headerphoto


Interview with Matthew Stiddon

A very good interview with Matthew Stiddon from the EDL.THE UAF are the ones who accuse the EDL of violence and look who's rig got torched?

"Matthew Stiddon is a member of the English Defence League who ran afoul of members of Unite Against Fascism. The UAF people disagreed with his opinions, so they threatened him with violence, and then torched his Land Rover where it was parked in front of his home.


Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for conducting this interview and uploading the video:



Double thanks to Gates of Vienna and Vlad Tepes.

September 11, 2001 remembrance guidleines: Do not mention radical islam or even islam

I am posting this right from Foreign Confidential(formerly China Confidential). Below Confidential Reporter's comments and then a response from another blogger CALIFORNIA YANKEE, that is quite good.

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

First from Foreign Confidential:

A Postmodern Observance?

Ahead of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the White House has issued two rather peculiar and seemingly politicized sets of guidelines to government agencies--for domestic and overseas use--on how to commemorate and talk about the worst-ever attacks on the United States on U.S. soil. Click here and here for the story and here for one blogger's critical response.

The guidelines advise officials to minimize the role of the organization that attacked the U.S.--Al Qaeda--and to make every effort possible to universalize the event.

Readers can decide for themselves if the guidelines are in line with the Obama administration's pronounced tendency to avoid singling out radical Islam--i.e. rightwing political Islam, or Islamism--as an enemy, taking the Bush administration's War on Terror label to a new level of obfuscation, and to downplay and discourage any suggestion or hint or notion of American exceptionalism, even with regard to unique historic events.

Regarding universalizing the attacks, the advice reminds this reporter of the Communist conspiracy to steal the legacy of Anne Frank.

Original post is here from Foreign Confidential

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

Here is what California Yankee has to say about these 'guidelines':

Obama even regulates how to commemorate the 9/11 terror attacks

The Obama regime shamelessly issued two sets of documents regulating how to commemorate the 9/11 terrorist attacks against United States.

One set of the 9/11 commemoration regulations, entitled “9/11 Anniversary Planning,” is for domestic audiences and highlights Obama's continuing attempts to politicize the 9/11 anniversary as a campaign propaganda tool. The second set of 9/11 commemoration regulations is for foreign audiences.

The commemoration regulations, the New York Times and the Obama regime prefer to call them guidelines, list what themes to underscore -- and the tone to set:

Officials are instructed to memorialize those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and thank those in the military, law enforcement, intelligence or homeland security for their contributions since.

Officials are to warn that Americans must be prepared for another attack -- and must be resilient in recovering from the loss.

Officials are cautioned that commemorations should not cast the United States as the sole victim of terrorism.

The tone should be shaped by a recognition that the outpouring of worldwide support for the United States in the weeks after the attacks turned to anger at some American policies adopted in the name of fighting terror -- on detention, on interrogation, and the decision to invade Iraq.

The regulations also seek to remind everyone that Osama bin Laden was killed and cite his death as a reason for officials to “minimize references to Al Qaeda”:

The guidelines say officials are to make the point that “Al Qaeda and its adherents have become increasingly irrelevant.”

The guidelines say the absence of Al Qaeda playing any significant role in the “Arab Spring” uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa should be cited as evidence that bin Laden’s organization “represents the past,” while peaceful street protesters in Egypt and Tunisia “represent the future.”

The 9/11 commemoration regulations aimed at foreign audiences call on American officials to praise overseas partners, who have joined the worldwide effort to combat violent extremism, formerly known as the Global War On Terror:

We honor and celebrate the resilience of individuals, families, and communities on every continent, whether in New York or Nairobi, Bali or Belfast, Mumbai or Manila, or Lahore or London.

Obama should leave his political propaganda and messaging for another day and instead simply join, or actually lead, Americans in a national day of remembrance.

Original article is here from California Yankee.

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

Here is what I think about these guidelines:

These are nothing but a maneuver by obama to make 9/11 a less than 100% American moment, and this is what obama does and has done ever since he took office. How many times have we listened or watched obama, the first muslim potus bow before a king like the pig king of saudi arabia, or some other foreign power? How many times has obama tried to apologize for and minimize AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM on the global stage in the presence of our adversaries and enemies? How many times has obama used errors that the United States has made to further embarrass and lower this country in the eyes of the world, especially the muslim world?

Tell me and others reading here WHAT and WHICH country is perfect and has done more than the United States in the last two hundred plus years to keep world peace, and bring stability and prosperity to almost every corner of the world? Do you hear the same crickets chirping as I do? No country is perfect but Americans still are exceptional, even with a loser like obama as potus.

This is an attempt to whitewash United States history and make America just like the rest of the world, no better but in obama's world, America is one of the worst countries in the world.

The guidelines are a cheap shot to tarnish those who died on Flight 93, at the Pentagon, when the planes struck the twin towers and later collapsed, a cheap shot to those who numbered almost 3,0000 that died when all they did was report to work, a slap in the face to all those who responded to the emergency calls and who died trying to rescue those who were trapped and dying in the towers, a cold hard snub to all those who lost loved ones and have had to move on with their shattered lives after 9/11/2001. Who is he to cheapen and lower 9/11 into an international or global day of mourning?

One thing obama is for sure; he IS NOT my president nor will he EVER BE my president of the United States Of America. The best thing he could do would be to stay away from any and all events connected to 9/11. He is a stain and an embarrassment to those who died on 9/11 and to those who lost a loved one for the rest of their lives on 9/11. Stay away mr. president, please just stay away.

Big hat tip to Foreign Confidential

muslim jihadist rejects democracy and threatens to kill all Christians

No one should be surprised by this senior official of the egyptian islamic jihad, .sheikh 'adel shehato was released from prison after the 'arab spring' revolution that the first illegal alien muslim potus obama, helped facilitate.

Now the West will reap what they have sown since the mullah obamaham has bowed, groveled and kissed mussie butts since he was ignorantly elected by the American people who foolishly bought into obama's lies of hope and change.

islam has butchered and murdered millions of people of the book, Christians and Jews since mohammad arrived on the scene. The persecution of Christians has rapidly accelerated since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and the muslim brotherhood has consolidated power. This will be the same pattern that will repeat itself in Libya and other muslim countries that have revolted.

How much more evidence and how many more millions of dead innocents do we need to see before those who do not believe that islam is a very real threat, will have their eyes, minds and ears opened wide?


