ISLAMIC DECEPTION IN LOWER MANHATTAN

Space Aliens are all Liberal CANADA FREE PRESS
By Judi McLeod Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Just as we were waiting for the carbon credit-crazed United Nations to tax the very air that we breathe, the UN is sending out tentacles to capture the Last Frontier.
Nothing, not even your kid’s kite or Aunt Patricia’s pumpkin pie cooling on the window ledge are safe from the UN.According to the New York Post, the largest bureaucracy on Algore’s Mother Earth has appointed an obscure Malaysian scientist as the Earth’s official alien-spacecraft greeter.Mazlan Othman is expected to announce her new role at a conference this week.They might be racking up unpaid parking tickets in the Big Apple and laying out the red carpet for terrorists like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at their endless assemblies, but they still have scads of time to take over space aliens—just in case they exist.For believers in space aliens who are not sure they bear us no ill will, it may be a little spooky letting UN Anybody do their talking for earthlings.One thing for certain, anyone coming in from outer space will be a global citizen as far as the UN is concerned. If unique and individual are being wiped out for average earthlings, why should ET get a pass on nationality? The continued search for extraterrestrial communication, by several entities, sustains the hope that someday humankind will receive signals from extraterrestrials, Dr. Othman said in a recording of a recent speech, reported by the Sunday Times of London.

When we do, we should have in place a coordinated response that takes into account all the sensitivities related to the subject. The UN is a ready-made mechanism for such coordination.In some peoples books, the UN is a ready-made mechanism for anywhere they smell the scent of money.Reminders of the UN’s greedy grasp on all things human strikes home this week as we travel through Nova Scotia. Historic Lunenburg Town, among others, has been declared a World Heritage Site by the UN. The good people of Lunenburg, arguably the most beautiful town anywhere on earth, was preserved by its own hard working people, including the fishermen.Why the UN was able to lay its greedy hands on the historic town is beyond belief.Has anyone noticed that a few former politicians like Canadian Defense Minister, Paul Hellyer, is interested in organizing the space aliens? Funny thing how every last one of the space-hunting politicos happens to be a Liberal.The Post reminds us that the last UN official picked as Earth’s official mouthpiece provoked controversy.In 1977, two Voyager spacecraft went into space with recordings that were meant to be a message from Earth to intelligent life in the galaxy. (New York Post, Sept. 26, 2010). The voice on the message, however, belonged to then UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim, who was later discovered to have been an enthusiastic member of the Nazi Party during World War 11.Meanwhile, the UN is bound to give new meaning to the ETs of extra terrestrials fame to better reflect how the United Nations really sees space aliens: To the UN, ET only means Extra Taxes.

Gladiator battle of the century – Obama and congress vs. The American People By Laurie Roth SEPT 30,10

The battle is on, the cameras and media whores offer their sold out close ups and distortions while the political blood flies. The strategies to win this all or nothing match are clear but who will win?Strategy for Obama and congress is most clear: Lie, seduce, play the race card, promise, call names, create crises, divert media attention and operate around the American people, rule of law and constitution. Do it in a fast and furious way so no one will have time to respond.

Obama battle gear:

Anti American CZARS

Obama rerouted the socialist transformation road around congress by assigning 32 czars into positions of regulatory and policy control, only answering to him not congress. It is most clear from Obama’s response the last two years to any criticism and challenges to his socialist change plans that he hates our constitution and any constraints to his view of power. There isn’t enough time to possibly overview all his czars but here are a just a few descriptions found on Glenn Becks site:Cass Sunstein – Regulatory Czar – Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the common good. Essentially against 1st amendment. Rules against personal freedoms many times – like private gun ownership and right to free speech.John Brennan – Terrorism Czar – Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama disband US military.John Holdren – Science Czar – Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, anti business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training.Obama’s czars all reflect radical, leftist ideology and anti Americanism. They naturally reflect his internationalist socialist change plans and assault on the US constitution.

Battle gear #2

Executive Orders

According to UPI.com White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel declares Obamas plans to use executive orders to make political progress and deal with what he sees as partisan gridlock regarding issues like energy and domestic policy. Emanual was recently quoted in UPI.com as saying: We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues.Obama has threatened not only to use executive orders to further his radical agenda, he is talking of using one for the highly controversial amnesty – dream act for illegal aliens. Watch out for executive orders and anything like it to try to cram through his domestic agenda, i.e. more abortion rights, gay rights, Islamic rights; his environmental agenda, cap and trade or whatever else he calls it then; and gun rights restrictions of some kind. Remember it didn’t take him but a few days to reverse Bush’s policy of not funding international abortions, thus we immediately started in paying for abortions around the world. This was when the American economy was already in recession mode and struggling.

Obama battle gear #3

Treaties

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Obama and his administration have used Treaties and international manipulation to bypass the American people as well. We saw Obama sign a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with Russia and hog tie America’s ability to protect herself and continue to lead with Nuclear development and weapons. The thing that killed me about this naive and beyond dangerous treaty was that it reflects Obama’s talk it out world view that doesn’t really believe in evil except of course for America’s evil. There is no sufficient way to verify other countries statements of lessoning or stopping nuclear development. He also stated that the US would not respond in kind if attacked with weapons of mass destruction.

Arms Treaty with Mexico

Obama is also trying to take more gun rights away through the back door of the out of control drug war in Mexico. The arms treaty he wants and the President of Mexico is pushing for has been languishing in a Senate committee for more than a decade. The bottom line with this treaty attempt is it would involve much stricter licensing rules, exports on guns and intrusive tracing requirements. It would simply be a dramatic shredding of our 2nd amendment rights and quickly catch up millions of innocent gun owners in the Treaty net of control.

Rights of the Child Treaty

Back in 1989 the UN adopted the Convention for the Rights of the Child which would end up micro managing the way kids are raised. Spanking would be outlawed and kids would basically get what they want. If Mom and Dad went to church on Sundays and required their rebellious daughter to go with them, that would be a big no no and violate the child’s rights. We saw Hillary and Obama jump all over this and totally support it. Forget, it takes a village to raise a child Hillary more like it takes the draconian UN with no interference from those pesky parents.Obama will continue to scheme and use Treaties, Executive orders and Czar regulations to bypass constitutional limits and accountability. I predict he will try and get more radical in all three areas as he loses control of the House and Senate in Mid Terms. The Lame Duck session will be an acting out sea of revenge by the liberals who will be defeated. Obama will just stretch and play with the law and constitution, bypassing what he can to assert socialist controls.We are so on to you Obama and progressive, traitorous liberals!!! Call your unemployment counselor.

Day care centers and sex offenders – all living together By Laurie Roth SEPT 28,10

My eyes are still rolling into the back of my head and my head is still shaking at the thought of what I heard this week on my national radio show. Danny Zanoza of http: www.rffm.org and Dave Smith, Director of Illinois Family Institute have discovered through there intense digging that in Illinois there are at least 90 licensed day care centers who have the same addresses as those who are listed on a sex offender registry. What!DHS is responsible for licensing these child chare facilities which are actual homes, where over 170,000 children are enrolled and where they provide day care for low income families. How nice, this part we like but due to whatever psychotic reason that exists, Zanoza and Smith have found that known sex offenders have the same exact addresses and are living in those specific homes.Apparently not every sex offender is a pedophile but certainly, breaking the law somehow in the area of sexual play and deviance is involved in their label so here is the obvious question. What parent in their right mind would ever want or allow their child to play and hang out all day in a home where a sex offender was living….of any kind??? Is the 18 year old living down the hall a ‘nice’ sex offender because he raped a 14 year old and not an 8 year old? Maybe another sex offender was having sex with his Grandma. Maybe that is ok with the kiddies down the hall.

