Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Re: What If: Life After Iran Gets The Bomb

On Feb 4, 7:53 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of what Iran does or does not do.... the policy is in place..and
> the policy to intervene when there is no threat to US soil is just stupid.

Kinda' like Iraq?

Look Republitards, Obama is going to be re-elected because the US will
be at war with Iran probably by the summer sometime.

And if we can re-elect a dumbass Republitard like Bush Jr. to carry on
a war, we'll most certainly re-elect Obama to carry on one.

The US will not change Presidents during time of war.

So Republitards, you can forget about Willard and Newt getting
elected.

btw: who the fu*k names their kids Willard and Newt anyway?
Answer: dumbasses.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Two can play the same ‘BOYCOTT’ game

I am waiting to find a muzzie clerk that refuses to take my money when I take it out of my bacon wallet.

New post on Bare Naked Islam

Two can play the same 'BOYCOTT' game

by barenakedislam

Muslims and their dhimmi left wing allies are relentlessly calling for Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israeli-owned businesses in America and Europe. Its time to turn the tables and call for a boycott of all Muslim-owned businesses.

Just click on this link, insert your Zip Code or City and miles from it that you want listings and you will get a list of Mosques and Islamic Centers, Islamic Organizations and Services, Islamic Schools and Colleges, and the most importantly: MUSLIM-OWNED BUSINESSES: ISLAMIC FINDER

It works for any city in the U.S. or Canada and is supposed to work in any country but I had trouble connecting to anything outside the U.S. and Canada.

As I live in New York City, here is a list of all Muslim business within a 20-mile radius of Manhattan. (The list below is extensive)

Muslim Owned Businesses

Bukhara Grill	New York	0.0
SYNCOM TRAVEL & TOURS	New York	0.0
Taibah Tours&Travel Inc	New York	0.0
Dr. Mohajer Kambiz	New York	0.0
Prince of Egypt Cart	New York	0.0
IslamiQ.com Ltd	New York	0.3
Al Bustan	New York	0.5
Mariachi	New York	0.5
Pooket Thai	New York	0.5
Astrolight Films	New York	0.5
Jaipur's Indian Cuisine	New York	0.5
Marrakesh	New York	0.5
Al-Baraka Restaurant	New York	0.5
Oxford University Press	New York	0.6
Greenhouse Cafe	New York	0.6
...click here for MORE

barenakedislam | February 6, 2012 at 9:31 pm | Categories: Jihad this! | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-FpP

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://barenakedislam.com/2012/02/06/two-can-play-the-same-boycott-game/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Super Bowl crass

Then a guest singer in Madonna's pagan extravaganza, who calls her
M.I.A.,
gave America the middle-finger F-you salute:

<http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mia.jpg>

And millions of Americans just lapped it up....

I still looking for anyone who noticed at the time

On Feb 6, 1:33 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> New post on *Fellowship of the Minds*
> <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/> Super Bowl
> crass<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/super-bowl-crass/>by
> Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>
>
> America's national past time, the Super Bowl, is the biggest TV event of
> the year and routinely viewed by more than 100 million people.
>
> At yesterday's Super Bowl XLVI, watched by an estimated 111 million on NBC,
> this is what passed as its halftime entertainment.
>
> Dressed like some pagan warrior-priestess with a totemic headdress, the
> he-woman who calls herself "Madonna" looked like a bat from Hell:
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/madonna.jpg>
>
> She also showed America her crotch, with what appears to be stubble that
> the razor missed:
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/madgecrotch.jpg><http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/crotch.jpg>
>
> Then a guest singer in Madonna's pagan extravaganza, who calls her M.I.A.,
> gave America the middle-finger F-you salute:
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mia.jpg>
>
> And millions of Americans just lapped it up....
>
> *~Eowyn*
> *Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>* |
> February 6, 2012 at 4:37 am | Tags:
> M.I.A.<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=m-i-a>,
> Madonna <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=madonna> |
> Categories: Culture
> War <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=20812>,
> Media<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=292>,
> United States <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=5850> | URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-cji
>
> Comment<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/super-bowl-crass/#r...>
> See all comments<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/super-bowl-crass/#c...>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=7f89380f46003915c34c2cdd2b126a38...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/super-bowl-crass/
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: From AFER: Appeals Court to rule tomorrow on Prop. 8, Sign Up for Alert

you're denying homos equal rights in regards to marriage and you call
me a crackpot?