***********************************************************************************************************************

If the Christians Make Problems for the Muslims, I Will Exterminate Them'

Sheikh 'Adel Shehato

Senior Official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad: If We Come to Power, We will Launch a Campaign of Islamic Conquests to Instate Shari'a Worldwide: 'The Christian is Free to Worship His God in His Church, but if the Christians Make Problems for the Muslims, I Will Exterminate Them'

On August 13, 2011, the Egyptian daily Roz Al-Yousef published an interview[1] with Sheikh 'Adel Shehato, a senior official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), who, on March 23, 2011, was freed from prison in the wake of the Egyptian revolution. He was imprisoned in 1991 upon returning from a three-year sojourn in Afghanistan.

In the interview, Shehato expressed complete opposition to democracy "because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians." He said that although the youth of the Arab revolutions have not declared the implementation of shari'a as one of their goals, the mujahideen nonetheless identify with their aspiration to overthrow the Arab rulers, whom they had always considered "infidels who must be killed because they do not rule according to the shari'a." He added, however, that "once Allah's law is applied, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme." He went on to say that although he supports Al-Qaeda's ideology, shari'a law would not be enforced by violence but by da'wa (preaching), whereas violence would be used only against the infidel Arab rulers.

Shehato said that if the mujahideen came to power in Egypt, they would launch a campaign of Islamic conquests aimed at subjecting the entire world to Islamic rule. Muslim ambassadors would be appointed to each country, charged with calling upon them to join Islam willingly, but if the countries refused, war would be waged against them. He also described the nature of the Islamic state to be established in Egypt: there would be no trade or cultural ties with non-Muslims; tourist sites at the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh would be shut down "because the tourists come [there] to drink alcohol and fornicate," and all tourists wishing to visit Egypt would be required to comply with the conditions and laws of Islam; all art, painting, singing, dancing, and sculpture would be forbidden, and all culture would be purely Islamic.

Following are excerpts of the interview:

The Term "Democracy" is Not in the Arab or Islamic Lexicon; Once Allah's Law Reigns Supreme, the People's Role will End

Q: "Do you support the uprising?"

Shehato: "...The [Egyptian] youth rose up for a certain ideal... They did not rise up in order to put the shari'a into practice, nor did they [complain] that Mubarak's regime did not rule in accordance with the shari'a... As Muslims, we must believe that the Koran is our constitution, and that it is [therefore] impossible for us to institute a Western democratic regime. I oppose democracy because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians. Simply put, democracy means the rule of the people itself over itself... According to Islam, it is forbidden for people to rule and to legislate laws, as Allah alone is ruler. Allah did not hand down the term [democracy] as a form of rule, and it is completely absent from the Arab and Islamic lexicon..."

Q: "If you do not believe in the rule of the people, why did you go out to Al-Tahrir Square with the slogan 'he People Wants to Implement the Shari'a?' Are you exploiting democracy in order to achieve what you want [only] to then abolish [democracy]?"

Shehato: "I am not exploiting democracy, since I have never joined and will never join politics or party activity... We believe that implementation of the shari'a [must be accomplished] far from the political game, though some [other] Islamic streams are willing to participate [in this game] in order to achieve the same goal [i.e., implementation of the shari'a]. We said that 'the people wants to implement the shari'a' because most of the people are Muslims, and also based on [our] reading of the situation on the ground. [At the same time,] we did not make demands for the people's sake in the people's name, but demanded the rule of Allah. And once Allah's law is instated, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme."

Q: "How do you reconcile your opposition to the will of the people with the notion of shura [consultation] in Islam?"

Shehato: "'Shura' in Islam means that alongside the Muslim ruler, there is a steering council comprising the finest of the senior Muslim clerics, to be selected on the basis of their piety and political leadership [abilities]. But there is no consultation with commoners, such as workers and fallahin, nor is there consultation over issues that contravene the shari'a."

"The Christian is Free to Worship His God in His Church, but if the Christians Make Problems for the Muslims, I Will Exterminate Them"

Q: "What solution is the EIJ suggesting [today], after the revolution?"

Shehato: "...We still espouse the old jihadi ideology that is today the ideology of Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the late Sheikh Osama bin Laden, and Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi... If the revolution was meant to overthrow the tyrant Mubarak, then we have always said that all the Arab rulers, without exception, are infidels who must be killed because they do not rule according to the shari'a. They are apostate infidels, as opposed to infidels like the Jews and Christians, and anyone who doubts that they are infidels is an infidel [himself]."

Q: "But we Egyptians have never regarded the Christians as infidels. [In fact,] many of us have Christian friends even closer than our Muslim friends."

Shehato: "As a Muslim, I must support the Muslim and oppose the Christian. If there is a Christian who does me no harm, I will maintain limited contact with him. Islam [discusses] certain degrees of contact with the Christian, namely: keeping promises [that were made him], dealing honestly with him, treating him kindly, and befriending him. The first three are allowed, but the fourth [i.e., befriending the Christian] is deemed dangerous, for it contravenes the verse that says, 'O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth' [Koran 60:1]. It is inconceivable that they should serve in judiciary or executive posts, for instance in the army or the police."

Q: "Are you against blowing up churches?"

Shehato: "Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari'a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation..."

Q: "These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians."

Shehato: "I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people... We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari'a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions."

If the Muslims Rise to Power in Egypt, They Will Form Muslim Battalions to Enforce the Shari'a Worldwide

Q: "If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?"

Shehato: "Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari'a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari'a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah's help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]..."

Q: "You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari'a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?"

Shehato: "No, we will implement the shari'a through da'wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari'a does not call it 'violence' but 'jihad for the sake of Allah.' There is no other way... because they have power and weapons..."

Q: "How will the foreign ministry [operate] in an Islamic state?"

Shehato: "There are Muslims and there are infidels. We will have ambassadors in every country. We want to call all other countries to join Islam, and that will be the task of the ambassadors. If [the countries] refuse, there will be war. We will not tolerate mutual trade and cultural ties with non-Muslims."

"In the [Islamic] State, There will Be Only Islamic Culture"

Q: "If you rise to power, what will be your approach to tourism?"

