslaved to be used for sex, deployed as human shields in battle zones, or sold to be used and abused as their new owners see fit.

    The United States has ironically called for greater cooperation. UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, urged ‘all parties to the conflict’ to allow access to UN relief agencies. She called on Iraqis to ‘come together’ so that Iraq will ‘get back on the path to a peaceful future’ and ‘prevent ISIL from obliterating Iraq’s vibrant diversity’.

    Of course  it is not ‘vibrant diversity’ which is being wiped out in Iraq, but men, women and children by their tens of thousands. This is not about the failure of coexistence, and the problem is not ‘conflict’. This is not about people who have trouble getting on and who need to somehow make up and ‘come together’. It is about a well-articulated and well-documented theological worldview hell-bent on dominating ‘infidels’, if necessary wiping them off the face of the earth, in order to establish the power and grandeur of a radical vision of Islam.

    The American administration, according to Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute, ‘withholds arms from the Kurds while awaiting a new, unified Iraqi government with a new prime minister. Meanwhile … no Iraqi troops are in Nineveh province. Only at a few minutes to midnight on the genocide clock has the US begun to launch military strikes against IS forces.

    These events ought to be sobering to the West, not least because thousands of the IS jihadis were raised and bred in the mosques of Europe, North America and Australia, not to mention the madrassas of nations such as Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesia. Having been formed by the theology of radical Islam in their home societies, would-be jihadis are flocking to Syria and Iraq where they seek victory or martyrdom, killing and raping as they go.

    Why is this so? How did the Arab Spring, hailed by so many armchair western commentators as the next best thing for the Middle East, blossom bright red into a torrent of blood?

      Theological illiteracy

    Part of the answer is that the West is in the grip of theological illiteracy. It has stubbornly refused to grasp the implications of a global Islamic revival which has been gaining steam for the best part of a century. The Islamic Movement looks back to the glory days of conquest as Islam’s finest hour, and seeks to revive Islamic supremacy through jihad and sacrifice. It longs for a truly Islamic state – the caliphate reborn – and considers jihad to be the God- given means to usher it in.
    This worldview was promoted in compelling, visionary terms by Indian scholar  Abul A’la Maududi, whose writings continue to be widely disseminated by Islamic bookshops and mosques across the West.

    Maududi argued in his radicalisation primer, “Let us be Muslims” that the only valid form of government is Islamic theocracy – i.e. sharia rule – and Muslims are duty-bound to use whatever power they can muster to impose this goal on the world:

    “whoever you are, in whichever country you live, you must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God.” … The name of this striving is jihad. And “If you believe Islam to be true, you have no alternative but to exert your utmost strength to make it prevail on earth: you either establish it or give your lives in this struggle.”

    My own copy of Let us Be Muslims, which lies open before me as I write, was bought from a well-respected mainstream Islamic centre here in Melbourne, Australia.

      Violent protests

    When Pope Benedict gave a lecture in Regensburg in 2006, in which he suggested that Islam had been spread by force, the Muslim world erupted in violent protests.
    Sheikh ‘Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, responded with a revealing defence of Islam’s record. Without a glimmer of irony, he argued that the Pope was wrong to say Islam had been spread by force, because the infidels had a third choice, apart from death or conversion, namely to “surrender and pay tax, and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims.” He claimed that those who read the Qur’an and the Sunna (the example and teaching of Muhammad) will understand the facts.

    The reality unfolding in north Iraq today reveals to the cold light of day exactly what the doctrine of the three choices means for conquered non-Muslims populations, and why the dogma of the ‘three choices’ is no defence against the assertion that Islam was spread by the sword.

      Jizya

    It is crystal clear that IS is not playing by the world’s rules. It has nothing but contempt for the Geneva Convention. Its battle tactics are regulated by sheikhs who implement the sharia’s rules of war. Many of the abuses committed by IS being reported by the international media are taken straight from the pages of Islamic legal textbooks.