On Feb 6, 5:06 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:42 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You either support the redefinition of marriage, or you don't.
> > ---
> > I support getting the state out of the marriage business.
>
> > take a stand on what? keep gays from getting married?
> > why should they be safe from divorce and military service
>
> > On Feb 6, 4:06 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The Gay militant Agenda will not allow States to stay out of the marriage
> > > business. Like it or not, it's time to take a stand and draw the line
> > > PlainOl. You either support the redefinition of marriage, or you don't.
>
> > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > the state should stay out of the marriage business
>
> > > > On Feb 6, 2:59 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > <<<At the end of the day, it's wrong for the government to tell
> > > > > someone
> > > > > they can't marry the person they love.>>>
>
> > > > > This would indicate that you are also in favor of Polygamous
> > marriages
> > > > > as well. How about a 16 year old to a 40 year old??
>
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2:38 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Appeals Court to rule tomorrow on Prop. 8, Sign Up for Alert
>
> > > > > > From Chad Griffin, American Foundation for Equal Rights
>
> > > > > > The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will issue its ruling tomorrow
> > on
> > > > Prop.8.
>
> > > > > > Find out what it means. Join AFER for a special online briefing at
> > > > 10:30 a.m.
>
> > > > > > The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will issue a ruling in AFER's
> > case
> > > > > > challenging Prop. 8 tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. PT.
>
> > > > > > The moment we receive the decision, you'll be the first to know.
> > > > > > Please take a moment and make sure your friends and family know
> > too.
>
> > > > > > Email them and ask them to sign up for breaking news updates from
> > AFER
>
> > > > > > As a member of AFER, I'd like to invite you for a special online
> > press
> > > > > > briefing following 11the announcement. I'll be joined by AFER's
> > > > > > attorneys as well as the two couples challenging Prop. 8 for press
> > > > > > conferences at 10:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Find out details at afer.org>
>
> > > > > > After a lengthy and thorough trial, the Federal District Court
> > ruled
> > > > > > that it is unconstitutional to single out gay and lesbian couples
> > and
> > > > > > deny them a fundamental freedom. The anti-marriage Prop. 8
> > Proponents
> > > > > > immediately appealed that decision and now the Ninth Circuit Court
> > of
> > > > > > Appeals will issue a decision tomorrow.
>
> > > > > > At the end of the day, it's wrong for the government to tell
> > someone
> > > > > > they can't marry the person they love. Couples like our plaintiffs,
> > > > > > Kris & Sandy and Jeff & Paul, simply want what other Americans
> > want:
> > > > > > to be treated with fairness and dignity.
>
> > > > > > Marriage is a fundamental American freedom and it's time our
> > country
> > > > > > realizes its promise of equality for all.
>
> > > > > > Sincerely,
>
> > > > > > Chad H. Griffin
> > > > > > Board President
> > > > > > American Foundation for Equal Rights
>
> > > > > > Sign Up Here:
>
> > > > > >http://act.afer.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1081
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > > > Have a great day,
> > > > > > Tommy
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > > > > Have a great day,
> > > > > > Tommy
>
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
>
>
> crackpot.jpg
> 17KViewDownload

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: From AFER: Appeals Court to rule tomorrow on Prop. 8, Sign Up for Alert

Agreed.

But the fed disagrees. If you are a legally married gay couple in
Massachusetts, the fed says, oh no you're not. You won't be filing
jointly, and if either of you work for the fed, you can forget about
spousal benefits.

DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional by at least 2 Appelate Courts.
The fed doesn't care, and Obama's saying he thinks it is too, and
won't defend it court, gives new meaning to Lip Service Bullshit