Shehato: "There will be tourism for purposes of [medical] treatment, but the tourism sites of the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh will be shut down, because my task [as a ruler] is to get people to serve Allah rather than [other] people [i.e., tourists]. No proud Muslim will ever be willing to live off tourism profits, because the tourists come [to Egypt] to drink alcohol and fornicate. [If they] want to come, they must comply with the conditions and laws of Islam. We will explain to them that, according to the shari'a, the pyramids are [the remains of] a pagan and polytheistic age."

Q: "What will be the state of art and literature in such a state?"
Shehato: "In Islam, there is no such thing as art. Painting, singing, and dancing are forbidden. Therefore, in the [Islamic] state there will be nothing but Islamic culture, for I cannot teach [people] the infidel culture. As for literature, such as [the works] of Naguib Mahfouz, it is forbidden. Naguib Mahfouz was a criminal who stimulated [people's] desires and struck a severe blow to modesty. We will return to the decent culture of the Muslims and the Muslim forefathers, and to Islamic history."

Endnote:

[1] Roz Al-Yousef (Egypt), August 13, 2011.



Cry baby muslims throw a fit when they are refused admittance to rides for their OWN sfaety

Here is a great example of the stupidity of islam and how it reduces many muslims to incredibly stupid and ignorant fools.

"Everybody got mad, everybody got upset,” Amr Khater, a Brooklyn resident, told The Journal News. “It’s our holiday. Why would you do this to us?”

A group of mussies from the Muslim American Society of New York -- was at the park to celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr, an Islamic holiday that marks the end of ramadan.

What apparently did not get communicated to this group was that headgear of a certain type, long flowing scarves, hats and other flowing material. Many women were wearing the traditional headscarf, called a hijab. The park security had to intervene to break up a near small riot when some of the mussies objected. I smell a law suit here regardless that this headgear policy is for the protection of those who go on the rides. That does not matter to the muslims and why was this information not told to the group of muslims by the tour operator? Were they afraid of losing the business and or offending the mussies and their perverted cult they try to pass off as a religion?

"This misunderstanding was very unfortunate," said Peter Tartaglia, the deputy parks commissioner. "Our headgear policy is designed to protect the safety of patrons and safety is our first concern. This policy was repeatedly articulated to the tour operator, but unfortunately the message did not reach some of the members of his group."

Even when it is for their own good and safety, THEIR customs and values trump even that. Maybe they should have let those who were objecting so badly sign a waiver to not hold the park responsible for any injuries or deaths that might have occurred and let them go on the rides with the hope that at the end there would be some lessons learned that mohammad and allah do not have their backs and that islam is truly a lie that will get you killed, one way or another.


***********************************************************************************************************************

Fight Beaks Out at Rye Playland Over Muslim Headscarves




MYFOXNY.COM - Police from several departments rushed to the Rye Playland amusement park in Westchester County after an altercation broke out between patrons over a tensions over Muslim headscarves.

The fight erupted after a "misunderstanding" between the park workers and some Muslim patrons over the park's restrictions on headgear on some rides, according to the Westchester County Executive's Office.

Apparently some Muslim women wearing the traditional headscarf, called a hijab, were denied access to some rides because of safety reasons.

"The incident erupted when some of the women tried to gain entry on rides that prohibit any kind of headwear, such as hats, scarves and flowing material, which would include hijabs," according to a statement from the executive's office. "The tour operator, the Muslim American Society of New York, had been notified well in advance of today's event-numerous times both in writing and verbally-the county's policy on headgear for certain rides at the amusement park."

The patrons were offered refunds, the statement said, but then some men and women started arguing with each other, the statement said, "to the point that park security had to intervene. In the course of restoring calm, two park rangers suffered injuries and had to be taken to a nearby hospital."

People were not allowed into the park between 4 and 6 p.m. as police and security tried to restore order.

Many people on Twitter reported seeing the police descend upon the park. Dozens of police vehicles and the park. Officers arrested and charged 15 patrons, according to the county executive's office. "After the arrests, park officials met with the tour operator to ensure that all members of his group understood the headgear policy," the statement said.

"This misunderstanding was very unfortunate," said Peter Tartaglia, the deputy parks commissioner. "Our headgear policy is designed to protect the safety of patrons and safety is our first concern. This policy was repeatedly articulated to the tour operator, but unfortunately the message did not reach some of the members of his group."

The tour group was at the park to celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr, a major holiday in the Islamic faith that marks the end of Ramadan.

Witnesses at the scene say a pair of girls confronted security personnel about the issue and one of the girls ended up on the ground in handcuffs. A group of men intervened and that is when things got out of control.

But some of the members of the group said that the rangers and the cops overreacted.

The exit ramps from I-95 into the park were also closed as police tried to get control of the situation.

The park is owned and run by Westchester County, the only government-owned amusement park in the country.





The 10-Year 9-11 Commemoration and Mayor Bloomberg

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/


I never have been able to figure out this mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. Not being a resident of the Big Apple, I am not qualified to comment on his overall performance, but this ten year anniversary of 9-11 is causing a lot of anger. Bloomberg has announced that there will be no religious services or clergy involved with the event and further that first responders also will not be invited to participate (due to space issues.)

Given the number of VIPs who will be invited to participate, it would seem proper for them to give up their invitations in favor of the true heroes of 9-11. As we know, so many first responders also died in the attack while trying to save others. I am not saying President Obama should not be there-he should as well as family survivors of those who died. Yet, this is nothing less than a slap in the face of those who risked their lives and survived.

As for the second issue, it is obvious that Bloomberg is trying to avoid the difficulty in inviting Christian and Jewish clergy while not inviting Muslim clergy-which would infuriate many in itself. The obvious escape hatch is to take out any religious aspects. Yet, what is a ten-year commemoration of this tragedy without anyone praying?

It comes down to this; is it appropriate for Muslim officials or clergy to attend this event since 9-11 was carried out largely in the name of Islam and Allah?

Remember when German chancellor Willy Brandt went to the Warsaw ghetto in 1970 to participate in a commemoration there?

For Germany, this was a public gesture of atonement for the crimes committed by Germany in World War II. Brandt was never a Nazi. He was an opponent of the Nazis who fled to Norway and Sweden and stayed there during the war years. In addition, Germany regularly makes gestures of contrition for what happened in the Nazi years. I have written about what the city of Erlangen does to commemorate the night of Kristallnacht. The commemoration is held at the local Jewish cemetery. Other cities also recognize their responsibility in this regard. In my view, Germans like Brandt have performed beautiful gestures in the years since World War II. The nation has also striven to educate its youth about the events of the past in the hope that such acts will never be repeated

Is this even a valid comparison?

