Zayed/Spencer Debate: Does Islam Guarantee Women Equality of Rights with Men?

There was a recent debate between the Imam Moustafa Zayed and Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch concerning the question of women having equal rights as men in Islam.  The following video is rather lengthy but a good source for information for those wanting to know more about the supposed "Religion of Peace" [sic].

Military Police in Civilian Life

Folks, this is kinda scary.  It seems that the Air Force lead a raid against a gun store today in search of "stolen material" that supposedly isn't related to weaponry.  Regardless of the reason, the military has no purpose what so ever of policing civilians.  The rule of law has been broken, and this worries me.  Is this just a "fluke" thing, or are we going to see more stuff like this in the future?

Las Vegas, NV (KTNV)- We're learning more on why the U.S. Air Force raided a local gun store Friday. They say it wasn't guns they were looking for.

An official from the Air Force is speaking to Action News about that raid. New information clarifies that this may have been an inside job, and the penalties could turn out to be very severe.

It was an afternoon that rocked businesses near Dean Martin and Flamingo. Local and federal law enforcement agencies swarmed in and served search warrants on Citadel Gun and Safe.

New information gives us an insight on the massive raid that up until now, authorities were tight lipped about. Turns out it was the Air Force Office of Special Investigations that led the raid.

"They went in there and did in fact find stolen air force military property that was stolen from Nellis Air Force Base," says Linda Card with the Air Force OSI.

Metro lent a hand as well as the FBI, ATF, and ICE. The recovered material though would not have posed a danger to regular people, says the Air Force.

"It did not include weapons, guns, explosives of any kind, bombs, nothing like that. It was basic stolen military property," says Card. Read it all

  It also worries me that a gun shop was involved.  We know how liberals feel about the 2nd amendment... was this part of a scare tactic?

Rick Perry's Islamic Ties

There have been some investigations lately into Gov. Rick Perry's ties and or lip service to Islamics.  I think these are issues worth looking into, considering that he may be the next president of the United States.  Do we want to put another man into office who won't take a serious look at Islamic terrorism?  Decide for yourself.

The first article is from Daniel Greenfield.  In it, he takes a serious look at Perry's relations with, among others, Mohamed Elibiary and Farouk Shami - both shady characters. The second is from Robert Spencer who looks at Perry's connections, among others, to Grover Norquist and Aga Khan - more shady characters. 

What I don't understand, is with all the evidence around us, why politicians pay lip service to Islamic personas who contradict our country's firm stance on freedom and liberty?

More Troubling Information Concerning Ron Paul

Russian network host boasts of 'money bomb' for Ron Paul

Yesterday we raised over $1 million for the campaign'
Posted: August 17, 2011
9:55 pm Eastern

By F. Michael Maloof
© 2011 WND


WASHINGTON – A commentator on Russia Today, a Russian government-funded television news network that now is known as RT, has boasted of a $1 million "money bomb" on behalf of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a candidate for the GOP's nomination to be president, raising a whole host of questions about just what has happened.

That's because while the commentator happens to be an American, and legally could donate to Paul's presidential campaign, foreign entities such as RT are prohibited.

For some reason, the mere thought of a Russian news station raising money for Ron Paul sends goose bumps up my back.

"I'd like to end tonight on a note of some good news," said Adam Kokesh, a former U.S. Marine who has a segment on RT called "Adam vs. The Man."

"We have some good news from the front lines of the Ron Paul 'LOVEaluation' with our money bomb on June 5.

"Yesterday we raised over $1 million for the Ron Paul campaign. And I'm starting to figure out what electable means, because electable or non-electable is really a code word for 'if this person wins, I'm not gonna be able to get as much money from the government,'" he said.

The comments came on his June 6 program on RT, which is a Russian state-funded, multilingual television news network that, in effect, has endorsed the candidacy of Paul.

Perhaps my unease comes from the fact that RT is tied to Russian intelligence.  Not only that, but the whole issue of legality comes into question.

But contributions from RT, which observers say is tied to Russia's intelligence services, would raise legal questions, given that the Russian media outlet is a foreign entity and, in effect, an instrument of the Russian government. Support for Paul from RT is due to the congressman's opposition to U.S. involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The revelation of RT backing for Paul occurred just after the Iowa Straw Poll on Aug. 12, which showed Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., as the winner with 4,823 or 28.6 percent of the vote. She was followed by Paul in an almost statistical dead heat for second place with 4,671 or 27.7 percent of the vote and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty coming in a distant third with 2,293, or 13.6 percent. He dropped out of the race the next day.

News outlets in the United States reported Bachmann's win but few reported on Paul's showing of being a close second to her.  Read It All

What I really want to know is, why is the Russian government pushing for the election of Ron Paul?  What is Paul's relationship with them?  Could it be because Paul has vowed to turn America into an isolationist nation, leaving Russia free to do with the world what it wants?

"Oh," you may be saying, "this is the new Russia.  The Cold War ended years ago! Russia is our ally!" If that's what you believe, then I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing...

Saul Alinsky's “Rules for Radicals” - An examination: Preface

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer (Alinsky)

In 1971, Saul Alinsky published his now infamous Rules for Radicals (RfR) with the intent of enabling the readers to change the world into what they want it to be – from a Communist and Socialist standpoint. Used as a guidebook, RfR laid down the war plans for the radical leftist assault on our political system.