On Feb 6, 4:02 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the state should stay out of the marriage business
>
> On Feb 6, 2:59 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <<<At the end of the day, it's wrong for the government to tell
> > someone
> > they can't marry the person they love.>>>
>
> > This would indicate that you are also in favor of Polygamous marriages
> > as well. How about a 16 year old to a 40 year old??
>
> > On Feb 6, 2:38 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Appeals Court to rule tomorrow on Prop. 8, Sign Up for Alert
>
> > > From Chad Griffin, American Foundation for Equal Rights
>
> > > The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will issue its ruling tomorrow on Prop.8.
>
> > > Find out what it means. Join AFER for a special online briefing at 10:30 a.m.
>
> > > The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will issue a ruling in AFER's case
> > > challenging Prop. 8 tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. PT.
>
> > > The moment we receive the decision, you'll be the first to know.
> > > Please take a moment and make sure your friends and family know too.
>
> > > Email them and ask them to sign up for breaking news updates from AFER
>
> > > As a member of AFER, I'd like to invite you for a special online press
> > > briefing following 11the announcement. I'll be joined by AFER's
> > > attorneys as well as the two couples challenging Prop. 8 for press
> > > conferences at 10:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Find out details at afer.org >
>
> > > After a lengthy and thorough trial, the Federal District Court ruled
> > > that it is unconstitutional to single out gay and lesbian couples and
> > > deny them a fundamental freedom. The anti-marriage Prop. 8 Proponents
> > > immediately appealed that decision and now the Ninth Circuit Court of
> > > Appeals will issue a decision tomorrow.
>
> > > At the end of the day, it's wrong for the government to tell someone
> > > they can't marry the person they love. Couples like our plaintiffs,
> > > Kris & Sandy and Jeff & Paul, simply want what other Americans want:
> > > to be treated with fairness and dignity.
>
> > > Marriage is a fundamental American freedom and it's time our country
> > > realizes its promise of equality for all.
>
> > > Sincerely,
>
> > > Chad H. Griffin
> > > Board President
> > > American Foundation for Equal Rights
>
> > > Sign Up Here:
>
> > >http://act.afer.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1081
>
> > > --
> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > Have a great day,
> > > Tommy
>
> > > --
> > > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > > Have a great day,
> > > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

MYANMAR: Call for release from prison of former army officer and two other men

February 7, 2012

U Win Mra

Chairman

Myanmar National Human Rights Commission

27 Pyay Road

Hlaing Township

Yangon

MYANMAR

Tel: +95-1-659668

Fax: +95-1-659668

Re: MYANMAR: Call for release from prison of former army officer and two other men

Dear U Win Mra,

Names of detainees: U Win Naing Kyaw, businessman, former army major; Thura Kyaw (alias Aung Aung); Gopyan Sen (alias Azin)

Prosecuting officials:

1. Captain Kyaw Zin Latt (army), complainant in Case Nos. 132, 134, 135/2009

2. Police Captain Than Soe, complainant in Case No. 133/2009

Cases lodged against detainees: Cases brought in the Yangon Western District Court, Case Nos. 132-135/2009, verdicts issued on 7 January 2010; all cases appealed to the Supreme Court and appeals dismissed [Criminal Revision Nos. 325(b), 371(b), 414(b), 415(b)/2010, Criminal Appeal Nos. 9-10/2010, all dismissed 9 December 2010]:

1. Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947, section 24(1), sentence of three years (Win Naing Kyaw)

2. Emergency Provisions, 1950, section 3, death sentence, reduced to life imprisonment under 13 January 2012 amnesty order (Win Naing Kyaw and Thura Kyaw)

3. Electronic Transactions Law, 2004, section 33(1)(a)(b), sentence of 15 years (all three accused)

4. Burma Official Secrets Act, 1923, section 6(3), sentence of two years (Win Naing Kyaw)

In light of the recent releases of prisoners from Myanmar's jails, which have attracted international interest and support, I am writing to ask you to review the case of three men currently in prison whose appeals against their imprisonment to the Supreme Court have failed.

According to the information I have received, a joint military-police-immigration team detained U Win Naing Kyaw, a former army major working as a businessman, as he came on a flight from Bangkok to Yangon at around 1:20pm on 29 July 2009. After accusing him of having on his laptop secret information and passing that information to news agencies based abroad, they held him in custody for 105 days before lodging charges against him at the Mingalardon Police Station.

When the officials lodged the charges, they based them on a confession from Win Kyaw Naing obtained after 42 days held in custody. According to Win Kyaw Naing, the confession was extracted from him through physical and psychological torture. Specifically, he was forced to go without sleep, was drugged, and interrogators also threatened the physical safety of his family members.

