WHO warns that with new H5N1 bird flu cases reported in poultry in Egypt, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, the risk of bird flu and the H1N1 pandemic swine flu virus mixing was heightened.
WHO warns that with new H5N1 bird flu cases reported in poultry in Egypt, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, the risk of bird flu and the H1N1 pandemic swine flu virus mixing was heightened
Is the U.S. government still serious about protecting Americans from the extreme violence of Islamofascism – or isn't it?
What's going on here? Does the government really care about national security anymore?
More questions:
Why do you suppose, whenever there's a terror attack on American soil, the FBI always announces immediately – before it could possibly know – that the massacre is not terror-related?
Why do the media concoct the most moronic explanations for terrorism – such as Time magazine blaming post traumatic stress disorder for Hasan's Fort Hood rampage (even though he was never deployed in a war zone) or the Associated Press's revelation that the shooter was "lonely"? Or why did the press advance six different theories to explain the terror reign of Beltway sniper John Muhammad, but not one mentioned jihad as a possible motive?
Why does President Obama take every opportunity to criticize America and fawn over Islam – even calling America "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world" and bowing obsequiously before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia? Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, who demonizes pro-lifers and war veterans as Tim McVeigh wannabes, appoints to her advisory council Kareem Shora, national executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, whose officials have labeled deadly anti-U.S. jihadists as "heroes" and opposed referring to Hamas as a terrorist organization.
Regular Americans understand the Islamofascist war that's been declared on America. The government and media either don't – or won't.
|
The European Union has hailed the start of a new era after its Lisbon reform treaty went into force, carrying with it the bloc's hopes of becoming a stronger player on the world stage. The agreement, which aims to make EU decision-making smoother, has seen the creation of a long-term president and a powerful foreign policy chief. The start of the treaty was marked at an event in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital, with celebrations that included speeches, fireworks and music. Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Swedish prime minister whose country holds the rotating EU presidency until the end of the year, said: "A new era of European co-operation beings today ... today the EU is a force to be reckoned with, both economically and politically." Appointees criticised Briton Catherine Ashton will start work immediately as high representative for foreign affairs, while Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian prime minister, takes over as president of the Council of EU leaders on January 1. The EU has struggled to assert itself as emerging powers such as China become more influential following the global economic crisis. The impact of the changes under the treaty will not be felt overnight. Although the union is an important political and trading bloc representing nearly 500 million people, its leaders have often looked divided during the eight years it took to negotiate and ratify the treaty. They reached agreement on the appointment of Ashton and Van Rompuy only at the last minute last month. Critics say the choice of two leaders, who are little known even in the EU, raises questions about how the EU will raise its global profile. "I think it is good that the rest of the world reminds us that they would welcome some people with ideas and some drive," said Daniel Gros of the Centre for European Policy Studies. "Unfortunately it is not a widely felt view in the EU." New rules The treaty changes the rules on how decisions are reached by the EU because decision-making has become unwieldy since the accession of 10 countries, mostly from eastern and central Europe, in 2004 and two more in 2007. The agreement removes national vetoes in a number of areas, including emergency aid and tackling climate change, but unanimity will still be required in defence, social security, tax and foreign policy. "I'm delighted that we now have the right institutions to act and a period of stability, so that we can focus all our energy on delivering what matters to our citizens," said Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president. The commission said the EU would now focus on "managing a smooth exit from the economic and financial crisis," which opinion polls suggest is the main concern of voters, many of whom regard the bloc as out of touch with ordinary people. Central to economic recovery will be reducing member states' bloated budget deficits and deciding when to stop emergency financial measures that were used to prop up the economy. Gross domestic product is expected to rise by only about 0.7 per cent in 2010 and official data shows unemployment is expected to rise above 10 per cent in the 27-nation bloc.
On Sunday, Swiss voters supported a referendum proposal to ban the building of minarets in their country. Official results show more than 57 percent of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons - or provinces - voted in favor of the ban. Building more minarets - in addition to the four existing ones - was seen by many Swiss as a sign of Islamization of their free country. The government opposed the ban, saying it would harm Switzerland's image, particularly in the Muslim world.
Several points must be raised in relation to this issue:
1.Can Muslims blame the Swiss people for being afraid of Islamization in their country? No, especially while the entire world sees the inhumane applications of Islamic law (Shari'a) wherever it is implemented. It should come as no surprise that the Swiss people don't want a system that even today practices discrimination against women, gays and minorities in the name of religion. The vivid images of stoning women and hanging gays in the Muslim world should make any sane individual inclined not to allow such an intolerant system to grow in his country under the banner of freedom of religion.
2. The Swiss people who rejected building minarets may be sending a message that their tolerance did not change the Muslim world and is not reciprocated. For several decades Muslims have been allowed to build mosques in Europe, wear their traditional symbols such as the hijab, and preach Islam to non-Muslims. Despite such high levels of tolerance in the West, non-Muslims are not permitted to practice similar rights in several parts of the Islamic world. Preaching Christianity is criminalized in a number of Muslim countries. Furthermore, non-Muslims are not permitted to have their holy books or to build their religious temples in many Shari'a-controlled areas. This lack of reciprocity of Western tolerance will naturally make many Westerners feel that showing tolerance to Muslims is not effective.
3. It seems strange that Muslims would insist on building minarets for mosques in Switzerland while thousands of mosques exist inside the Muslim world without minarets. The minarets are seen by many as representing the superiority of Islam, especially when they are taller than the churches; this sheds some light on the hidden intentions of Muslims who insist on building minarets in the heart of Europe. It is important that Muslims in Switzerland explain why they insist on using such historical symbols of Muslim superiority when it is neither mentioned in the Koran nor considered vital to building a mosque.
4. It seems too hypocritical that Muslims demand minarets in Europe while many non-Muslims in the Muslim world are denied basic and fundamental religious rights.
The more important problem Muslims in Switzerland should address is the lack of basic religious rights for non-Muslim minorities, not these unnecessary minarets.
The writer is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri, who later became the second in command of al-Qaida. He is currently a senior fellow and chairman of the study of Islamic radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.
As "ClimateGate" continues to unfold, prominent scientists are finding the boldness to speak out.
ClimateGate refers to the e-mails and computer codes that were leaked from climate research centers in the United Kingdom. The e-mails and codes detail how temperature data and climate models were manipulated to show alleged "manmade global warming." (See earlier articles - Article 1 Article 2)
Former science advisor to Lady Margaret Thatcher, Lord Christopher Monckton, says he was attacked in some of the e-mails. He notes that another eminent professor of physics in the U.S., David Douglas, was also attacked. According to Monckton, he was contacted by Douglas and informed that conspirators had delayed publication of one of his papers that proved climate science was being overhyped.
Monckton explains: "The conspirators managed to get the publication of the hard copy of that paper delayed by one year so that they could have time to cobble together a basically fraudulent paper authored by the man who had rewritten the scientists' version of the 1995 U.N. report so that where the scientists had said, 'We can't see any human effect on the temperature,' this man Ben Santer turned it around and wrote the opposite and said, 'Well, in fact, there is a human effect from this' -- even though the scientists hadn't said that."
The former science advisor labels this clear evidence that there is interference at high levels in the editorship of the "learned journals" in which scientific research is published. Criminal charges are being pursued in this matter. Monckton adds that he is also in communication with members of both houses of Congress concerning the fraudulent activities uncovered in ClimateGate.