Does that mean that all Germans today, born after the war, are responsible? No. It must also be said that millions of Germans in the Nazi years committed no crimes. Yet the stain is there. Horrible acts were committed in the name of Germany.

That leads me to ask; who would represent the Muslim faith at a 9-11 commemoration and what would such person say? Would he or she say that the people who carried out 9-11 were not following the teachings of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed? (They thought they were.) Would a Muslim speaker say that the people who carried out 9-11 had misinterpreted Islam? Would they say that 9-11 was not carried out on behalf of American Muslims? Would they point out that Muslims also died on 9-11? Would they state that Islam is a religion of peace? Would the speaker(s) say that they felt shame over 9-11 and wanted to atone and stand with America in its fight to prevent further attacks? Would they disown the words of hateful speakers like Yusuf al Qaradawi, who is the spiritual mentor of the Muslim Brotherhood and considered one of the leading Islamic scholars in the world? Would the speaker(s) state that too much hate is being preached in many American mosques and that it has to stop? Would any of the speakers proclaim that Islam requires a Reformation to rid itself of its violent and elements?

Please understand that these are not rhetorical questions and I am not presupposing any of the above. I think they are legitimate questions. Were any Muslim representatives to speak, the reception they received would depend on much on what they said.

Another issue would be who should represent Islam at the 9-11 commemoration. There are a host of so-called moderates to whom the government has reached out to since 9-11 to represent the Islamic faith. Sadly, some of these people have proven to be wolves in sheep's clothing like Abdulrahman Alamoudi, who is now in prison. Others enjoy a reputation as "bridge-builders" who travel the interfaith circuit yet have been known to have questionable associations with radicals and to have made questionable statements.

Were I to invite a Muslim speaker, it would be one who I have full confidence in as a true American moderate, someone like Zuhdi Jasser or Stephen Schwartz. Yet these are figures that our government leaders are reluctant to reach out to because they tell the truth about the threat we face.

Mayor Bloomberg apparently has chosen to avoid all of these questions by excluding any religious aspect to the commemoration. That still leaves unanswered whether we will see representatives of organizations like CAIR present. Undoubtedly, millions of peaceful American Muslims would like to see some Muslim representation at the commemoration. In my view, CAIR would be a huge mistake.

Bloomberg understandably has a "sticky wicket" on his hands, as I believe the British expression goes.

He might still consider Jasser and Schwartz.

Feminazis in an uproar over New York Judge who tosses femisnist lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P.

Ouch! This has to sting and will be smarting for some time. This decision may have national repercussions as well.

"Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan tossed out this case in which the women accused the financial and media services giant Bloomberg L.P. of workplace discrimination because the bosses failed to pretend that pregnant employees and those who took time off for maternity or other purposes were really doing the same work as those who worked faithfully fulltime on the job. This is another example of the fact that the feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work but always was for more pay for less work.

Referring to the way the women's case was based on a few anecdotes, not statistics, the judge wrote, "'J'accuse!' is not enough in court. Evidence is required."

Oops. As this article mentions, the feminazis and deluded young women who have brought into the lies and deception pushed by today's feminazis were dealt a life lesson by Judge Preska.

"The trouble with many younger women is that they've been falsely taught by feminism to plan their life career in the workplace without any space or time for marriage, husband or children. They have a total lack of understanding of how demanding a new baby is, and also of the way their own attitudes can change in regard to how they really want to spend their time after a baby arrives."

Yeah, funny how that works. A woman can do this but it really works better when she has a willing and understanding man around to shoulder the burden of changes that come when a new baby arrives.

"When Mother Nature asserts herself and babies appear, the women who have been misled by feminist ideology expect their employers and, indeed, the rest of the world, to accommodate their change of schedule. The feminists expect their employer to assume the costs of the priorities and the interruptions that once were easily absorbed in the traditional lifestyle of husband-provider and fulltime homemaker."

Deciding to have a family has it rewards and it's consequences. I know from first hand experience as my wife and I made the decision early one after our daughter was born was to ruin our finances and future security to have her stay home with our daughter and continue to stay at home when our son came along. We have no regrets as we raised our kids ourselves with little help from family and friends. WE have paid a heavy price financially but we would not do it differently if we had to do it all over again.


*************************************************************************************************************************

Feminists Have a Tantrum
By Phyllis Schlafly

The feminists are having another tantrum. The New York chapter of the National Organization for Women and the New York Civil Liberties Union are squealing about a 64-page decision in a workplace class-action suit brought by their friends in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The feminists are so accustomed to having their gender doctrines prevail in the courts, in the bureaucracy, in the media and in academia that they can't deal with being told the truth, i.e., that their notions don't make sense and are unfair to others, especially employers, husbands and fathers.

Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan tossed out this case in which the women accused the financial and media services giant Bloomberg L.P. of workplace discrimination because the bosses failed to pretend that pregnant employees and those who took time off for maternity or other purposes were really doing the same work as those who worked faithfully fulltime on the job. This is another example of the fact that the feminist goal was never equal pay for equal work but always was for more pay for less work.

Referring to the way the women's case was based on a few anecdotes, not statistics, the judge wrote, "'J'accuse!' is not enough in court. Evidence is required."

Mirabile dictu! The judge really shocked the feminists since they usually win when they assert fault against the so-called patriarchy without any evidence or fear of prosecution for perjury.
The trouble with many younger women is that they've been falsely taught by feminism to plan their life career in the workplace without any space or time for marriage, husband or children. They have a total lack of understanding of how demanding a new baby is, and also of the way their own attitudes can change in regard to how they really want to spend their time after a baby arrives.

When Mother Nature asserts herself and babies appear, the women who have been misled by feminist ideology expect their employers and, indeed, the rest of the world, to accommodate their change of schedule. The feminists expect their employer to assume the costs of the priorities and the interruptions that once were easily absorbed in the traditional lifestyle of husband-provider and fulltime homemaker.

However, as Judge Preska wrote, "the law does not mandate 'work-life balance.'" It's OK for the employer to value employees who give ultimate dedication to their job, "however unhealthy that may be for family life."

Anybody who went to work for Bloomberg L.P. should have known that the company "explicitly makes all-out dedication its expectation." Furthermore, Wall Street is a naturally aggressive and hypercompetitive 24/7 culture.