In the district court, the judge acknowledged that the confession was obtained after 42 days but said that did not make it inadmissible. The judge concluded that because the contents of the confession corresponded with other testimonies and evidence brought by the police, then it should be genuine; however, this is nonsensical reasoning, since if the police wrote a confession and forced the accused to sign it under duress, naturally its contents would correspond with the version of events that they had prepared for the case.

Many other flaws in the case, the district court and Supreme Court both also ignored, despite the defence lawyers bringing them to the courts' attention. These included that the charge of foreign exchange violations (for bringing into Myanmar over USD8400 and other currencies) was invalid, since the accused had not even reached the counter where he might declare this currency; that the charges under the Emergency Provisions are invalid because none of the alleged offences come within the parameters of this law; that the alleged contents of the documents found by the police on the accused did not in fact constitute official secrets; and, that the police submitted no evidence to prove that the said information was sent through email to news agencies abroad, as the officials alleged.

Finally, the defence lawyers pointed out that the second, third and fourth charges all overlap and concern the same alleged offence of sending official secrets to news agencies abroad; constantly, the multiple charges for the same offence constitute double jeopardy, and are unlawful.

On the basis of the above information, I am deeply concerned that these men have not obtained fair trials and have been imprisoned on the basis of human rights violations, rather than on the basis of a due legal process. I urge that their cases be reviewed and that they be released at the earliest possible moment.

I am particularly concerned by the imposition of the death sentence on two of the accused. Although I appreciate that in recent years death sentences have not been carried out in Myanmar, these sentences ought under no circumstances have to be imposed and then commuted. I urge the government of Myanmar to instruct courts to cease issuing any punishment longer than life imprisonment.

I also urge that other persons still held in custody in cases where their convictions rest on confessions obtained through use of torture likewise have their cases opened and reviewed at the earliest possible time.

Lastly, I urge the government of Myanmar to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisons in its country in accordance with its globally recognized mandate without any further delay. At this time that the government is releasing persons from custody who should not have been imprisoned in the first place, it is especially important that the ICRC have access, in order to ascertain the circumstances of those persons remaining in prisons, like the three men in this case.

Yours sincerely,

William Nicholas Gomes

William's Desk

www.williamgomes.org

Download: MYANMAR Call for release from prison of former army officer and two other men

http://www.williamgomes.org/?p=419

--
William Nicholas Gomes
Journalist & Human Rights Activist
80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
E-mail:William [at] williamgomes.org,editorbd[at]gmail.com
Skype: William.gomes9
Face book: www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
Twitter: twitter.com/williamgomes
Web site :www.williamgomes.org

JP Fwd: Daily Quran and Hadith

THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

Thanks & Best regards,

Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

In latest vaccine marketing fraud, CDC says Gardasil shots should be ‘routine’ for boys

New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

In latest vaccine marketing fraud, CDC says Gardasil shots should be 'routine' for boys

by Harold

Jonathan Benson, Natural News 2/6/2012 Every male between the ages of 11 and 21 should get a Gardasil vaccine for cervical cancer, and those between the ages of 13 and 21 should also get "catch-up" shots later down the road. This is only the opinion of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) [...]

Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe

[[ And we keep letting this infectious slime in here.]]

Muslims Declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe

by Soeren Kern
January 31, 2012 at 5:00 am

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2796/muslims-ban-dogs-europe

A Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs in The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.

Islamic legal tradition holds that dogs are "unclean" animals, and some say the call to ban them in Holland and elsewhere represents an attempted encroachment of Islamic Sharia law in Europe.

This latest canine controversy -- which the Dutch public has greeted with a mix of amusement and outrage -- follows dozens of other Muslim-vs-dog-related incidents in Europe. Critics say it reflects the growing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe as they attempt to impose Islamic legal and religious norms on European society.

The Dutch dustup erupted after Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, vehemently opposed a proposal by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly.

According to a January 28 report in the Amsterdam-based newspaper De Telegraaf, Küçük counter-argued that keeping dogs as pets is tantamount to animal abuse and he then called for the possession of dogs in The Hague to be criminalized.

According to its website, the Islam Democrats [ID] party is "founded on the Islamic principles of justice, equality and solidarity. ID is a bottom-up response to the large gap between the Muslim and immigrant communities and local politics…ID focuses on the political awareness within the Muslim and immigrant communities. Awareness about the need to organize, but also the need for mutual support."