For years in the news we have seen the fight and positioning of rights for sexual deviants, translation by Roth….perverts. A whole sea of state and federal laws already exist requiring everything form notification as to where the sex offender will live, to keeping them 1000 feet from schools. Going back to 1994 there was 42 USC 14071 et seq Act, which requires states to establish specific requirements for persons convicted of certain crimes against minors and convicted of sexually violent offenses. It they don’t they get a 10% reduction in their grant funding. Then in 1996, there came Megan’s law, offering more disclosure and registration for sex predators. This was followed by the Pam Lychner Act in 1996, and in 2000 Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Police and Campus Crime Act. These aren’t even all the federal acts and don’t even touch the huge amount of state laws trying to protect children and adults from sexual predators. With all this in place, how is it that sex offenders are sleeping anywhere near children and in the same house, no matter what type of sex offender they are??? I can only imagine if this living combo of kiddies and perverts is common in Illinois, are we talking a national epidemic where states are just sticking sex offenders where ever they can plant them? I think 1000% yes. It is vividly apparent and horrifyingly obvious that the rights and safety of children are less then nothing! It is only about the rights of the sex pervert and the obvious and deadly path officials take when facing budget crunches. I can only imagine the excuse for such a costly, if not deadly mistake……we don’t have places to put the sex offenders so we have to put them there these aren’t dangerous sex offenders adults are in the building. I can’t even begin to imagine what kind of idiot mind would dream, for any reason to put any kind, shape or flavor of sexual offender near children for any reason.

Now, the final straw that broke the camels back was that Zanosa and Smith said that this wasn’t being covered on major Illinois news, headline shows, Fox or other large radio shows. Apparently, putting thousands of children at risk for rape and death is not news anymore. Who cares about the kiddies, they are from poor areas anyway. After all, we all pay for murderous abortions now, so we might as well destroy the innocence and futures of those pesky, expensive, small kids in day care.
It is beyond shameful that this has happened. Heads should and must roll in Illinois with DHS and anyone who made this decision! Radio, TV and all media, state and federal that refuses to get this out there and create noise with an issue this horrifying might as well be branded sexual predators themselves.

Video of Mumbai: 26 November 2008 (Warning-graphic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHdpn0EEe0k&feature=player_embedded
Warning for Muslim terror attack – Mumbai style
By: Douglas J. Hagmann

29 September 2010: The intelligence has been increasing since early this year: Islamic terrorists are preparing commando style assaults against soft targets in the U.S., France, Germany and the UK. Crowded areas including shopping centers, transit hubs, community and conference centers, hotels, and similar locations are the targets of young, well armed Islamic terrorists.The Northeast Intelligence Network first reported on this threat on 14 June 2010 for the UK.We also had specific information that a Mumbai style terror attack was being planned against Jewish Centers in the U.S., as we first reported on June 5, 2010.What you won’t hear in the Western media, however, is that the perpetrators of these attacks, although many trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan, have operational assets here in the U.S. Many of the supporters of these urban commandos have support in U.S. mosques and Islamic centers. We reported extensively on the Muslim mosques serving as planning centers on 29 October 2009:We’re talking about professional Muslim men, mosque leaders, leaders within our communities who are actually helping young men train for the eventuality of urban combat. They know what they are doing, yet they lie right to our faces about these activities- and we’re told by our supervisors that we have to accept what they tell us at face value when they know damn well they are lying. -Federal source, speaking on condition of anonymity
From 2007:

Jihad coming to the streets of America; We’re going to war
Eight Muslim men in St. Louis charged with buying automatic weapons and explosives We’re going to war–Thaer Abde SUMAD, defendantBy Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

3 May 2007: The Northeast Intelligence Network has reported extensively about Muslim men inside the U.S., adhering to the Islamist ideology of jihad, preparing for war on the streets of America. The insider reports are very troubling and are purposely being downplayed by official sources and go largely unreported in the media. One case, however, can serve as an example of what is taking place all across the U.S. involving the procurement and disbursement of weapons to Muslim jihadists. On Tuesday, May 2, 2007, a federal indictment was unsealed in the U.S. federal court in St. Louis naming eight Islamic men as defendants in a case involving the buying, selling or hiding of automatic weapons, an anti-personnel mine and other explosives. (Full report)
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/2418

RELATED:

Terror plot against Britain thwarted by drone strike
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8031570/Terror-plot-against-Britain-thwarted-by-drone-strike.html

Officials intercept terror plot at Eiffel Tower
http://www.policeone.com/pc_print.asp?vid=2720232

Al-Qaeda terror plot targeting Europe uncovered
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11432849?print=true

Islamic deception in lower Manhattan
By Doug Hagmann
http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933

25 September 2010: At the direction of some of the principal planners of the Islamic cultural center at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan, Muslims from across the five boroughs of New York and New Jersey are quietly being urged to attend Friday prayer services that are being held at the former Burlington retail store on Park Place. This is being done to deceptively inflate Muslim demographics in lower Manhattan while creating a misleading but convincingly effective visual display of the need for the center.This tactic is currently being used in Paris, as shown in this CBN video report. An undercover French videographer captured covert video footage of Muslims lining the streets of Paris, blocking and closing off the streets as a display of their power and influence. According to his observations, the Muslims engaged in these activities are not indigenous to the area. He has observed vehicles filled with Muslims coming from different parts of the city to purposely swell the numbers.

During the course of my investigation, I interviewed a long-time business owner located in close proximity to the planned Islamic center on Park Place. He told me that ever since the opposition to the Islamic center became public, the numbers of prayer participants at the intended site has increased dramatically. A year ago, there was hardly any foot traffic to and from [Park Place]. Within the last few months, I’ve seen cars and other vehicles with out of state license plates parking at various lots and the men walking to Park Place. A lot of the cars have New Jersey license plates. In consideration of his business and fearing for his safety, he has requested that his name and address not be published.As part of my continuing investigation into this matter, I’ve personally verified his claims. I’ve conducted surveillance of Park Place and the adjacent areas on different occasions, observing numerous vehicles bearing license plates from New Jersey and even Pennsylvania parking in nearby lots. I’ve observed the occupants walk to the Park Place location, and following the services inside, walk back to their vehicles and leave the area.

Also according to this source, the mood among the Muslims participating in the Friday services has changed dramatically within the last several weeks. Last year, I would talk to three, maybe four Muslims, at most, after Friday prayers. They were quite reserved. Now, I see dozens of Muslims in groups and their mood, attitude, behavior and conversation is anything but reserved. It is contentious. They appear to be activists on a mission, he stated.Meanwhile, there are those who continue to assert that the proposed victory mosque is neither a mosque nor located at Ground Zero.They also cite the existence of a simple, chapel like prayer room from Muslims that existed within one of the World Trade Center towers well before the attacks on 9/11 in their argument favoring construction. They are technically correct on both counts, but like the visual display of Muslim demographics in lower Manhattan, their assertions are deceptive and disingenuous at best.

To help illustrate that the planned mosque need not be situated within the footprint of the former World Trade Center to be considered Ground Zero, I created the following graphic to offer a reasonable perspective that its location is well within the area of destruction and death caused by Muslim terrorists. Using a declassified military aerial photograph of the area, the planned Muslim construction is shown by an Islamic graphic inserted over 45-51 Park Place. The inset at the lower left shows the debris cloud encompassing the area well beyond the propped construction site as well.In this general area, 2,752 innocent victims were murdered. To date, authorities recovered 21,812 remains of bodies and body parts from the carnage inflicted, some as close as 348 feet from the proposed Islamic center. Although it is not widely publicized, artifacts are still being found in lower Manhattan.
Semantics and technicalities aside, I’m convinced that anyone present at 45-51 Park Place on the morning of 9/11 would rightfully assert they were at Ground Zero that day.We must not allow what is seen as an iconic symbol of Muslim conquest in the eyes of our enemies to be built as a result of deception, semantics or technicalities. We must not allow it to built – period.