Born in 1909 to Russian Jewish immigrants, Alinsky was a community organizer and writer. Attending school at the University of Chicago to learn the discipline of archeology, Alinsky soon realized that his particular skills were not widely needed in the private sector. Thus, he dropped out of grad school to accept a position as a criminologist with the state of Illinois. It was then that he began his efforts as a “community organizer,” spending nearly forty years working with the poor by organizing them for community action.

As a declared “champion” for the poor, Alinsky was highly effective in bringing Communist and Socialist ideas to those who felt slighted by the rich and/or their very nation. As such, he is often credited for the grassroots political organizing in the 1960s. In 1969, he was awarded the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award. Alinsky died of a heart attack at the age of 63 in 1972. (Wikipedia)

Some notable figures are connected with RfR in some manner, including Hillary Clinton who wrote her senior theses on Alinsky. (Hillary Clinton Quarterly)

Many of us have heard of Alinsky. Perhaps some of us have even come across quotes attributed to him. Yet, how many are intimately familiar with his works as a whole? Thus, it is my intent to examine RfR in its entirety and disseminate the information contained there-in. I feel that it behooves Conservatives and Independents alike to understand the “playbook” which many radicals adhere to. It is my belief that if such information was studied and disseminated during the 60s and 70s, many of the degradations of society that we are now witness to (up to and including Obama's failed presidency) would be greatly hindered – if not halted.

Preface

Alinsky begins by immediately naming the targets of what he calls, “The Revolutionary Force.” They are named as “[morality] and material.” Mentioning Marxism, Alinsky laments that those of his generation have not passed forward the “torch” of their movement, leaving many young people essentially clueless as to the actions required for the movement's success. He also makes an early mention of McCarthy and names his (McCarthy's) actions a “holocaust.” This may indeed be why Progresives of today posses an almost rabid hatred for the man – he almost succeeded in purging America of Communists and those who desired to twist and change what America was and is.

Alinsky also attempts to equate his movement to those of early Christians saying:

Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, “Burn the system down!” (pg. xii)

This is an attempt to give the “revolution” a moral equality to those of Christian movements. Yet further on in his prologue, Alinsky states the progressive line that morality itself is only determined in the viewpoint of the beholder. Thus, one can honestly conclude that the only reason Alisky mentioned Christianity in the first place was to gain a foothold in the conscience of one who may be initially wary.

As he continues, Alinsky attempts to make a case that today's youth have no leadership and no set of guidelines to help them change society. He mentions current movements of the day: hippies, conclaves, etc. and makes the obvious deduction that the youth are seeking a way of life.

When they talk of values they're asking for a reason. They are searching for an answer, at least for a time, to man's greatest question, “Why am I here? (pg. xvii)

He discusses the “generation gap” where according to him, it is the older generation which, while trying to understand youth, has pre-conceived notions which will not bend. “When you're older you'll understand” is a phrase he used more than once, yet his rhetoric makes that statement seem degrading. It is obvious to the studious reader that he is trying to erect a divide between the generations.

Alinsky then gives a glimpse into his system. According to him, to effect change, one must work from within the system – not outside.

As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be – it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working the system. (pg. xix)

As we examine the past forty years, that's exactly what we see. Socialists infiltrated all aspects of public life: schools and organizations (such as the Girl Scouts and unions), as well as local, state and federal governments. Using these positions of influence, the Socialists were able to brand their way of thinking on to youthful and innocent minds, corrupting them to the “cause.” This is one of the reasons why I believe that Obama was so easily elected. We had generations of people growing up who allowed Alinsky's followers to do their thinking for them. Thus, being brainwashed into seeing lies as truth, they elected a community organizer to the highest post in the nation. In fact, although we Conservatives look down our noses at those who hold the title of “community organizer,” to the brainwashed masses, it is a title of highest regard.

Alinsky continues:

It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be proceeded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without the supporting base of a popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics. (pg xxi)

To back up this statement, he refers to the American Revolution and the famous quote by John Adams wherein the change of hearts and minds was stated to be the back bone of the Revolution (and indeed it was).

As for how one is to grasp on to the hearts and minds, Alinsky states:

Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it's a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution. (pg. Xiii)

This brings to mind movements such as: “Save the Rainforest,” “Save the Whales,” “Save the Planet,” and etc. If one ever wondered why such “causes” are mainstream and the numbers of which are almost beyond count, now you know why. Succinctly, what Alinsky is saying is that one must first grab the attention of others through agreed upon causes, and then turn that into a political movement. Once you control the minds, anything is possible. After all, someone who wants to save the Earth from global warming must have the goodness of all humanity on his or her agenda. Right? This is, of course, flawed logic where the preposition itself is corrupt. However, there are millions of people who cannot, or will not, recognize this. Instead, they will allow themselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter.

Alinsky finishes his preface with praise for the democratic system and urges his readers to not give up. Almost slyly, he encourages people to “[hang] on to one of your most precious parts of youth – laughter.” He goes on encourage us all to continue in love and beauty, as well as the “ability to create.” (pg. xxvi). Nice words – sugar to sweeten the ears of those who unknowingly seek their own destruction.



Works Cited

Alinsky, Saul D. Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.

"Saul Alinsky." Wikipedia. Wikipedia. 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Aug. 2011.

Schaper, Donna, Rake Morgan and Fran Marafiote. Ed. Frank Marafiote. Hillary Clinton Quarterly. "Hillary Clinton's Senior Thesis About Radical Activist Saul Alinsy." Web. 18 Aug. 2011.