Paul ter Linden, who represents the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) on The Hague city council, responded to Küçük by saying: "In this country pet ownership is legal. Whoever disagrees with this should move to another country."

Dutch political commentators believe Küçük's declarations are a provocation designed to stir up the Muslim population in The Hague. Muslims -- who now make up more than 12% of the city's population of 500,000 -- view dogs as ritually unclean animals and Küçük's call for a ban on them is a sure vote-getter, they say.

The incident in Holland follows dog-related controversies in other European countries.

In Spain, two Islamic groups based in Lérida -- a city in the northeastern region of Catalonia where 29,000 Muslims now make up around 20% of the city's total population -- asked local officials to regulate the presence of dogs in public spaces so they do not "offend Muslims."

Muslims demanded that dogs be banned from all forms of public transportation including all city buses as well as from all areas frequented by Muslim immigrants. Muslims said the presence of dogs in Lérida violates their religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.

After the municipality refused to acquiesce to Muslim demands, the city experienced a wave of dog poisonings. More than a dozen dogs were poisoned in September 2011 (local media reports here, here, here,here and here) in Lérida's working class neighborhoods of Cappont and La Bordeta, districts that are heavily populated by Muslim immigrants and where many dogs have been killed over the past several years.

Local residents taking their dogs for walks say they have been harassed by Muslim immigrants who are opposed to seeing the animals in public. Muslims have also launched a number of anti-dog campaigns on Islamic websites and blogs based in Spain.

In Britain, which has become "ground zero" for Europe's canine controversies, blind passengers are beingordered off buses or refused taxi rides because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their "unclean" guide dogs.

In Reading, for example, one pensioner, a cancer sufferer, was repeatedly confronted by drivers and asked to get off the bus because of his guide dog. He also faced hostility at a hospital and in a supermarket over the animal.

In Nottingham, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry a blind man because he was accompanied by his guide dog. The taxi driver was later fined £300 ($470).

In Stafford, a Muslim taxi driver refused to carry an elderly blind couple from a grocery store because they were accompanied by their seeing-eye dog.

In Tunbridge Wells, Kent, a blind man was turned away from an Indian restaurant because the owner said it was against his Muslim beliefs to allow dogs into his establishment.

In London, a bus driver prevented a woman from boarding a bus with her dog because there was a Muslim lady on the bus who "might be upset by the dog." As the woman attempted to complain, the doors closed and the bus drove away. When a second bus arrived, she again tried to embark, but was stopped again, this time because the driver said he was Muslim.

Also in Britain, police sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at train stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers, following complaints that it was offensive to their religion.

A report for the Transport Department advised that the animals should only touch passengers' luggage because it is considered "more acceptable." British Transport Police still use sniffer dogs -- which are trained to detect explosives -- with any passengers regardless of faith, but handlers are now more aware of "cultural sensitivities."

Sniffer dogs used by police to search mosques and Muslim homes are now being fitted with leather bootees to cover their paws so that they do not cause offense.

Critics say the complaints are just another example of Muslims trying to force their rules and morals on British society. Tory MP Philip Davies said: "As far as I am concerned, everyone should be treated equally in the face of the law and we cannot have people of different religious groups laying the law down. I hope the police will go about their business as they would do normally."

Meanwhile, Muslim prisoners in Britain are being given fresh clothes and bedding after sniffer dogs search their cells.

The inmates say their bedclothes and prison uniforms must be changed according to Islamic law if they have come anywhere near dog saliva. Government rules mean prison wardens must hand out replacement sets after random drug searches to avoid religious discrimination claims.

The dogs have also been banned from touching copies of the Islamic holy book the Koran and other religious items. Prisoners are handed special bags to protect the articles.

In Scotland, the Tayside Police Department apologized for featuring a German shepherd puppy as part of a campaign to publicize its new non-emergency telephone number. The postcards are potentially offensive to the city's 3,000-strong Muslim community.

In Norway, Gry Berg, a blind woman, was denied entry into four taxis in the center of Oslo because she was accompanied by her guide dog.