Employee decisions that preference family over job come with a price. Employers have no duty to accommodate their employees' children or child-care needs other than the unpaid leave required by the Family Medical Leave Act.

Judge Preska quoted Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, as saying: "There's no such thing as work-life balance. There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences."

The Judge wrote that Welch's view reflects "the free-market employment system we embrace in the United States," and the law "does not require companies to ignore employees' work-family tradeoffs — and they are tradeoffs — when deciding about employee pay and promotions."

How to balance work and family is the number-one topic in women's magazines today. Article after article tries to present a plan for balance between baby and job, plus advice to help the mother feel not guilty when baby gets the short end of the stick.

However, the articles sound hypocritical because for years the feminist movement has carried on a strenuous campaign to move all homemakers out of the home ("a comfortable concentration camp," in Betty Friedan's words), and into the workplace on the argument that caring for babies is not a worthy occupation for an educated woman. Feminists have even propagated the myth that expecting mothers to care for their own babies is an example of the oppression of women by the patriarchy.

Some women have combined a successful career with the role of wife and mother. Margaret Thatcher is a prime example. But that kind of success usually requires a cooperative husband whom the feminists usually lack.

This was noted in a bitter comment by Gloria Steinem this month when she launched a documentary about her life. Sneering at the two women she apparently hates the most, she attempted to demean Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as women "only a man could love." That's right; men do love the non-feminists.


Defining islamophobia: This is a must read!

Earlier this morning, when 'normal' people had long been asleep, I posted an article by The Center For Security Policy on islamophobia and how many pro islamic, muslim organizations are ganging up to discredit those who understand islam, the very real threats that we face from islam and sharia law. One look at the groups behind these false accusations tells us a lot and just as a reminder here they are:

"The primary organizations-- what should be called the "Shariah Defense Lobby"-- are the Center for American Progress/ThinkProgress, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with support from a handful of other far-left or Islamist bloggers and Washington lobbyists."

Those who understand what islam and sharia law really are, who have read the qur'an, ahadith and sira, understand the very real threats from islam and sharia law.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC) has been working for years with the most corrupt U.N. and now the U.S. government, to ban any and all criticism of islam. With the election of obama, the first muslim illegal alien potus and his appointment of the bitch, hilary clinton to run the State Department, these efforts to ban any criticism of islam and label islamophobia as a mental disorder or disease is accelerating with the complete approval of the obama administration.

I read this article by Ned May on islamophobia over at Big Peace and this is what I call a must read. Right at the beginning of this next post is a link to an earlier article By Ned that he did at Gates Of Vienna, which is his site. To keep this from running extremely long, I suggest you read this next post and then go read the one at Gates Of Vienna. It will take some time to read both of these but it will time very well spent. You will come away from these two excellent articles with a much clearer picture of what we in the counterjihad are fighting and why we are doing so, at times doing so at great risk. 

Should the mullah obamaham get re-elected then the complete ruination of our country will be rapidly accelerated like we have never seen before. We live in extremely perilous times.

islamophobia IS NOT a mental disease or disorder. islam is!



****************************************************************************************************************************

What Is Islamophobia?
By Ned May

As I have mentioned previously, one of major goals of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is to stop “Islamophobia”, which is its preferred term for the criticism of or opposition to Islam by non-Muslims.

The word “Islamophobia” is of relatively recent coinage. I never encountered it until after 9-11, and it was subjected to widespread ridicule, at least among non-Muslims and non-leftists, when it first became widely known. However, after the OIC and the UN harped on it for a few years, and the progressive media solemnly repeated the Muslim party line, “Islamophobia” gained general currency as a serious, scholarly word for a dangerous mental deficiency that needed to be eradicated in the West.

It piggybacked its way into politically correct usage on “homophobia”, which in turn drew on the word “xenophobia” as its ideological predecessor. Strangely enough, “xenophobia” is not in my Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, but appears in my Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. The word is not terribly old; it was coined in the late 19th century during a period when many mental disorders were first being labeled with Greek neologisms. Based on the Greek word for “fear”, a “phobia” was the general term assigned to conditions of morbid fearfulness. “Hydrophobia”, for example, was used to describe a morbid fear of water. The stem “xeno-” means “strange” or “foreign”, and “xenophobia” was originally synonymous with “agoraphobia” — it meant “a morbid fear of open spaces”.

It wasn’t until the 20th century, with its new preoccupation with race, that “xenophobia” was assigned its current meaning: “a morbid dislike or dread of foreigners”. In the second half of the century, after the racial ravages of National Socialism, any distaste for foreigners or preference for one’s own kind was stigmatized as “xenophobic”. This shunning helped pave the way for mass Muslim immigration into Western countries by transforming opposition to such policies into a mental disorder.

Half a century later, the “xenophobia” precedent has helped legitimize its stepchild “Islamophobia”, which does similar service in stigmatizing any resistance to Islamization.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

So much for the pedigree of the word “Islamophobia”. We know its function: to delegitimize the opponents of Islam by transforming their political opinions into a mental illness. And not just a neutral mental illness like obsessive-compulsive disorder or schizophrenia, but an evil sort of lunacy, for which one should be committed to an asylum for the criminally insane.

If the OIC achieves its goals, and Islamophobia is outlawed in the West, lawmakers, bureaucrats, and the police will require guidelines about the ways in which this ugly disease manifests itself, so they can recognize those who suffer from it and assign them to a secure facility for treatment. DHS will need to write up a handbook for its local agents describing what to watch out for. Federal and state legislators will need a clear definition of the word to include in the laws they pass against it.

So what is Islamophobia? What’s a good working definition of the word?

Fortunately, someone has already done the hard work of laying out the concept in detail. And, needless to say, the defining was done by Muslims themselves.

EMISCO: European Muslim Initiative for Social CohesionThe following article, “A Proposed Definition of Islamophobia”, was written last year by a European group called the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), an umbrella organization of Muslim NGOs from all over the continent.

Even though it was composed from a European perspective, this definition is probably similar to what will be used in the United States when required. I’ll go through it by sections, bolding phrases and sentences that merit further discussion:

Islamophobia is a form of intolerance and discrimination motivated with fear, mistrust and hatred of Islam and its adherents. It is often manifested in combination with racism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments and religious intolerance.