    Consider IS’s announcement to Christians in northern Iraq: “We offer them three choices: Islam, the dhimma contract – involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this, they will have nothing but the sword.”

    These words are cobbled together from the pages of Islamic sacred texts. It was Sa’d b. Mu’adh, a companion of Muhammad, who said of the pagan Meccans “We will give them nothing but the sword” ( A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, OUP 1955 p. 454). Muhammad himself was reported to have said “When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [i.e. they are not Muslims] invite them to three courses of action. … Invite them to Islam… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. … If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (Sahih Muslim. The Book of Jihad and Expedition [Kitab al-Jihad wa’l- Siyar] 3:27:4294). When the Caliph Umar attacked Persia, he announced to them “Our Prophet [Muhammad] … has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or pay jizya” (Sahih al- Bukhari, The Book of al-Jizya and the Stoppage of War 4:58:3159).

      Prophesy

    I have analysed the doctrine of the three choices in my book The Third Choice: Islam, dhimmitude and freedom, drawing extensively on Islamic sources to explain the worldview of jihad and the dhimma. That book now reads as a grim prophecy of the tragedy unfolding in Syria and Iraq. The Arabic word jizya is derived from a root j-z-y which refers to something given as compensation, in substitution for something else. According to Arab lexicographers, jizya is tribute taken from non-Muslims living under Islamic rule “as though it were a compensation for their not being slain.” It is paid by defeated communities to compensate or reward their attackers for forgoing the right to kill, enslave or loot them.

    The nineteenth-century Algerian Qur’anic commentator Muhammad ibn Yusuf at-Fayyish explained that jizya is “a satisfaction for their blood. It is … to compensate for their not being slain. Its purpose is to substitute for the duties of killing and slavery … It is for the benefit of Muslims.” Over a thousand years earlier, Abu Yusuf Ya’qub, a Hanafi jurist wrote “their lives and possessions are spared only on account of the payment of the jizya.”

      Compensation

    In 1799 William Eton, in a survey of the Ottoman empire, reported that Christians under Ottoman rule, on paying the jizya, were addressed with a standard form of words to the effect that “the sum of money received is taken as compensation for being permitted to wear their heads that year”.

    To be sure, there are other ways to interpret the Qur’an, but the point is that this understanding of jizya has become the operative one in Northern Iraq and Syria. It also has the backing of centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and practice. It was with this understanding of Islam that the Middle East, South Asia and large parts of Eastern Europe were conquered and occupied under Muslim rule until modern times.
    This grim fact – that the IS jihadis can ably defend their theology on the basis of Islam’s history and religious traditions – means that it will be no easy task to persuade Muslim clerics and intellectuals to ‘debunk’ them. Such a strategy, which has been proposed by Peter Leahy, former head of the Australian Army, will be fraught with difficulties. Debunking would be a whole lot easier if radical ideologies were in fact bunkum. The problem is, the jihadis hold far too many theological trump cards from the Qur’an and the precedent of Muhammad’s example to be so easily routed on the field of ideas. Indeed it is the radicals who have become expert at debunking, as their successful global recruiting drive shows.

    Let us consider some of the weight behind the radicals’ theology.

      Surrender

    According to Islamic law, Christians and other non-Muslims who agree to keep their religion and their lives by paying jizya are subject to a dhimma treaty of surrender.
    The word dhimma is derived from an Arabic word meaning ‘to blame’. It implies a liability or debt arising from fault or blame. The idea is that the non-Muslims, known as dhimmis, owe a debt to their conquerors for their lives, and non-observance of the treaty of surrender would attract blame and thus incur punishment. The dhimma conditions include payment of jizya by adult men, but also many demeaning legal disabilities which are enforced upon non- Muslims and apply in one form or another across most of the Muslim world right up to the present day: one example is widespread restrictions on building new churches in areas formerly conquered by Islam; another is restrictions on freedom of religious expression.The imposition of these disabilities upon non-Muslims is in accordance with a command of Muhammad

    “I have been sent with a sword in my hand to command people to worship Allah and associate no partners with him. I command you to belittle and subjugate those who disobey me, for whoever imitates a people is one of them” (cited from Musnad (chain of) Ahmad Ibn Hanbali, founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence).