Crime & Punishment in Islamic Law CANADA FREE PRESS
By Kelly O'Connell Sunday, September 26, 2010

This article examines classic Islamic law, the Shari’ah, regarding crime and punishment. Recently, the Ground Zero Imam Egyptian Feisal Abdul Rauf claimed Muslim and American law were essentially the same. He said, What’s right with America and what’s right with Islam are, in fact, very much in sync…I call America a Sharia compliant state.But what would being a Shari’ah compliant state really mean? To understand this, we need to study the details of Shari’ah law. One way to better understand Muslim Shari’ah law, is by taking a particular sub-category, such as crime and punishment, to see how Islam treats these topics. While analyzing this issue, the reader will undoubtedly begin to realize Shari’ah and American law are not so similar, and that perhaps Rauf is wildly bluffing (or something else). He claims American law is similar to Muslim because they are both from God, while ignoring the fact mankind has created many Gods over millenniums, each mostly opposed to the rest.Of course, Islamic views of crime and punishment have shifted occasionally over the centuries, and the Shari’ah varies between regimes and Muslim schools. This essay gives a general picture of the Shari’ah on these topics.

I General Introduction to Islamic Shari’ah Law
The foundation of Islamic Shari’ah law is the Qur’an; combined with the Sunna, or the Prophet’s model behavior; the consensus of the four schools (Ijma), and analogical reasoning (Qiyas), according to Shari’ah: The Islamic Law by Abdur Rahman I. Doi. These sources are considered divine.The Qur’an is believed to have co-existed with God Himself in a heavenly book, known as the Mother Book written in Arabic from all eternity,[a] writes David Forte in Studies in Islamic Law; Classical & Contemporary Application.The Shari’ah seamlessly combines public, private and religious law, featuring elements of ancient codes, such as revenge. For instance, at a public execution for a crime against a person, the victim will normally be present in the crowd, viewing the impending death. The punishment is owned by the victim or their kin, and only they can stop the killing from taking place, normally by acceptance of blood-money (diya).

II General Description of Shari’ah Criminal Law
To Western eyes, the Shari’ah presents a disorganized and incomplete description of Criminal Law. According to Joseph Schacht, in Introduction to Islamic Law,There exists no general concept of penal law in Islam. The concepts of guilt and criminal responsibility are little developed, that of mitigating circumstances does not exist; any theory of attempt, complicity, of concurrence is lacking. On the other hand, the theory of punishments, with its distinction of private vengeance, hadd punishments, ta’zir, and coercive and preventative measures, shows a considerable variety of ideas.As Forte points out, one cannot actually say there is a modern Muslim penal code, writing, Islamic law does not possess a concept of penal law comparable to that of modern systems. Instead, it categorizes its offenses by the types of punishment they engender.Therefore, in terms of punishments, there are five basic categories. Behavior with a specifically prescribed punishment is under hadd. Discretionary punishment for various acts are under ta’zir, where the judge sets whatever penalty he chooses. Personal revenge, where retaliation or blood-money (diya) is applicable, is under jinayat. Offense against the state receive administrative penalties, or siyasa. And crimes where the appropriate, or chosen response, is personal religious penance, are under kaffara.

III Criminal Procedure
Shari’ah legal procedure is a somewhat counter-intuitive process. Rules for choosing the proper court and applying correct procedures, essential for American Due Process, are virtually non-existent in Islamic law. Rudolph Peters writes in Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law,There are very few general principles in Islamic criminal law. The classical books of fiqh do not contain chapters dealing with general notions or rules. Those that exist are either mentioned in each chapter devoted to a specific crime or they must be found by deduction.The most important local players in the Muslim legal system are the judge (qadi), the police (shurta), and the Islamic inspector of the market” (muhtasib), says Schacht. The latter is an official who made sure weights and measures were accurate, but also became a keeper of public morality and justice, including overseeing the police force. The muhtasib controls the system, but the qadi is independent in his decisions. Yet, the state at the highest levels may legally intervene at any time and make political decisions involving the accused which completely derail justice.Police may beat suspects, not to extract a confession, but merely remind the accused his duty to be truthful, according to There was no office of public prosecution under classic Shari’ah doctrine, although the muhtasib occasionally came to fill this roll as defender of public morals. Most cases were launched by private prosecutions from victims. Only verbal testimony (shahada) is considered evidence, with exceptions made for proof made by smell of alcohol for drunkenness or pregnancy indicating illicit sexual activity. Written documents are merely allowed as memory aids.

IV Muslim Criminal Law Theory
A quintessentially religious law, Shari’ah has set penalties, known as hadd—called exemplary punishments (Qur’an 5:38). These are performed in public to remind residents the wages of evil. Retribution is an important part of Muslim punishments, using the standard of Lex Talionis, ie eye for an eye, to measure punishment. For example, the murderer should be executed in the same manner his or her victim was dispatched. The Discretionary Punishments (ta’zir) are especially meant to return offenders to the gilded path of Allah.

V Specific Religious Crimes & Punishment Under Islamic Law
The state is generally responsible for criminal punishment, with a few exceptions, writes Peters. The prosecuting next of kin are allowed to personally deliver the death sentence in the case of murder. Also, a slave should be punished by their master, with the exception of amputations, which state executioners enforce. All criminal sentences are to be carried out immediately upon pronouncement, unless a compelling reason exists not do so.Were an offender to commit several different crimes which cannot be punished at once, a weight-list is used to decide which comes first. Writes Peters,If a person, having committed several crimes, is sentenced to a number of different penalties, each of them must be carried out. If this is physically impossible, the authorities must first execute those sentences that are founded on the claims of men and then those resulting from the claims of God…If a person has been sentenced to the removal of his eye by way of retaliation, to eighty lashes for slander, to a hundred lashes for unlawful intercourse and to the amputation of the right hand, the head of state or his agent must first carry out the gouging out of the eye because that is the claim of a man, then imprison him until the wound has healed, then carry out the punishment for calumny, etc…

A. Hudud Religious Punishments
Forte describes the religious Hadd crimes, writing Islamic law denotes five Quranic offenses which are regarded as offenses directly against Allah and which compel specific punishment. These crimes are Unlawful Intercourse (Zina), False Accusation of Unlawful Intercourse (Kadhf); Drinking of Wine (Shurb); Theft (Sariq), and Highway Robbery (Qat’ Al-Tariq).

1. Unlawful Intercourse—Zina: This occurs when a person has sexual relations with anyone not their spouse, nor a concubine (Shari’ah accepts sexual slavery). Technically, adultery is not a crime as no woman has exclusive rights to her husband, and the husband has no exclusive bond with his wife, despite this being an offense against Allah. The crime of Zina can also occur if a man takes and sleeps with a fifth wife while the four previous yet live, weds a close relative or girl before she undergoes puberty, or commits necrophilia, writes Forte.Proof of Zina must be provided by four adult Muslim males or a confession. The crime should have occurred within the last 30 days. On a discrepancy of testimony, of even a technical irregularity, the four can then receive the punishment for Zina themselves. Peters explains that if a man has sex with a slave not his, he owes her master a fine. A woman who reports a rape but cannot prove it occurred via four witnesses can then be prosecuted for Zina with her unproved accusation acting as a confession.

Zina Penalty:
The punishment here can be stoning, lashing, or both, depending upon the school. A stoning should only be applied to one convicted of unlawful intercourse, who is mentally competent, is a free person, and has already experienced lawful sexual relations in a marriage. For all others, it is either one 100 lashes for a free person, or 50 for a slave. All homosexual relations fulfill the Zina requirements, although the penalty is simply death instead of whipping, according to Peters.