Notice that this lead paragraph presupposes an understanding of what is in the mind of an Islamophobe. It assumes that opposition to Islam must be motivated by fear and hatred. It excludes the possibility that opponents of Islam may be motivated primarily by rational self-interest, rather than angry passion.

The text does not specify it, but one may assume that EMISCO’s definition denies the existence of any other motives for opposing Islam. It is simply considered impossible that any non-Muslim could inform himself about the scriptures, teachings, and laws of Islam, read the history of Islamic expansion, observe the behavior of Muslims in his own time, and come to the reasoned conclusion that Islam is a dangerous political ideology that has degraded and impoverished every society in which it has become dominant.

Such rational conclusions cannot be drawn. The possibility of doing so will be defined out of existence. “Fear”, “mistrust”, and “hatred” are the only acknowledged motives that anyone could have for opposing Islamization.

Manifestations of Islamophobia include hate speech, violent acts and discriminatory practices, which can be manifested by both non-state actors and state officials.

“Hate speech” is already well-established as a stand-alone crime in Europe, but in the United States it must accompany a “violent act” or other statutory crime before it can be prosecuted. Perhaps the intention here is to help it become a crime by redefining the scope of “discriminatory practices”, which are already illegal in the USA.

This seems to be the general tactic being pursued by Hillary Clinton and the State Department in their consultations with the OIC — to identify those who oppose Islamization as “discriminatory” as they engage in their “defamation of religion”.

Islamophobic rhetoric associates Muslims with terrorism and portrays them as an international and domestic threat. It makes stereotypical allegations about Muslims as a monolithic group of people whose culture is backward and incompatible with human rights and democracy.

Here we have a familiar theme that is often used by Islamic interest groups to deflect any criticism of Islam. Those who associate Muslims with terrorism are making “stereotypical allegations”. This assertion ignores the possibility that “stereotypical” statements about Muslims may be true, as a statistical assessment of the behavior of Muslims.

If I say that cows are revered under Hinduism and protected from harm, is that a “stereotypical allegation” about Hindus? Of course not; it is a simple statement about the practices of most Hindus.

In the case of Islam, it is true that the vast majority of Muslims do not commit terrorism. A somewhat smaller majority do not provide logistical or financial assistance for terrorists. An even smaller majority — possibly even a minority, depending on which surveys are consulted — disapprove of the actions of Islamic terrorists.

What percentage of those who commit, support, or approve of terrorist acts is too large to be acceptable? What percentage is small enough to be tolerated?

This is a discussion that cannot be engaged in, under the strictures that define “Islamophobia”.

As for “backward and incompatible” — these characteristics can also be statistically determined. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Other examples of Islamophobic rhetoric in political discourse, the media, schools, work place and in the religious sphere involve, but are not limited to:

Calling for banning and/or restricting visibility and practices of Islam in public space on the grounds that Islam is not a religion but an oppressive ideology;

Accusing Muslims of not willing [sic] to integrate in the society where they live in, but imposing their own values and culture;

Describing Muslims as a demographic time-bomb which will become a numerical majority where they are minority for the time-being;

Charging Muslims with not being loyal to the country that they live in but to the Muslim community as a whole;

Advocating collective expulsion of Muslims based on the accusation that they are enemies within;
Dehumanizing and demonizing Muslims as a collective “other” defined only on religious basis, leading to the racialisation of the “Muslim category”;

Accusing Muslims of being responsible for wrongdoing committed by other Muslim individuals or groups;

Denying contributions that Muslims made and have been making to the society and World;
Rejecting any possibility of co-operation between Muslims and non-Muslims.

As you can see, the above list includes — in somewhat cartoonish terms — many of the arguments that are used in Big Peace and other forums that oppose sharia and the Islamization of the West.

In “restricting visibility and practices of Islam in public space”, countries like France are simply enforcing the secularity of the public space, which is considered an integral characteristic of the country’s laws and culture. Muslims insist that an exception must be made for them; that they are different; that their religion requires public displays. Thus we must comply with their own laws and accommodate them.

Why?

Why must we do that?

Those questions cannot be answered, or even discussed, because to do so constitutes Islamophobia.

Many Muslims are most emphatically unwilling to “integrate” — they proclaim that fact openly, and their imams preach against integration in their sermons. To point this out is to state a simple fact, one that is backed up by ample evidence. The “demographic time-bomb” would be less of an issue if Muslims were willing to integrate.

Anyone who objects to his own culture being gradually supplanted by an alien and hostile culture is therefore Islamophobic.

The “racialisation of the ‘Muslim category’” is an important strategy — it helps turn criticism of Islam into the legal equivalent of racial discrimination, which will help the campaign to make “Islamophobia” illegal in the United States.

Acts of Islamophobia, which can be committed by non-state actors or state officials, include:

Physical attacks, which are carried out spontaneously by individuals or organized groups, on individuals, community institutions and property that are rightly or wrongly associated with Muslims or Islam;

Discriminatory immigration and naturalization procedures directly or indirectly excluding Muslims or placing them in a disadvantageous situation in comparison with people of other religious origin;

Racial/religious profiling measures, including stop and search, surveillance of religious and cultural Muslim organizations, and no flight lists, which have disproportional impact on Muslims;

Restrictions, by either legislative or administrative means, on the visibility of religious symbols targeting at exclusively Muslims, as in the case of prohibition of minarets.

“Physical attacks” are already against the law in all countries. There is no need to add an “Islamophobic” category of assault, except to further the exceptionalism of Islam, as required by sharia.

“Racial/religious profiling measures” are virtually non-existent in almost all Western countries, so the issue is moot. Islam has already won that skirmish.

“Discriminatory immigration and naturalization procedures” are an inherent right of all sovereign nations. To deny that right is to remove the sovereignty of nations, and make them part of the Ummah.

Now we come to policy recommendations:

Institutional Islamophobia is state policies and systematic practices discriminating Muslims [sic] based on their religious identity. It poses a serious threat to the security of Muslims because such policies and practices can lead to spreading bias, and therefore be a fertile ground for hate crimes

Recommendations to Combat Islamophobia

In order to combat Islamophobia and foster tolerance and mutual understanding based on the international human rights standards, States should:

Take all necessary measures in their legal systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment, violence and discrimination in all walks of life;

Develop and implement comprehensive educational strategies and programme for combating Islamophobia;

Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia;
Include in their integration policies programmes and activities addressing Islamophobia and its roots causes;

Record, monitor and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic hate crimes committed within their territory and make such reports publically [sic] available;
Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;

Take all necessary measures in order to prevent racial/religious profiling and other forms of institutionalized Islamophobia;

Conduct public awareness campaigns and specific programmes for governmental officials in order to combat Islamophobia;

Encourage and support intergovernmental human rights agencies and non-governmental organizations dealing with Islamophobia;

Strive to develop necessary mechanisms and standards to increase international co-operation in combating Islamophobia.