      Belittling

    One of the means of belittling non-Muslims has been to ensure that they would not “look alike”, by requiring that they wear discriminatory clothing, patches or even, in ancient times, seals around their necks. A modern-day manifestation of the principle of not ‘looking alike’ is the application of the Arabic letter nun (for Nazrani, the Arabic word for Christians) to the exterior of Christian homes in Mosul. Using similar reasoning, the Taliban required that Afghan Hindus should wear discriminatory patches on their clothing, so their non- Muslim status could be instantly recognisable.

    IS is even looking to the model of first century Islam to set the level of the jizya tax. Early Islamic sources state that the jizya was a minimum of one gold dinar, and up to four dinars, depending upon the wealth of the individual dhimmi. Following these provisions to the letter, IS has made the following declaration:

    “Christians are obligated to pay Jizya tax on every adult male to the value of four golden dinars for the wealthy, half of that for middle-income citizens and half of that for the poor . . . they must not hide their status, and can pay in two installments per year.”

    A gold dinar weighs about 4.5 grams, which at $45 a gram means that a tax regime of one to four dinars equates to $200 to $800 US dollars per non-Muslim adult male. This is a heavy burden for a conquered people in a war zone, and the reality on the ground in both Syria and Iraq has been that the jihadis demand much more, and not once a year as its textbooks state, but again and again.

      Convert or die

    Reports show that IS has been setting jizya so high in both Syria and northern Iraq, and levying it so often, that it cannot be paid. This gives Christians who wish to stay in their homes but two choices: convert or die. Most have fled, but some, including those who are too frail or disabled to flee, have had to convert to save themselves. The fleeing refugees are in a particularly desperate situation, because they are progressively stripped of their belongings by IS checkpoints as they escape.
    There is nothing new here. Throughout history the jizya has been a heavy imposition for non-Muslims. Large numbers of Christians converted to Islam in the early centuries of Islamic rule in order to avoid this tax. Dionysius, a Syrian patriarch writing in the eighth century, reported that the jizya often had to be extracted from Christians by beatings, extortion, torture, rape and killings. Many fled destitute from town to town after they had sold everything they owned to pay the tax.

    Arthur Tritton reported in “The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects” about eighth-century Egypt that for ordinary day labourers the jizya tax was around a quarter of annual earnings, or ten times the zakat tax paid by Muslims. Shlomo Dov Goitein, writing on the situation of Jews in medieval Egypt, reported that men would enslave themselves or their family to pay the tax. Centuries after Dionysius of Antioch, he also reported that many, having sold all they had to pay it, took to wandering homeless as beggars.

      Rules of war

    The treatment of captives by IS is also in accordance with orthodox rules of war in Islam, which permit men to be killed, while women and children are enslaved. Sex slavery – concubinage – is permitted by the sharia principles which guide IS. The Reliance of the Traveller – a respected Sunni manual of sharia law – states: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled” (chapter o9.13). The option of converting to Islam to avoid death or capture – which is being urged upon non- Muslims by IS – is also clearly supported: “Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive” (chapter o9.12).

    The widespread looting of property is also validated by Islam’s rules of war: “A free male Muslim who has reached puberty and is sane is entitled to the spoils of battle when he has participated in a battle to the end of it” (chapter o10.1). And “Anyone who … kills one of the enemy or effectively incapacitates him, risking his own life thereby, is entitled to whatever he can take from the enemy, meaning as much as he can take away with him in the battle, such as a mount, clothes, weaponry, money or other” (chapter o10.2).

    The grim reality is that the fate of Christians and Yazidis in northern Iraq today all too often matches the stipulations of Islamic textbooks: non-Muslim men are killed, their women and children enslaved, and their property and possessions looted.
    It is regrettable that the hard cold reality of Islamic imperialism and the dhimma system have been denied and obscured by scholars. For example Bernard Lewis claimed that “The dhimma on the whole worked quite well.”