2. False Accusation of Unlawful Intercourse—Kadhf: This occurs when a competent adult slanders another competent adult, who is a free Muslim, with false charges of Zina. Claiming someone is illegitimate also qualifies. Proof for this occurs via normal Islamic means, using oaths of witnesses, or by confession. Under a special rule, a husband may charge his wife with infidelity without risk if he uses the li’an procedure, which Forte describes as ...if he swears four times by Allah that he is speaking the truth and, at a fifth oath, calls down a curse upon himself if he is lying.The woman, as a defense, may repeat the exact procedure. If either one refuses the li’an, they are considered guilty, ipso facto, and receive the lashes.

Kadhf Penalty: The punishment for kadhf is 80 lashes for a freeman, or 40 for a slave.

3. Drinking of Wine—Shurb: Alcohol was not originally illegal but became so after Muhammad was appalled at the drunkenness of Arab society. The law also applies to any other intoxicant or drug. Proof can be provided by a confession, which can then be withdrawn at any time without penalty. Or witnesses can attest seeing the accused drinking, smelled alcohol on his breath, or observed him soused.

Shurb Penalty: The penalty for intoxicant imbibing is 20-40 lashes.

4. Theft—Sariq: This must be a crime of theft involving removal by stealth of an item owned by another of at least a certain value, kept in a locked area or under guard (hirz), says Peters. For example, removal of a gold coin stored in an animal stable would not qualify. This crime should be prosecuted by the government.

Sariq Penalty: Amputation of the right hand, as based upon Qur’an 5:38; although the Shiites allow just four fingers of the hand amputated, according to Peters. A second, third and fourth conviction can remove all such appendages.

5. Highway Robbery—Qat’ Al-Tariq: The Arabs considered this the most serious kind of crime as it threatens the calm and order of all society, according to Forte. Two types of evil are covered here. The first is robbing travelers from distant places; whereas the second is armed assault into a private home. Even non-Muslims are protected under this law. There must be at least a holdup which occurs outside the city for the penalty to apply to banditry, states Peters. The perpetrator must be of superior force to the victim, and so women do not qualify.

Qat’ Al-Tariq Penalty: The first conviction for this offense merits the amputation of the right hand and left foot of the wrong-doer, although some schools allow a simple deportation if no harm occurs. The second results in amputation of the left hand and right foot.

Says the Qur’an at 5:33,

The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

VI. Other Shari’ah Crimes, Punishment, & Blood Money
A. Ta’zir Penalties
Discretionary penalties, or Ta’zir, are punishments delivered at the qadi’s subjective decision. The purpose is to punish acts against man and God, and sometimes includes reparation and repentance, writes Forte. These punishment vary in severity:

1.Private admonition to the guilty party, sometimes by letter;
2.Public reprimand in court;
3.Public proclamation of the offender’s guilt;
4.Suspended sentence;
5.Banishment;
6.Flogging;
7.Imprisonment;
8.Death.
Forte says many crimes are covered by Ta’zir that for some reason have eluded Hadd penalties, such as apostasy (ridda —although some schools consider this hadd), wine selling, homosexual activity, bodily harm or murder, bestiality, perjury, slander and usury.

B. Fines & Blood Money
Fines are paid to the state, whereas blood-money (diya) goes to a victim or kin, based upon his blood-status. Bloodprice is the victim’s worth, only calculable against that of the accused, which controls the punishment. A person cannot receive retaliation for killing a person of a lower bloodprice. For example, a Muslim cannot be executed for murdering a slave or member of the protected classes, being Christians or Jews, deemed dhimmis, i.e. the People of the Book (Bible).

C. Public Scorn, Imprisonment & Banishment
A common punishment is public exposure to scorn (tashir). Achieved by shaving the culprit’s head, or covering his face with soot (especially for false witnesses) and parading him sitting backwards on an donkey, through the community, with a town-crier announcing his sins. Banishment (nafy, taghrib) is associated with two crimes—simple banditry and illegal sex. If a woman is banished for being sexually immoral, a male relative must travel with her to make sure she stays chaste. Imprisonment (habs) is not normally used for penal law, but as a means to encourage debtors to pay.

D. Retaliation
Retaliation for injuries (qisas ma dun al-nafs) comes as Lex Talionis, eye-for-eye punishment in the form of amputations, blinding, and infliction of wounds the victim received. A recent Saudi case involved a man sentenced to judicial paralysis for severing the spinal cord of another. This should not be done till the victim has healed, in case he dies.

E. Theft & Amputation
Muhammad probably borrowed amputation (qat) for theft from the pagan Quaraysh tribe, who inflicted this punishment on rival tribesmen caught stealing, says Forte. While Muslim jurists claim amputation is to prevent recidivism, it more likely originated as judicial revenge. The hand is removed at the wrist, the stump cauterized in boiling oil, at the criminal’s expense, and the hand can be hung around the thief’s neck for three days. Cross-amputation (al-qat min-khilaf) is a punishment for brigands, ie highway robbers.

F. Flogging (Jald)
Flogging by leather whip is a very common punishment under the Shari’ah. The executioner administers this penalty, but should not raise the whip arm above the shoulder. The more serious a crime, the harder the executioner should flog the criminal. For example, one convicted of illegal sex should be beaten more severely than one guilty of drinking alcohol. Men are whipped standing, women seated. Men are stripped to the waist, while women are allowed to keep on clothes. As advised in Qur’an 24:2, the punishment should be public. The blows are to be spread over the body, except for dangerous places, like the head or genitals, as the purpose for whipping is not death.

G. Executions: Beheading, Stoning & Other Means
There are many ways to execute a criminal under Shari’ah. Typically, the mode of execution is beheading by sword, as done at famed Chop-Chop Square in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. But the crime defines the manner. For example, homosexuals are executed in typically dramatic fashion, by stoning, beheading, thrown from a high wall or building, hanging, immolated by fire, or buried alive (despite male homosexuality reportedly being rampant in the Middle East, according to Raphael Patai’s Arab Mind).

Execution may be used as retaliation, done by the kin of the victim, according to Qur’an 16:126 & 2:194, which calls for the murderer to be executed in the same manner as he killed his victims. Only if this would result in extended torture will the sword be substituted. The Government will inspect the proposed execution weapon and decide if the person can handle it properly. If not, then a substitute executioner will be arranged.

Death by Stoning (Rajm), or lapidation, is delivered by a crowd with the ultimate intent of killing the victim, writes Peters. The stones used should neither be too large, which would kill the criminal too quickly, nor too small, which would delay the job. The proper size is a stone which fills the hand. Women are to be dug into the earth up to their waists before the event. If the conviction is based upon accusations, the accusers are the first to throw. If the conviction is based upon a confession, the state representative is first to toss.

For Highway Robbery (Qat’ Al-Tariq), if a killing resulted during an attempted robbery, the punishment is beheading by sword. If a murder occurred during an actual theft, the punishment is execution by crucifixion (salb), the body left dying three days. Unlike a normal murder, the family of the victim cannot choose blood-money (diya) instead of execution.

Apostates may renounce Islam by word or deed, including rejecting axiomatic articles of faith, like denying Muhammad’s mission, fasting, or disrespecting the Qur’an. The apostate (ridda) is given three days to reflect, then put to death. Some schools only execute men, whereas the women are kept alive but flogged during the hours of prayer, according to Peters. Frank Vogel, in Islamic Law & Legal System: Studies of Saudi Arabia states that apostates are beheaded in Saudi Arabia before huge crowds on Friday afternoons, in the public square, directly after prayer time has ceased.

Dhimmis, as Christians and Jews, have no inherent rights or status under the Shari’ah, being harbis, or enemy aliens, naturally at war with Islam. It is only by way of the jizyah, or yearly treaty of war tax, that these can qualify for temporary protection. Should a dhimmi lapse in protection, they can be killed on the spot and their property taken without recompense, according to Schacht. Further, any persons not Muslim or dhimmi are considered pagans and are to be instantly killed under classical shari’ah doctrine.