In France, Marie Laforêt, one of the country's most well-known singers and actresses, appeared in a Paris courtroom in December to defend herself against charges that a job advertisement she placed discriminated against Muslims.

The 72-year-old Laforêt had placed an ad on an Internet website looking for someone to do some work on her terrace in 2009. She specified in the ad that "people with allergies or orthodox Muslims" should not apply "due to a small Chihuahua."

Laforêt claimed that she made the stipulation because she believed the Muslim faith saw dogs as unclean.

The case was taken up by an anti-discrimination group called the Movement against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (MRAP), which lodged a complaint against Laforêt.

Laforêt's lawyer said his client "knew that the presence of a dog could conflict with the religious convictions of orthodox Muslims. It was a sign of respect." But Muslims rejected her defense.

Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

WaPo: The True Conservative is Ron Paul

Monday, February 6, 2012
WaPo: The True Conservative is Ron Paul
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 11:20 AM

True conservatism goes back to the pre-William F. Buckley days, where conservatives believed in small government and staying out of the affairs of foreign countries. It's not quite libertarianism, but very close.

WaPo has a fascinating take today on this, though I doubt they truly understand what they have uncovered.

Let's start with an understanding of the Old Right

In 1994, Murray Rothbard explained the Old Right:

The original right of which I speak, and of which I am one of the few survivors, stretched from 1933 to its approximate death, or fading away, upon the advent ofNational Review in 1955. The Old Right began in 1933 in response to the coming of the New Deal. It was "reactionary" in the best and most generous sense: it was a horrified reaction against the Roosevelt Revolution, against the Great Leap Forward toward collectivism that enraptured socialist intellectuals and enraged those who were devoted to the institutions and the strict limitations on centralized government power that marked the Old Republic...

The Old, original, Right realized the horrors of the New Deal and predicted the collectivist road on which it was setting the nation. The Old Right was a coalition of ideologies and forces that did not have one single, common, positive program, but "negatively" it was solidly united: all opposed the New Deal and were committed to its total repeal and abolition – lock, stock, and barrel. The fact that its unity was "negative" did not make it any less strong or cohesive: for there was total agreement on rolling back this collective excrescence and on restoring the Old Republic, the true America...

The Old Right experienced one big sea change. Originally, its focus was purely domestic, since that was the concentration of the early New Deal. But as the Roosevelt administration moved toward world war in the late 1930s, the Old Right added intense opposition to the New Deal's war policies to its systemic opposition to the domestic New Deal revolution. For they realized that, as the libertarian Randolph Bourne had put it in opposing America's entry into World War I, "War is the health of the State" and that entry into large-scale war, especially for global and not national concerns, would plunge America into a permanent garrison state that would wreck American liberty and constitutional limits at home even as it extended the American imperium abroad. As anti-foreign interventionism was added to the anti-New Deal mix, the Old Right lost some adherents and gained even more. For Eastern Establishment anti-New Dealers, such as Lewis Douglas, William L. Clayton, Dean Acheson, and the Morgan Bank, embraced the entire New Deal package once it came wrapped in the enticing trappings of American Empire. On the other hand, antiwar progressives, originally New Dealers, men such as Senators William Borah and Gerald Nye, intellectuals and writers such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes, began to realize that there was something very wrong with a strong state that could expand into foreign adventures, and so they gradually became anti-New Dealers in every sense of the word.

World War II added foreign policy to the mix, so that by the end of the war, the Old Right was opposed to big government on every front, foreign and domestic. All parts of the right were opposed to global crusading, to what Clare Booth Luce wittily labeled "globaloney." They were opposed to what the former New Deal historian-turned-noninterventionist Charles A. Beard labeled the foreign policy of "perpetual war for perpetual peace."

This, of course, has to be contrasted with the current day neo-conservatives, or media conservatives. For these conservatives, it's all about more and more foreign entanglements. The more, the better. This is the exact opposite of the Old Right.

So when WaPo says that Ron Paul is the "true conservative", this is what they are saying: That most conservatives are not neo-cons and that they are anti-war, small government conservatives, that is, Old Right conservatives.

Here is Aaron Blake in WaPo this morning:

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are fighting for the right to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney.

But they both lost that battle in Nevada -- to Ron Paul.

Entrance polls from Saturday's Nevada caucuses show Romney racking up huge wins among the vast majority of demographics, which isn't surprising given that he took about 50 percent of the vote.