    As part of this obscurantist veil, the true meaning of the words jizya and dhimma have been hidden by scholars. Anglican priest Colin Chapman, who was the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s envoy to Al-Azhar University in Cairo, claimed in his widely-ready book, “Cross and Crescent” that Jews and Christians were ‘protected’ and implied that the jizya was paid in compensation for them not doing military service or paying the Muslims’ alms tax (zakat). In reality the main protection afforded to dhimmis is that they can keep their heads away from the sword of jihad, and it was in return for this privilege that the jizya is exacted. John Esposito similarly claimed that jizya is an “exchange” in return for keeping one’s religion, protection from ‘outside aggression’, and exemption from military service.

      Islamic rule

    Such dissimulations, also advanced by Muslim apologists, have served to prop up the myth of convivencia and a golden age in which Christians and Muslims lived contentedly side-by-side under Islamic rule. Architects of multiculturalism and advocates of interfaith dialogue have repeatedly promoted this mythical Islamic construct as a model for different religions to flourish side by side in Europe today. This has gone hand in hand with the claims that European culture owes an unacknowledged debt to Islam, and Islam’s historical record has been misrepresented by hateful, bigoted people. In reality Islamic coexistence with conquered Christian populations was always regulated by the conditions of the dhimma, as defined above, under which non-Muslims have no inherent right to life, but had to purchase this right year after year.

      Bigotry

    Willful historical ignorance has been deeply debilitating for the intellectual elites of the West, who feel righteous in dismissing evidence that contradicts their corrupted worldview, on the grounds that they are taking a stand against the bigotry of Islamophobia. They have been schooled in this self-hatred by their Muslim dialogue partners. Also debilitating has been the trend among scholars to deny or downplay the military meaning of jihad. An extreme example is Yale theologian Miroslav Volf’s preposterous claim that the use of military force to expand Islam is “rejected by all leading Muslim scholars today.”

    The promotion of the idea of the ‘greater jihad’ as a personal spiritual struggle has also served to distract western leaders, such as CIA director John Brennan, who stated that “jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community”

      True meaning

    In reality the meaning of jihad in all sharia textbooks is warfare against unbelievers. If the true meaning of jihad was a spiritual struggle with the self, IS would not be attracting so many willing volunteers from around the globe to the killing fields of Syria and Iraq. There is a chronic and urgent need for a dialogue of civilizations between Islam and the post-Christian West. However this dialogue cannot be based upon myths. At the top of the agenda must be the twin institutions of jihad and the dhimma. It is essential for Western people to emphatically reject and stigmatize these two pillars of Islamic law, and to deplore to Muslims their application both throughout history and in the contemporary world.

      Cultural blindness

    One of the effects of enforced cultural blindness and intellectual amnesia is rampant theological illiteracy among Western policy makers. This is now having the direst of consequences for Christians and others in the Middle East. Those who managed the Western occupation of Iraq were deeply ignorant of the dangers to non-Muslim minorities posed by the Islamic revivalism combined with Western inference, and in particular by the re-establishment of the jihad-dhimma system. They overlooked the fact that re- establishing the dhimma has always been part of the agenda of Islamic revivalist movements. They did not grasp that jihad war zones always prove especially deadly to non-Muslims, even when the main conflict is between Muslims.

    It had also been forgotten that advances in the rights of non- Muslim populations across the Middle East – such as the official dismantling of dhimma laws by the Ottomans in the mid- nineteenth century – were only achieved due to sustained political and military pressure from the Great Powers, and at the cost of suppressing mainstream Islamic dogmas. Indeed this ‘humiliation’ of Islam is one of the very things the global Islamic revival is supposed to be winding back: this is why the deterioration of the human rights of non-Muslim minorities – from Malaysia to Egypt – has been so marked in recent decades.