Conclusion
Even the simplest person can deduce that classical Islamic Shari’ah law cannot possibly fit into the modern world anywhere on the globe. But it is especially impossible to apply this system in America, the land that created modern religious freedom, and let millions escape oppression. Most alarming, the Islamic law does not change to fit into other cultures, but is always offered as a perfect gift, delivered at the edge of a sword.Is it not the most obvious fact imaginable that American law is a thousand times fairer and safer than Shar’iah? Therefore, what kind of a mentality would want to force so much injustice, punishment and destruction upon the American people—in the name of God &¬† the Religion of Peace? That Rauf claims this antiquated, unsophisticated and brutal legal system agrees with American law and society says much more about his intentions for his Ground Zero mosque than it does any other topic he will ever discuss.

[a]This idea cannot help but evoke John’s description of the pre-incarnate Christic Logos (Word), In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him… (John 1:1; 18). Undoubtedly, such imagery influenced Muhammad’s fertile imagination when rendering the Qur’an.

Climate Research Has Been Hampered by the IPCC and Governments for over Twenty Years By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, September 30, 2010-CANADA FREE PRESS
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28222

Politicizing of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and governments directed it to proving that only human CO2 was causing climate change. This ensured almost no advance in climate science in 20 years. It is said, inaccurately, that the science is settled. It is accurate to say the IPCC and governments settled the science.Three scientists from the beginning of the 20th century had a profound impact on our view and understanding of the world and climate, yet are virtually unknown. They knew each other well; one was related by marriage to another. They worked together and the connections influenced their contributions to a global view and understanding of climate change. Vladimir Koppen produced a global climate classification that is the basis of most systems since. His training combined meteorology, climatology and botany and his system used plants as an indicator of climate. Koppen’s daughter married the second scientist, Alfred Wegener. His contribution was the continental drift theory that provided a fundamental foundation for geology. The third was Milutin Milankovitch, Serbian mathematician and climatologist, whose work combined the effect of changes in Sun/Earth relationships on climate change.All three saw their ideas challenged in the appropriate scientific way, but have withstood attempts to disprove them. Despite this, the public is generally unaware of their work and its implications. They challenged prevailing views, which always creates a struggle. They also challenged the underlying view of uniformitarianism, the western scientific idea that change is gradual over long periods of time. A common denominator for all their ideas was lack of a mechanism that drove the discernible patterns and evidence.

Alfred Wegener
As early as 1620, Frances Bacon noticed the similarity between the coastlines on each side of the Atlantic. Wegener applied the idea to all the continents and showed how they fit together as a single continent he called Pangea. He hypothesized they began to separate about 300 million years ago, first dividing into two continents he called Gondwanaland and Laurasia. These continue to separate and define the areas of earthquakes, volcanoes and other features that cause catastrophic events. The idea that continents could move was incomprehensible. It wasn’t until the 1960s that Vine and Mathews identified the mechanism of convective cells within the mantle. They drive the crust to converge and diverge creating all the major features on Earth. Continental Drift is now a fully accepted theory that is the basis of geology. One aspect of continental drift that received attention in Hubert Lamb’s 1977 masterpiece Climate: Present, Past and Future, (Volume 2) is the effect of different land/ocean patterns on climate. This can include even relatively small but critical changes. For example, consider the different ocean circulation before the closing of the gap between North and South America.

Milutin Milankovitch
Early studies by geologists and glaciologists attempted to find a climate mechanism to explain the evidence of massive ice sheets during the recent Ice Age. Louis Agassiz identified the existence and extent of the ice sheets in Europe as early as 1837, but it wasn’t generally accepted until the 1860s. There were many theories. One that endured was Joseph Adhemar’s proposal that the likely cause was changes in the earth’s solar orbit. James Croll was the major contributor to the orbital variation idea and calculated orbital eccentricity for different latitudes over 3 million years, published in 1867. Milankovitch spent years combining changes in the sun/earth relationships including changes in orbit, tilt and date of equinox. He wanted to find the mechanism primarily responsible for climate change. Prior to computers he calculated variations in solar energy received at every five degrees of latitude over 650,000 years. He published them in 1920 as, Mathematical Theory of Heat Phenomenon Produced by Solar Radiation. His work caught the attention of Koppen who sent him a postcard. It said he was working with his son-in-law Alfred Wegener on a book about past climates and they were very excited by the mechanism Milankovitch proposed. In 1924 he published, with Koppen, the now classic graph of variation in summer radiation for 65°N that identified the correlation with Ice Ages (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Intensity of radiation curve for 65°N. Ice Ages names are for Europe.
Source: Imbrie and Imbrie, 1979, Ice Ages: Solving the Mystery.

Milankovitch acknowledged that without Koppen’s input from his extensive understanding of global climate patterns he would not have identified that summer temperatures at 65°N were the critical issue.Milankovitch’s theory was initially accepted as a plausible answer to the major fluctuations and triggered research in the 1950s. Then it was pushed aside because it showed glaciers in a part of Alaska that the new technique of radiocarbon dating indicated were forested. It turned out the radiocarbon was wrong because it assumed constant solar energy. A reference to Milankovitch was immediately challenged. It wasn’t until the 1980s that a reference to his work went unchallenged. The amazing thing is most still don’t know that Earth’s orbit changes significantly because of the gravitational pull of the planets, especially Jupiter. They still don’t know the earth tilt swings between 21.8° and 24.4° or that the date on which critical events, Equinox and Solstices, are constantly changing.At a presentation at the University of Victoria I stated that the IPCC computer models do not include the Milankovitch Effect. A person challenged this and said the models do include it. He was confused because some models do include it, but not those used by the IPCC. On a radio program Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the computer model chapters in the IPCC Science Report called and said it was not included because it was insignificant on a short time scale. Figure 2 shows a plot of variations in the amount of solar radiation at 65° north for a period of 1 million years.

Figure 2: Variations in the amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation) at 65°N.
Source: BERGER, A. 1978. Long-term variations of daily insolation and quaternary climatic changes. J. Atmos. Sci. 35: 2362–2367.Range of variation is approximately 100 watts per square meter, which far exceeds the 2 watts per square meter the IPCC attributes to humans.

Vladimir Koppen
Koppen’s work is least known or acknowledged even in science yet it holds potential for understanding climate and climate change. It is more important than the IPCC and most climate research because it recognizes the importance of water in all its forms.Koppen, Wegener, and Milankovitch did more to help us understand the world and its dynamic systems than most, yet they’re virtually unknown. Some blame lies with the education system used to indoctrinate and keep people ill informed or misinformed. It’s the only explanation for continued teaching of a fixed pattern of sun/earth relationships when science knew 100 years ago how much it changed? However, the biggest hindrance since its inception in 1988 is the IPCC and governments who accepted their findings. They reinforced them by funding only research that proved their views. They settled the science.

Greenism By Barry Napier Thursday, September 30, 2010

In Canada Free Press I give many examples, in a variety of articles, of the myriad falsities inherent in the green movement. Sometimes, falsity can be accepted as a side-effect of stupidity, but not in this case. The green movement is the province of intelligent middle classes. So, why is it that these people come out with such nonsense? It’s because their intellect doesn’t match their intelligence, making them accept emotionalism rather than truth. In other words, they are prejudiced against reality.One of the most recent pro-green articles by foolish people was, to my surprise, in MENSA magazine (October 2010), written by a newly-degreed fellow reading geology. Way back over 40 years ago I thought of joining MENSA, but then, as today, I cannot think of a benefit. And, now I have read the article, I can see that intelligence is no defence against propaganda and fakery. The article itself is not worthy of inclusion in a journal for people with high intelligence… it is just a collection of the usual propaganda, all hot air and no reason. I do not doubt the author’s intelligence, only his ignorance riding on the back of vanity.