To implement “comprehensive educational strategies” means to enforce sharia-compliance in schools, training programs, and all other forms of public instruction.

To create “specialized bodies and initiatives” to evaluate and monitor eruptions of Islamophobia means to grant the demands for sharia, since only Muslims may judge the behavior of non-Muslims concerning Islam.

To “record, monitor and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic hate crimes” means to augment the existing surveillance state for the purposes of enforcing Islamic law.

To “combat Islamophobic hate crimes… in the media and on the Internet” means to enforce the tenets of sharia concerning Islamic slander, and restrict free speech accordingly.

To “increase international co-operation” means to allow the UN — which is already pushing sharia-compliance with respect to the “defamation of religion” — to override any legal impediments to sharia within its member states.

In other words, this is all about enforcing sharia on Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

The end of the article lists the supporting organizations:

This proposal is supported by: European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (Denmark-France), Jewish-Muslim Cooperation Platform (Belgium), Austrian Muslim Initiative, Collectif Contre l’Islamophobie en France (CCIF), JPL MONDE (France), Federation of Western Thrace Turks in Europe (ABTTF – Germany), Ethnic Debate Forum and Fair Play (Denmark), The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP-UK), Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association (Greece), Muslim Community of Bulgaria, Muslim Committee on Human Rights in Central Asia (Kazakhstan), Turkish Community in Germany (TGD).

As you can see, there is a National Association of Muslim Police in Britain. Do they have a National Association of Christian Police? Would such a thing be permitted?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

When considering EMISCO’s definitions and recommendations, think back on what Secretary of State Clinton said last month in Istanbul.

Remember the OIC’s stated intentions concerning Islamophobia, as stated in its foreign ministers’ resolution and its annual “Islamophobia Observatory” report.

Notice also that the UN Human Rights Council has already fallen into line with the OIC by passing Resolution 16/18, which Mrs. Clinton was touting in Istanbul.

EMISCO’s definition is just part of a larger mosaic. It represents one strategy within a concerted push by the Ummah, acting through the OIC and various other affiliated bodies and their compliant Western counterparts.

Islam means business when it comes to eradicating “Islamophobia”. Thanks to the enormous wealth wielded by the petro-sheiks, the fecklessness of our leaders, and the somnolence of ordinary Westerners, the OIC is well on the way to achieving its goal.

Don’t think it can’t happen here in the USA. Hillary Clinton is dead set on it. If Barack Hussein Obama gets re-elected next year and manages to appoint a Supreme Court justice or two, all bets are off.


Defenders of islam and sharia law(Center for American Progress)shills for islam and worse

So, millions of Americans are islamophobic and concerned about islam and sharia law.
This is a bad thing? I am 100% sure this is not a bad thing nor is it something to set off alarm bells. Except for the fact that now, for the first time millions of Americans are starting to read about and see real proof that islam and sharia law are two of the gravest threats this country has ever faced. That to many may seem like a very bold statement but it is true.

Politicians like the first illegal alien muslim potus obama, and his dhimmi moron Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, are doing all they can to assist the U.N., the OIC in silencing any and all criticism of islam and sharia law.

The sharia defense lobby is the engine that is driving this first amendment robbing effort. This lobby is made up of the following organizations: "Center for American Progress/ThinkProgress, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with support from a handful of other far-left or Islamist bloggers and Washington lobbyists.

The "Shariah Defense Lobby" whitewashes and protects political, legal, military and religious doctrines of Shariah law (Islamic law) from scrutiny. One of its major goals is to silence all criticism of Islamist aggression, jihadist violence, or Shariah violations of human rights and civil liberties."

This lobby of islamosympathizers, dhimmi stooges, hard core muslims who embrace sharia law as a replacement to our Constitution. They also want to silence the rapidly growing number of Americans "who express legitimate concerns about home-grown Islamist terrorism, and about Islamist efforts to enforce Shariah law on American Muslim families and even on non-Muslim Americans." One of the main tactics used is islamic taqiyya. taqiyya, which is approved lying to the kafir or infidel(me and you)to make islam and shari law seem harmless and peaceful which most of know that islam is not peaceful nor is sharia law harmless. taqiyya is sanctioned in the qur'an which by the way devotes over 60% on how to deal with us infidels in various nefraious ways.

Please read this and share this with as many people as you can.



**************************************************************************************************************************

Center for American Progress Defends Shariah, Charges America with Islamophobia

Center for Security Policy | Aug 26, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 25, 2011: There they go again. Friday, the Center for American Progress released "Fear, Inc.," yet another report in the increasingly hysterical bullying campaign to shout down criticism of political Islamist efforts to influence American foreign and domestic policy. Their latest "copy and paste" effort duplicates large sections of five nearly identical "investigations" just this year, complaining that millions of concerned Americans are Islamophobes.

The primary organizations-- what should be called the "Shariah Defense Lobby"-- are the Center for American Progress/ThinkProgress, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with support from a handful of other far-left or Islamist bloggers and Washington lobbyists.

The "Shariah Defense Lobby" whitewashes and protects political, legal, military and religious doctrines of Shariah law (Islamic law) from scrutiny. One of its major goals is to silence all criticism of Islamist aggression, jihadist violence, or Shariah violations of human rights and civil liberties.

Frank J. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, noted that:

The ‘Shariah Defense Lobby' is in a race against time to hide the grim reality of Shariah law as it is actually enforced, as Islamist movements and political parties throughout the Arab world are aggressively seeking to govern by Shariah. Most significantly, the ‘Shariah Defense Lobby' refuses to discuss a simple fact: secular and democratic activists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world oppose Shariah in their countries, just as Americans oppose it here.

The latest report also attacks venerable American family foundations for supporting educational efforts on national security and counter-terrorism. The funding sources of the "Shariah Defense Lobby" should be exposed to public scrutiny. For example, CAIR-- an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history-- has reportedly received millions in foreign funding from Islamist contributors, including the Organization of Islamic Conference (aka Cooperation). This year, CAIR lost its nonprofit tax status because of its refusal to file tax forms that would have revealed its sources of funding.