    Today Islamic revivalist dogmas, which have become deeply entrenched in Muslim communities both throughout the West and in Muslim majority states, eulogize Islam’s glory days, when Christians and other non-Muslims paid jizya to keep their heads. Revivalists look forward to a time when sharia principles, implemented through unfettered jihad, will enforce the view that non-Muslims do not have an inherent right to life, but only a conceded right for which they must compensate Muslims in gold. We need not be surprised or shocked when young men from around the globe, reared on this poisonous theological cocktail, volunteer for jihad in Syria and Iraq to usher in a longed-for Islamic utopia. It should not shock us that they have no qualms about shedding non-Muslim blood.

    The effect of the cultural jihad, waged not only by Muslim apologists, but also by Western elites, is that Western policy makers have become blind to the enormity of present-day non- Muslim suffering under the yoke of Islam, for they have no reference points to comprehend it. To engage with this suffering and develop policies to counter it would require acknowledgement of its root causes, namely the theological framework of jihad and the dhimma, but that is simply too frightening for societies who have multicultural dogmas rusted onto their psyches, having embraced a false view of history and stubbornly obscurantist views about theology.

    As long as policy makers continue to seek intellectual solace in calls for ‘conflict resolution’ and ‘reconciliation’, the vulnerable will continue to be killed, raped and looted in the name of Islamic revivalism. The lives of tens of thousands of vulnerable and peaceful Christians, Yazidis and others, whose crime is that their religion is unacceptable, now hang in the balance in northern Iraq, while the West sits paralyzed on the side lines, stunned and stupefied by the lies it has told itself for so many years.

      Infidel West

    This is not to say that reconciliation is unnecessary. Usama Bin Ladin got it right when he asserted that the doctrine of the three choices is the crux of the West’s problem with Islam: “The West avenges itself against Islam for giving infidels but three options”:

    “Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue – one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice – and it is: “Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?” [The answer is:] Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword – for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”

    Bin Ladin was right about this, that Islam’s doctrine of three choices, encompassing the theological institutions of jihad and the dhimma, is and must be the central issue for the West in its dialogue with the Islamic world. An understanding of this doctrine and its implications for the human rights of non-Muslims should be a cornerstone of public policy in relation to Islam, both now and in the foreseeable future.

    This will not be an easy or comfortable dialogue, judging from the howls of protest that greeted Pope Benedict’s comparatively mild Regensburg lecture in 2006. Yet appeasement of howling objectors through conflict-avoidance manoeuvers will bring nothing but grief, as we are seeing in northern Iraq.

    According to the “Vicar of Bagdad”, Canon Andrew White, what is needed right now to help non-Muslim victims of Islamic jihadism is three things: Protection, Provision and Perseverance. The lie foisted upon the world was that there was nothing non-Muslims needed to be protected from. Right now IS’s victims deserve military intervention, food, water and medical supplies. Many will need permanent sanctuary outside of their homelands. Longer term, much more is needed. Certainly the will to persevere, because the world is in but the early stages of a (now resumed) centuries-long war with militant Islam, but above all, in order to make sustained progress in the long struggle ahead, we will require a greater appetite for the truth.

    Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

DEBATE NOT HATE!!

Posted in MIDDLE-EAST POLITICS with tags , , , , , , on August 15, 2014 by drjgelb

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10152414619639132&substory_index=0&id=609909131

DEBATE NOT HATE!!!!

It’s happening, again. The flames of hatred are rising in Europe.

In the last month:

Synagogues in Europe have been firebombed.
Hate-mobs chant “Death to the Jews”.
Swastikas and vandalism hit synagogues all over the world.

Anti-Israel hate has been unmasked as a threat to Jewish communities everywhere.

We are battling every day on the media front lines — in newspapers, television, on Facebook and Twitter. We’re fighting against the flood of anti-Israel bias and outright hate that is driving these violent demonstrations.