If The First Statement is a Lie…
In law, it does not matter how often an item (usually a car) is sold on, if the item was stolen in the first place, every transaction thereafter is illegal and those who foolishly buy without checking will lose their money. The same applies to intellectual activity – if the first claim, statement, or theory is wrong, it does not matter how many people repeat it, it will still be wrong.In my AIDS research I discovered a shocking fact - that all doctors took their information about HIV and AIDS from a very small source… mostly from homosexual groups and those influenced by them, including the Department of Health! Therefore, said the doctor who verified this fact, every doctor and health professional took in the same errors and deceptions, and so were all equally duped by error! And so AIDS is now rampant, as is the behaviour that leads to it. Those we hope are experts are, then, nothing of the sort… they are as prone to being deceived as everyone else. And it is the public that suffers, as lie after lie is passed around, masquerading as truth and medical fact.In the same way, everyone involved in the green movement, or with sympathy for it, take their supposed facts from the same small number of sources. Most do not even know what the original sources are. The result is a widely brainwashed population led by similarly brainwashed experts. They ignore any other information, usually referring to it as bigotry, even though they do not examine the material properly. More importantly, they do not bother to check the veracity of the information they rely on, given to them by dubious sources such as Mann (he of the infamous hockey stick) and the IPCC.

These hot-greens also fail to recognise who is behind the greenism, and why. In my book, The Global Green Agenda, I prove beyond doubt that what is behind the environmental movement is not concern for the planet, but the sticky hands of very rich men who want to get richer, and governments who want extra taxes without the need for a genuine reason! To get what they want they base themselves in Marxism and Fascism, which are behind all environmental/ecology claims and plans since the mid 1800s. If this does not concern our greenies, then there is something seriously wrong with their line of thinking. Intelligent they may be – but sensible they are not! It is intelligence bereft of intellectual excellence. They can shout, huff and puff, but it makes no difference, because flaws are flaws and deception is deception.

The Article
The article even has a propaganda title: No Question. Sound familiar? It should, because it has been Al Gore’s mantra, used by the IPCC and others, for over ten years. It does not just deny the validity of anti-green science, even though greenies actively stop it from appearing in the media and science journals. Nothing like a refusal to examine another scientific argument just in case it upsets the apple cart! Very scientific. The author, Robin George Andrews does just that, by trotting out the same old, same old. There is nothing new in his paper, only a repeat (forgive my yawn) of the usual pro-green nonsense that pretends to be genuine. Sadly for Andrews, he appears to be rattled badly by the very existence of anti-green material, but he is unable to gather together anything of us to combat it. He just gets mad! If he gets that upset, maybe he ought to get out of the anthropogenic heat of the scientific kitchen.Andrews again repeats the Al Gore lie by saying in his sub-title: The existence of man-made global warming is a scientific fact and should not be a matter of debate in the media.There you have it – because he says it, it MUST be true! The fact is, he is hopping mad because, at last, the media are starting to catch on, that maybe greenies are not so expert after all. All Andrews research is going down the drain and he can’t hack it. He only shouts insults.

Greens Rule!
What’s he talking about? Environmental claims have NEVER been a matter of debate, whether in science or in the media (particularly the socialist-led BBC) – and that is the problem! All we get are greenie experts refusing to allow another argument into journals and the media, so that no-one can evaluate the other side. This is why anti-greens have been furiously fighting to be heard. Of course, having the floor, the pro-greens simply denounce anti-greens and use humiliation as a weapon. Rather like the antics of Democrats, who see their power possibly slipping away. But, so far, no-one has seen a proper and full evaluation of the green claims in public, government, or in the media. Check the last ten years’ output! This is why the Climate Unit at Anglia University got into trouble, by deleting vital emails, fostering snide remarks to scientists who did not share their view, hiding the facts and issuing fake data. The IPCC 2007 Report, the one that gave the impetus for governments to steal our taxes for non-essential green policies and so valued by Andrews, did the same thing, only publishing pro-green articles and nothing else. The IPCC also altered the data in others, sometimes drastically. I found at least two dozen deliberate fraudulent articles in the IPCC Report! And I am in contact with several Lead Authors of the IPCC Report, who are angry because their work was changed without their knowledge. Andrews merely does not mention all this. Convenient.The aim of greenism is not what greenies think it is. While they dance about in fairy circles to appease Mother Earth, politicians use the fraudulent information to extort stupidly high taxes and remove freedom of choice of energy sources, burying anything critical. This is a classic Marxist move and it is what Al Gore and others are aiming at. Now, back to the article…

Weather… A Geology Specialism?
Andrews says he recently graduated from Imperial College with a degree in Geology. Congratulations. He admits he is not a qualified scientist. Yes, we know that by what he says. But, he claims to have done extensive research into the global warming idea. Hm. What information did he imbibe, and why? And what information did he cast aside… and why? His article proves that he relies solely on greenie material, even though much of it has been proved to be fraudulent and has been debunked. Or, shown to be just plain wrong. Yet, Andrews does not mention those articles proven to be fraudulent. Naughty boy.Since when is geology qualify a man in weather systems? Since when does a newly-degreed young man, full of idealism but no experience, equal an established climatologist in the business for many years? What he is saying is that he knows more than weather scientists who refuse the greenie argument. Sorry, but Andrews must have a much better reason to ditch their work than global warming is a scientific fact! I do not care how much research this fellow says he has done, if he prefers propaganda to truth. Saying something is a scientific fact is NOT the same as proving it, especially when calling it a fact is equal to calling it a fully-fledged law of science. And no theory can claim that, until it has undergone a long period of experiment, verification, falsification, etc! Nothing in global warming science has come anywhere near this kind of scientific rigour, nor have greenies had sufficient time to warrant calling their science fixed and irrefutable. Oh dear, Andrews, you have made a bit of a boob. Publishing it in the journal of a self-praise group does not make it any more correct. A geologist is not a weather expert. Full stop. That is not so bad. What brings Andrews to his knees is not his ignorance, but his refusal to admit the truth in anti-green research done by men twice or three times his age, who are experts in their field, even when most of the IPCC 2007 report has been shown to be fake.

Shut Up – It’s a Fact!
Andrews deplores the angle taken by a recent BBC News 24 programme, which stated that most of the public do not believe there is global warming. Andrews said that this aggravated him (he is aggravated a lot!). No doubt. Maybe he needs some time in the real working world, because few people will bow to his every whim and demand, or let him get away with nonsense. It might shock him to learn that even intelligent people, many of them in relevant science jobs, do not accept his naïve view of global warming, gleaned from cornflake packets (or so it seems). How will he react to them? With a subtle Shut up and a kick in the teeth? Experts disagree with you – get over it.Andrews goes on to vaunt his own research ability by saying that the public has a misunderstanding about global warming. Oh Yes? Or is it that they are sick to the teeth of the lies of Al Gore and pals, and can see the truth, whereas Andrews and friends cannot? He even says the media have failed to understand this public rejection of the facts. I think Andrews has been away somewhere exotic, because the media to date has mainly ignored the public and all anti-green reports. To put it nicely, Andrews is too full of himself.

The young man (I assume he is young and therefore still in his post-teen, psychologically-black-and-white stage of thinking) further deplores that the BBC presents climate change as still under debate. He almost chokes with rage because the BBC said scientists do not all agree on what causes global warming.Perhaps he should take a powder… this is the first time the BBC has admitted to this truth. Until now it has solidly backed the horse it thought was winning – Labour (Marxism) and greenies. But, times are changing, and governments are no longer threatening us with green policies. Well, not as much as they used to anyway. That is the only reason the BBC has backed down, apart from the other fact, that many thousands of scientists reject the green global warming argument – specifically, that mankind causes it.It is always infuriating when long research is turned upside down by the facts. Andrews must learn to cope with this, as does any scientist worth his salt. He has simple backed the wrong horse and now feels foolish.

Do Scientists Agree?
No, they don’t! In the USA alone over 32,000 signed the Oregon Petition. Of course, greenies went into a spin about that and immediately tried to rip it apart. Many more thousands of scientists throughout the world reject the human-cause claims. So, for Andrews to say the science is simple and should be accepted, is preposterous. There is no proven link between carbon dioxide and changes in climate. Climate changes… because it does. There is certainly no proof that mankind causes global warming. As I said, saying something is true does not necessarily make it true!

Andrews continues what is really a diatribe rather than an argument, by saying that an extremely small minority of scientists disagree with the science behind climate change.This is another claim, oft repeated, without proof. How does he know how many scientists do not agree, or, for that matter, agree? I know how many disagree in the Petition, and from reports I have read for several years. Many scientists who once supported global warming claims now no longer do so, because they see how erroneous the science is. The truth is, no-one knows exact numbers – Andrews has again succumbed to propaganda.I find it remarkable that, as a non-experienced geologist, Andrews can assert confidently that: when their analysis of the evidence is reviewed, it is always found to be flawed. Again – saying it does not make it true! And how does a newly degreed fellow know how to examine the claims made by scientists expert in their field? I find his assertion vain to say the least. Is he willing to argue against those IPCC Lead Authors I know? Or, the climatologists I know who categorically reject the green theories? Andrews says (as if he had access to these people’s minds) that anti-greens have a variety of motives. You mean just like greenies? Or is he again guessing, based on his own aggravated state, attributing motives when they are usually hidden deep in the psyche?

Here Comes the Hockey-Stick Again!
As part of his aggressive attack (it is not a defence), Andrews directs us all to accept the infamous hockey stick first made popular by Al Gore, the high priest of get-rich-quick. The hockey stick and its inventor, Mann, was debunked, not just once, but twice, because it was not feasible, used massaged data, and ignored all the known facts. Once again, our friendly Andrews says that he is aggravated because (he knows, of course) those who are anti-green are somehow funded by big oil, etc. Does he mean like the Climate Unit at East Anglia? Or, Al Gore and his cronies? Or many green scientists? Maybe it is better if he doesn’t mention that one.As if he has many years experience with the media and in science, Andrews then says that the media is teaching the public how to be uncritical… rather like a man named Andrews, a recent geology student, who thinks he knows everything about everything, even men’s motives. The insult to the scientific method he implies is being ignored by the media (remember – it is only recently that the media bothered to air views that were not green), should be aimed back at his own presuppositions, based as they are on green propaganda rather than on truth. The insult is being constantly thrown about by Mann, the IPCC and those greens who think they can get away with it.

Not Only Global Warming…
The reader will have to forgive my direct opposition to Andrews; I do so robustly because he dares to bad-mouth serious scientists in a public arena without once giving facts. He must learn to be wise. Those of us who KNOW anthropogenic warming is a lie, and we have had enough of being pushed aside, especially by young men with more mouth than reason. I am really surprised that MENSA even contemplated publishing what he said, which is old stuff, regurgitated.I must say that Andrews is an all-round expert. Not content with saying expert scientists are failures and incapable of having scientific ability, he vaunts his own importance, this time by attacking Creationists and Intelligent Design scientists. He assumes, so it seems, that both camps are the same, when they are not. They might sometimes coincide, but, in the main, Intelligent Design can be toted by people without even a remote interest in God. Even so, wanting to show this as an example of how those he considers to be fools will believe anything, he says that Intelligent Design has absolutely no solid evidence to support it. (He must be reading New Scientist – they get in a tizzy about it, too). So, how much time did Andrews spend on his degree course, if he has become so expert in not just every aspect of climate change, but also Intelligent Design? Maybe I’m being picky, but unless his brain is the size of New York, how does he did he do it in such a short space of time? I am really jealous of his ability… at 63, in spite of a clutch of degrees and long experience, relatively, I know less now than I did when I was Andrews’ age! Intelligent Design has no proofs? The implication is that evolution has proof for its claims. But, it has not! In a university on this planet I heard an evolutionist giving a Darwin Lecture, and he plainly admitted that there were not enough proofs for evolution to fill the floor of a small room! Or, to put it another way, the evidences used by evolutionists to prove evolution do not exist - plenty of evidences but no proofs. Only one proof is necessary to prove evolution to be real – the mechanism of change. Until that mechanism is shown to exist, evolution remains an unproved theory. Hang on… just like intelligent design. What a coincidence!

Facts… or Just Repeated Claims?
With another yawn, I see that Andrews then says evolution is an accepted scientific fact, even though a growing number of quite serious scientists (not Christians) are veering towards Intelligent Design (ID). How annoying (or to use his own word: aggravating”) for Andrews! This lad seems to be aggravated by just about everything, except his own importance. Fewer and fewer scientists now believe in the Big Bang, let alone evolution. But, of course, I am aggravating Andrews with these trivial facts.Let me put it this way – it is up to evolutionists to prove their case, not for others to disprove evolution. There is no need to disprove what has never, ever been proved to be true. The only reason evolution is thought to be true, is because evolutionists say it is, repeatedly. To cast doubts on scientists of Intelligent Design, etc., is to throw out a smoke screen to cover the bad science in evolution. Andrews can cut me down with his scythe-like mind by simply showing me the mechanism of change that would completely vindicate evolutionism. This is where I am more confident than he is, for I know there is no such mechanism.To quote our geology expert (who has yet to speak geologically): Intelligent design, supported by no concrete evidence, is merely speculation and extraordinary claims, and is simply unscientific. Does he mean like the way astrophysicist Stephen Hawking recently talked of aliens, or the way he blatantly and publicly said that matter created itself from nothing? Eh?? He is an evolutionist, of course, so he must be right, with or without proofs. On the other hand, how can an evolutionist say that matter created itself, from absolute nothing?

Evidence – or Proof?
Notice, too, that Andrews uses the wrong word – concrete implies proof, not mere evidence. Perhaps he should become familiar with both words so that he doesn’t get them mixed up. So, if ID is only speculation because it has no proofs – what does that mean for evolution, if even an evolutionist says there are none? Back to the drawing board, Mr Andrews.To underscore his use of propaganda rather than facts, Andrews goes on to refer to people who refuse to accept anthropogenic global warming as irrationalists. Even though they research their subjects, in which they are experts, and Andrews is not? Here, though, he at last uses evidences in a correct manner. He says there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of… manmade global warming. There he is correct. But, because he does not know the difference between evidence and proof, his argument is less dramatic than he thinks. One can amass millions of evidences, but they must all point irrefutably in the same direction before they can be called proofs… if, that is, they have been thoroughly investigated and falsified, etc. Global warming by mankind has not been scrutinized properly. Sorry Andrews, but you are wrong again. Knowing the difference between evidence and proof is basic to genuine scientific research… something too many warmists fail to bother with.Andrews continues by waffling over the same ground, without proving a sausage! (Sorry to be so un-MENSA-like). Sadly, he quotes the 20o7 IPCC Report as being on the side of his claims. Again I must say Oh Dear, what a boob. The number of flaws and deliberate frauds in that Report are so numerous as to even embarrass a Gore or an Obama! I have recounted a number of them in Canada Free Press. Don’t take my word for them – listen to the ones who admitted to making the frauds in the first place.