In addition to CAIR's foreign financing, this latest paper from the Center for American Progress reveals that the project depends on money from the Open Society Foundations, a funding vehicle of far-left billionaire George Soros. George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC. He has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $14.5 billion (as of 2011). His company, Soros Fund Management, controls at least another $27.9 billion in investor assets. Soros's foundation network-- whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI)-- has reportedly dispensed billions to a multitude of far left organizations.

The "Shariah Defense Lobby," which aggressively defends Shariah from its critics, has produced a year-long campaign of remarkably identical agitprop papers, all with a single goal: to attack the millions of Americans who are concerned about political Islamists' growing power here in the U.S. and abroad. In these increasingly shrill reports, the "Shariah Defense Lobby" keeps attempting to silence the great majority of Americans who express legitimate concerns about home-grown Islamist terrorism, and about Islamist efforts to enforce Shariah law on American Muslim families and even on non-Muslim Americans.

The Center for American Progress-- authors of "Fear, Inc."-- are trying to make Americans afraid of discussing one of the greatest national security threats we face. Thankfully, the American people aren't buying what they're selling: the campaign is having the opposite effect of what the Lobby intends.

Selected Papers from the Shariah Defense Lobby 'Copy-and-Paste' Essay Series

January 2011: Thomas Cincotta, "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, Public Servants and the Threat to Rights and Security" (Political Research Associates)

March 2011: Wajahat Ali and Matthew Duss, "Understanding Sharia Law" (Center for American Progress)

May 2011: "Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical ‘Shariah Threat' to Our Judicial System" (American Civil Liberties Union)

June 2011: Corey Saylor, et al. "Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States" (Council on American Islamic Relations and University of California at Berkeley)

June 2011: Robert Steinback, "Jihad against Islam" (Southern Poverty Law Center)

August 2011: Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, Faiz SHakir, "Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" (Center for American Progress)

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

The ultimate poisoning of the United States: Obama: Whites need not apply

I have mentioned many times what I call the three toxic stews of the West here on Patriot's Corner; Excessive diversity, multiculturalism and political correctness. In an executive order issued by obama, the first illegal alien muslim potus, it will now be even easier and more accepted to discriminate against whites within the framework of the federal government when it comes to how people are hired.

As a middle aged, disabled, white male terrorist(according to eric holder and obama), I have been dished out plenty of discrimination when I have been looking for work. Instead of whining and throwing a tantrum, I just picked myself up, dusted off my threads and kept on looking for work. I have lost out on jobs to illegal aliens, men and women of various ethnicities other than white, for not being super tech saavy and a computer know it all, not having much hair and being disabled, even though if you met me on the street you could not tell I am severely disabled except for a limp in my walk. I have had my disability thrown in my face as I have being a white 'college educated male'. There have been several instances I could have filed a lawsuit but decided not to put my family through such trials.

What ever happened to hiring the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THE JOB? 

I guess this is not fair or complex enough for our over diversified, politically correct, excessively multicultural progressives and libtards. In other words, that is just too damn simple. This new policy will further devastate the prospects for white men and women looking for work, especially in these dark and trying times.

"President Obama’s new order instructs federal agencies to design new strategies for hiring, promoting and keeping workers of “diverse” backgrounds. The diversity the government is seeking is not diversity of ideas, outlooks or work experiences. In contemporary political parlance, “diversity” refers primarily to the color of one’s skin and not the content of one’s character. The executive order says the federal government “must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential.” In the name of “fairness,” however, the government will intensify programs that discriminate against white Americans by extending special privileges to everyone else. The order also says that “attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service,” though merit and ability are not the metrics of choice when measuring success in diversity-driven career programs."

I guess the government is not 'diversified' enough yet. I work part time for the State and I can assure you of this; the state workforce here is extremely diversified. In fact so much so in some offices a white face is pretty tough to spot. I could go a complete rant here but will not do so. Read the rest below.


***************************************************************************************************************************

Obama: Whites need not apply

Liberals don’t want our government to mirror our society

The White House issued an executive order on Thursday titled “Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce.” The purpose of the order is “to promote the federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion.” In other words, it would be better for the government if public-spirited white workers sought employment elsewhere. Lost amid all the politically correct box-checking is the principle that the most qualified person should be hired for a job.

President Obama’s new order instructs federal agencies to design new strategies for hiring, promoting and keeping workers of “diverse” backgrounds. The diversity the government is seeking is not diversity of ideas, outlooks or work experiences. In contemporary political parlance, “diversity” refers primarily to the color of one’s skin and not the content of one’s character. The executive order says the federal government “must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential.” In the name of “fairness,” however, the government will intensify programs that discriminate against white Americans by extending special privileges to everyone else. The order also says that “attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service,” though merit and ability are not the metrics of choice when measuring success in diversity-driven career programs.

The order states that by law, the federal government’s recruitment policies should “endeavor to achieve a workforce from all segments of society” and that “as the nation’s largest employer, the federal government has a special obligation to lead by example.” In that respect, the government could largely declare mission accomplished. A quick look at the demographic breakdown of the federal payroll shows that “diversity” goals have been more than met. According to the Office of Personnel Management, federal employees in fiscal 2010 were 66.2 percent white, 17.7 percent black, 8 percent Hispanic, 5.6 percent Asian and Pacific Islander and 1.8 percent American Indian. Compared to the general U.S. population, the federal force is a bit too diverse. Blacks are overrepresented by 6.9 percent compared to the civilian work force, Asians and Pacific Islanders by 1.2 percent, and American Indians are more than double their proportion of the population at large. White Americans, who make up about 70 percent of the work force, are underrepresented by around 4 percent. Hispanics are also underrepresented despite the Clinton-era executive order 13171, “Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government.”

During the 2008 presidential campaign and in the initial months of the Obama presidency, there was great enthusiasm for the concept of post-racial America. Mr. Obama’sMr. Obama, black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., and white Cambridge, Mass., police Sgt. James Crowley, who had arrested Mr. Gates for disorderly conduct. At the time, Mr. Obama called it a “teachable moment,” but that White House photo-op was the last anyone heard about the national dialogue on race. Mr. Obama has squandered his chance to lead America away from the divisive racial politics of the past. This executive order tells America that in the Obama administration, race-based preferences are still business as usual.