Jewish community organisations are working to create a community that:

Exposes the most dangerous anti-Israel voices.
Joins together to call attention to the wave of hate.
Debunks sinister anti-Israel conspiracy theories.

DON’T LET HATE WIN!!

DISAGREEMENT WITH A GOVERNMENT’s POLICIES DOES NOT ALLOW RACIAL HATRED & VIOLENCE TOWARDS AN ENTIRE RELIGION THAT CONTAINS INDIVIDUALS WITH A WIDE DIVERSITY OF POLITICAL VIEWS.

DEBATE NOT HATE!!!

THE NEW JIM CROW

Posted in WAR ON DRUGS with tags , , , , on August 2, 2013 by drjgelb

I’ve republished this article from Wikipedia because a functional genocide by stealth has been occurring in the U.S. and has been justified by successive administrations as just part of the “War on Drugs” As you will read below, nothing could be further from the truth and the facts are so alarming that any defender of equality should be so outraged as to be propelled into action.

The New Jim Crow is a name given to a category of race-related social, political, and legal phenomena in the United States; the name derives from the original Jim Crow laws that prevailed in the US through the 1960s. Michelle Alexander, a civil rights litigator and legal scholar, borrowed the name for her book, The New Jim Crow, published in 2010 by The New Press.

According to the author, what has been altered since the collapse of Jim Crow is not so much the basic structure of US society, as the language used to justify its affairs. She argues that when people of color are disproportionately labeled as “criminals,” this allows the unleashing of a whole range of legal discrimination measures in employment, housing, education, public benefits, voting rights, jury duty, and so on.[11]

Alexander explains that it took her years to become fully aware and convinced of the phenomena she describes, despite her professional civil rights background; she expects similar reluctance and disbelief on the part of many of her readers. She believes that the problems besetting African American communities are not merely a passive, collateral side effect of poverty, limited educational opportunity or other factors, but a consequence of purposeful government policies. Alexander has concluded that mass incarceration policies, which were swiftly developed and implemented, are a “comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized control that functions in a manner strikingly similar to Jim Crow.”[12]

Alexander contends that in 1982 the Reagan administration began an escalation of the “War on Drugs,” purportedly as a response to a crack cocaine crisis in black ghettos. However this escalation was announced well before crack cocaine arrived in most inner city neighborhoods. During the mid-1980s, as the use of crack cocaine increased to epidemic levels in these neighborhoods, federal drug authorities publicized the problem, using scare tactics to generate support for their already-declared escalation.[13] The government’s successful media campaign made possible an unprecedented expansion of law enforcement activities in America’s inner city neighborhoods, and this aggressive approach fueled widespread belief in conspiracy theories that posited government plans to destroy the black population.

In fact, in 1998 the CIA acknowledged that during the 1980s the Contra faction covertly supported by the US in Nicaragua had been involved in smuggling cocaine into the US and distributing it in US cities. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) efforts to expose these illegal activities were blocked by Reagan officials, which contributed to an explosion of crack cocaine consumption in US inner city neighborhoods. More aggressive enforcement of federal drug laws resulted in a dramatic increase in street level arrests for possession. Disparate sentencing policies (the crack cocaine v. powdered cocaine penalty disparity was 100-1 by weight and remains 18-1 even after recent reform efforts) meant that a disproportionate number of inner city residents were charged with felonies and sentenced to long prison terms, because they tended to purchase the more affordable crack version of cocaine, rather than the powdered version commonly consumed in the suburbs.[14][15]

Alexander argues that the “War on Drugs” has had a devastating impact on inner city African American communities, on a scale entirely out of proportion to the actual dimensions of criminal activity taking place within these communities. During the past three decades, the US prison population has exploded from 300,000 to more than two million, with the majority of the increase due to drug convictions.[16] This has led to the US having the world’s highest incarceration rate, exceeding the rates of a number of regimes strongly criticized by the US government as highly repressive. The US incarceration rate is eight times that of Germany, a comparatively developed large democracy.[17] Alexander claims that the US is unparalleled in the world in focusing enforcement of federal drug laws on racial and ethnic minorities. In the capital city of Washington, D.C. three out of four young African American males are expected to serve time in prison.[18] While studies show that quantitatively Americans of different races consume illegal drugs at similar rates,[19] in some states black men have been sent to prison on drug charges at rates twenty to fifty times those of white men.[20] The proportion of African American men with some sort of criminal record approaches 80% in some major US cities, and they become marginalized, part of what Alexander calls “a growing and permanent undercaste.”[21][22]