Oops Again!
Once again, Andrews misuses his words by saying Science… is based on evidences. Oh no it isn’t! Evidences are only steps to forming proofs, not proofs in themselves. Warmist theories are not proven at all; they are only weak hypotheses. Andrews is pointing his finger in the wrong direction… it should be firmly jabbing his own chest until he learns to distinguish evidences and proofs (bearing in mind that even proofs are in flux, with possible refutations waiting in the wings).Then, in his final paragraph, Andrews says the only sensible thing in the whole article. He says that if the media continues to convince the public that warming by humans is not proved, then it will not be long before we stop putting in the effort to counter it… Hear, hear! When that happens we will all be better off, freer, and able to speak our minds. We should not be basing our lives on the whims of warmists who loathe human beings, or on the demands of governments hungry for our taxes. Let’s get rid of warming theories/hypotheses, and return to sense and real science. Regardless of what MENSA experts think they are saying. It takes far more than intelligence to muster a worthwhile intellectual attack! I hope MENSA continues to publish this kind of nonsense, because it certainly amuses people like me.

ALEX JONES WEEKLY SHOWS AFTER 3PM
http://rss.nfowars.net/20100926_Sun_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20100927_Mon_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20100928_Tue_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20100929_Wed_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20100930_Thu_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20101001_Fri_Alex.mp3
ALEX JONES WEEKLY SHOWS AFTER 3PM
http://rss.nfowars.net/20101003_Sun_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20101004_Mon_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20101005_Tue_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20101006_Wed_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20101007_Thu_Alex.mp3
http://rss.nfowars.net/20101008_Fri_Alex.mp3

FALSE FLAGS (SET UP OR STAGED BY SOMEONE)
http://www.god.tv/video/play?video=1219
http://www.god.tv/video/play?video=1227
LISTEN TO THE SHOW HERE INFOWARS.COM
http://www.infowars.com/
OBAMA DECEPTION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
FALL OF THE REPUBLIC MOVIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8&feature=player_embedded
ENDGAME GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
POLICE SATE 4-THE RISE OF FEMA MOVIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVww&feature=player_embedded
INVISIBLE EMPIRE MOVIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E&feature=player_embedded
BOHEMIAN GROVE NWO OCCULTISTS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-82095917705734983
WITCHCRAFT IN THE WHITE HOUSE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmaiX86sUoc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2eILED00s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZARWvlz_yKI&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbh7KrUwawI&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IG0tmvCozU&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgP-SyrooKI&feature=channel
OBAMA SCAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc&feature=player_embedded
PHIL BERG - OBAMA CRIMES
http://obamacrimes.com/
LAURIE ROTH SHOW
http://therothshow.com/
DOUG HAGMANN
http://homelandsecurityus.com/
CANADA FREE PRESS-JUDI MCLEOD
http://www.canadafreepress.com/

AND THE OTHER ISSUE WE MUST KEEP ON THE TABLE AND IN PEOPLES MEMORY IS THAT BARRY SOETORO IS REALLY BARACK OBAMAS REAL NAME AND HE WAS BORN IN KENYA NOT AMERICA.BARRY SOETORO AKA BARACK OBAMA IS NOT ELLIGABLE TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA GOVERNMENT.EVERYTHING HE SIGNS IN BARACK OBAMA IS ILLEGEL,BECAUCE HIS REAL NAME IS BARRY SOETORO.AMERICAS CONSTITUTION WILL BE IN SHAMBLES ONCE THIS SCAM IS FINALLY REVEALED TO THE WORLD.

BY THE TIMELINE IN OBAMAS OWN BOOKS-OBAMA WENT TO PAKISTAN ON HIS INDONESIAN PASSPORT.ANOTHER ISSUE OUT OF 400 PEOPLE AT COLUMBIA THAT GRADUATED THE YEAR OBAMA OR BARRY SOETORO DID,NO ONE COMES FORWARD TO SAY THEY KNEW HIM.HOW COME AT HAWAII HOSPITAL WERE OBAMA CLAIMS HE WAS BORN,NO NURSES OR ANYBODY CAME FORWARD TO SAY THEY WITNESSED OR TOOK PART IN THE BIRTH.THIS BARRY SOETORO OR AKA BARACK OBAMAS LIFE IS A COMPLETE FRAUD.AND AMERICA IS CONNED TO BELIEVE THE LIE.WHY WOULD SOETORO AKA OBAMA SPEND 2 MILLION DOLLARS TO STOP ALL THESE LAWSUITS IF THERES NO COVERUP.HE WOULD JUST SHOW THE PROOF OF EACH EVENT-PLACE OF BIRTH,CERTIFICATE AND REAL NAME BARRY SOETORO INDONESIAN PASSPORT.

The proof is everywhere from statements and affidavits from Government parliament sources and Obama’s own Grandmother who says she saw him born in a hospital in Mombassa Kenya. The former ambassador to Kenya says Obama was born in Mombassa Kenya, so do others. Check out the affidavits at www.obamacrimes.com and join Phil Berg and other concerned citizens for a huge eligibility protest march May 29th 12-4pm.

3RD JIHAD TRAILER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJy9tpGHGXM&feature=player_embedded
3RD JIHAD MOVIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gt9UGB1-tQ&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbnaWpSS8Dk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1d0Lx8MPtI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdhKcFk5vg&feature=player_embedded
SHARIA LAW IN AMERICA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEy0uiyvNw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppTo-TTtJQo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVqV-CtEVUU&feature=player_embedded

As Obama Pretends at Its Freedom, His Gov’t Plans Takeover of Internet
By Warner Todd Huston Thursday, September 30, 2010 CANADA FREE PRESS

In an address to the United Nations on Thursday, Sept. 23, President Obama pledged to preserve a free and open Internet and would call out nations that censored content.In a veiled reference to China and other nations that censor the Internet, Obama said that a civil society fosters open government. Civil society is the conscience of our communities, and America will always extend our engagement abroad with citizens beyond the halls of government. And we will call out those who suppress ideas and serve as a voice for those who are voiceless.We will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security, Obama said. We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.Yet even as Obama stood giving high sounding words to a free and open Internet and scolding other nations that have oppressive controls on Internet access for their own citizens, Barack Obama’s own government has itself been quietly making plans to take over the Internet from private companies.Obama’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Julius Genachowski, has been angling to use telephone regulations from the 1930s to try and take over full control of the Internet. One wonders how Obama can have the gall to claim that he wants a free and open Internet when he is trying to take control of it himself? How long would the Internet stay free and open once the federal government takes hold of it and begins to decide what will be allowed and not allowed over it’s infrastructure?

As always, Barack Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth claiming all at once that he is for open access, and promoting new technologies and businesses while at the same time making plans for Bi Government to control it all from Washington.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also seems to be very confused about what is going on with the idea of the FCC grabbing control over the Internet.On one day this week he wanted to introduce legislation that would put Congress in the driver’s seat on regulation thereby cutting out the FCC from regulating the Internet, but then the very next day he reversed himself 100% and decided it wouldn’t be a good idea. It is a bit hard to understand such a whiplash-inducing move but it has happened nonetheless.Still, if Congress takes up a consideration of how to handle the Internet this should forestall the FCC’s attempts to forcibly take over the Internet via fiat regulation.Anyone interested in keeping the government’s hands off the full control of the Internet should pressure Waxman to take up his original position. Others that can put off the FCC’s power grab are Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) — who has come out in opposition to government control of the Internet — and Rep. Rick Boucher (D, VA), another member of Energy and Commerce Committee.A good mode of pressure is to cite a new poll that says that the public is not in favor of the government take over of the Internet.BroadbandforAmerica.com has an interesting report about a survey made by Hart Research Associates that seems to indicate that there is substantial opposition to government Internet regulation.The survey shows that 75 percent oppose government regulation with 55 percent saying that government should not regulate the Internet at all. In other words, respondents did not want the government saying how business should be conducted on the Internet and were reticent to agree that government should restrict or control Internet providers. Congress should be made aware of these fact.