But the one demographic that is supposed to be Gingrich's and Santorum's bread and butter -- people looking for the "true conservative" in the race -- didn't go for either one of them.

Which begs the question: Just what is the argument for their candidacies right now?

The entrance polls show about one in five voters said the most important attribute they want to see in a candidate is that he is a "true conservative."

Among those voters, Romney took just 4 percent -- a showing that lends credence to the idea that there is room for a true conservative alternative.

But those voters didn't spurn Romney for Gingrich or Santorum; instead, they went for Paul, who won the demographic with about 40 percent.

Now, it's fair to point out that Nevada is one of the more libertarian states in the country, so it's not surprising that Nevada Republicans' idea of a "true conservative" might be different from other states.

But this is really a must-have demographic for Gingrich and Santorum, and the fact that neither of them tapped it is bad news for their campaigns and their cases for pressing forward.

Exit and entrance polls give voters four options for their top priority in picking a candidate -- that they can beat President Obama, that they have the right experience, that they have strong moral character and that they are the true conservative in the field.

With the exception of South Carolina, where Gingrich won, it has become clear that Romney is viewed as the candidate most prepared to beat Obama; he has won this demographic with huge majorities in every state except the one, and this is easily the most popular priority with GOP voters so far.

Romney has also shown himself to be strong enough in both of the other two most-important demographics: moral character and experience.

The "true conservative" vote, then, is really the only one where he is going to cede big votes. It's a necessary -- if not sufficient -- demographic for any would-be anti-Romney candidate.

But if a significant amount of these voters are going to Paul, then Gingrich and Santorum have no chance.

Whoa baby, the Old Right is alive and kicking, and WaPo has discovered it!

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/wapo-true-conservative-is-ron-paul.html

Clint Eastwood as Dumb Propagandist

Monday, February 6, 2012
Clint Eastwood as Dumb Propagandist
Posted by Robert Wenzel at 6:05 PM

Talking heads and bloggers are gaga over Clint Eastwood's Super Bowl commercial for Chrysler. Msnbc.com users even said it was the best of the the Super Bowl.

I think the ad was a pile of propaganda, with Eastwood likely too dumb to understand what it was about. Throw Eastwood in the Ronald Reagan category, prop either of them up and they will say anything, and look good saying it. But the deep underlying message is that we all "need to come together" to fix things. Bull.

The problem is not that America has been hit by some outside punch. America has been hit by massive government intervention that distorts the economy and creates massive business cycle waves.

What's really going on in America would be the same as if during the Super Bowl game between the Giants and the Patriots, the referees were changing the rules of the game, as it went along, to favor one team or the other, depending on who lobbied the referees the most.

We are not at some mythical "half-time in America", we are facing growing intervention and interference by government. It is suffocating the country. The solution is not to draw up some new half-time game plan, but to return to the plan that made America great. The of freedom, where regulations hardly existed and Americans minded their own business and, especially, stayed out of the affairs in foreign lands.

To the degree Detroit's auto industry is alive today, in the form it is, is because of a bailout that benefited the unions and cost taxpayers billions. There was nothing free market about it. It was both an absurd and appropriate place as a backdrop for Eastwood to give his confused soliloquy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGMOhOYvcw4&feature=player_embedded

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/clint-eastwood-as-dumb-propagandist.html

‘Jack in the Box’ introduces halal (Islamic)-approved bacon for Muslims

[[ www.marrybacon.com ]]

New post on Bare Naked Islam

'Jack in the Box' introduces halal (Islamic)-approved bacon for Muslims

by barenakedislam

It's a BACON MILKSHAKE and it's part of Jack in the Box's new 'Marry Bacon' campaign. Now Muslims can satisfy their burning desire for the forbidden bacon flavor and not have to worry about burning in Hell for it.

Muslims will be happy to learn that alas, the shake doesn't actually contain any real bacon meat. According to the fast food chain's website, it's made with "bacon flavored syrup." It packs a caloric punch, though — a regular 16-ounce size holds 773 calories and 40 grams of fat. A 24-ounce large one contains 1,081 calories and 54 grams of fat. Perfect for Muslim women in burqas who don't have to worry about how many calories they consume.