Alexander maintains that this undercaste is hidden from view, invisible within a maze of rationalizations, with mass incarceration its most serious manifestation. Alexander borrows from the term “racial caste,” as it is commonly used in scientific literature, to create “undercast,” denoting a “stigmatized racial group locked into inferior position by law and custom.” By mass incarceration she refers to the entire web of laws, rules, policies and customs that make up the criminal justice system and which serve as a gateway to permanent marginalization in the undercast. Once released from prison, new members of this undercast face a “hidden underworld of legalized discrimination and permanent social exclusion.”

According to Alexander, crime and punishment are poorly correlated, and the present US criminal justice system has effectively become a system of social control unparalleled in world history, with its targets largely defined by race. The rate of incarceration in the US has soared, while its crime rates have generally remained similar to those of other Western countries, where incarceration rates have remained stable. The current rate of incarceration in the US is six to ten times greater than in other industrialized nations, and Alexander maintains that this disparity is not related to the actual rates of crime or their increase, but can be traced mostly to the artificially invoked “War on Drugs” and its associated discriminatory policies.[23] In 1973 the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals of the Justice Department found overwhelming evidence that juvenile detention centers, jails and prisons increase crime rather than reduce it; they recommended the elimination of existing juvenile detention centers and no further construction of adult facilities.[24] During the next few decades, actual developments went in the opposite direction; the US embarked on an unprecedented expansion of its juvenile detention and prison systems.[25][26]

Alexander notes that the civil rights community has been reluctant to get involved in this issue, concentrating primarily on protecting affirmative action gains, which mainly benefit an elite group of high-achieving African Americans. At the other end of the social spectrum are the young black men who are under active control of the criminal justice system (currently in prison, or on parole or probation) – approximately one-third of the young black men in the US. Criminal justice was not listed as a top priority of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in 2007 and 2008, or of the Congressional Black Caucus in 2009. The NAACP and the ACLU have been involved in legal action, and grassroots campaigns have been organized, however Alexander feels that generally there is a lack of appreciation of the enormity of the crisis. According to her, mass incarceration is “the most damaging manifestation of the backlash against the Civil Rights Movement,” and those who feel that the election of Barack Obama represents the ultimate “triumph over race,” and that race no longer matters, are dangerously misguided.[27]

Alexander writes that Americans are ashamed of their racial history, and therefore avoid talking about race, or even class, so the terms used in her book will seem strangely unfamiliar to many. Americans want to believe that everybody is capable of upward mobility, given enough effort on his or her part; this assumption forms a part of the national collective self-image. Alexander points out that a large percentage of African Americans are blocked by the discriminatory practices of an ostensibly colorblind criminal justice system, which end up creating an undercaste where upward mobility is severely constrained.

Alexander believes that the existence of the New Jim Crow system is not disproved by the election of Barack Obama and other examples of exceptional achievement among African Americans, but on the contrary the New Jim Crow system depends on such exceptionalism. She contends that the system does not require overt racial hostility or bigotry on the part of other racial groups; indifference serves its purpose.

Alexander argues that the system reflects an underlying racial ideology and will not be significantly disturbed by half-measures such as laws mandating shorter sentences; like its predecessors the new system of racial control has been largely immunized from legal challenge. She writes that a human tragedy is unfolding under our watch, and The New Jim Crow is intended to stimulate a much-needed national discussion “about the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating racial hierarchy in the United States.” [28]

%d bloggers like this: