he Burn Pit (American Legion) ^ | 20 Sept 2010 | Mike Warner AOCS, USN Ret.
Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 9:32:33 AM by OCCASparky
On September 15, 2010 at around 0800 in the morning, a family makes their way into Arlington National Cemetery for the Disinterment of a Marine Private killed by an IED in Al Anbar Province Iraq on 22 November 2006 killing him and two others.
As they stood at the grave site, a forklift arrives to raise a coffin from the vault that had interred it for nearly four years. Arlington knew at this point that the vault and coffin had been opened. When the family became aware of this action, an unsettling air of distrust settled upon the gathering. The father yells “you lied” as family members hold and calm him. The father already marred and angry by the uncooperative atmosphere and insensitivity of Arlington’s leadership; his grief now changes to anger. Another promise broken! Arlington, to seemingly cover their asses had breached the coffin the night before to ensure the Marine Private and the dog tags were in the assigned plot.
With a rotting corpse and the putrid stench of death permeating the air, a worker removes a dog tag from the coffin lid, wipes off the dirt, and hands it to the father. The forklift begins to raise the coffin; putrid water begins streaming out and those in attendance gasp as the fear of body parts falling from the unstable casket grips them.
Once removed, the coffin is lowered onto the bed of a truck and driven to a maintenance building where the verification process is to be held. In attendance inside were the father, a fellow Marine and friend of the Private who was to verify the remains, a Colonel, a Catholic Priest (arriving later), a Funeral Director, and some cemetery workers.
The father was already grieving and reeling from yet another confrontation with Arlington personnel the day before. He demanded and Arlington agreed the vault inside the grave would not be opened until he arrived the morning of the 15th. The father apprehensive about the day’s events was anxious if they would find his son inside. He fumed from yet another breach of trust. The father rejects the dog tags offered to him as verification by Arlington. The dog tags may have been sufficient had the integrity of the coffin not been breached. However, since it had been prior to the family’s arrival; the father then requested visual verification. The staff at Arlington appeared unprepared for what was to come next, thus tipping the father’s hand.
His adrenalin already maxed and because of Arlington’s ineptness, the father instinctively jumps onto the truck in his dress clothes despite the rancid odor. The father begins digging through the water soaked; stench filled rotting dismembered remains of his son, in search of the severed arm with a tattoo on it. Meanwhile the Funeral Director is standing to the side, gagging. The father looks at the Funeral Director and tells him, “Get over here and do your job!”
Arlington’s assistance during this time consisted of providing him with latex gloves. The father removes his rancid dress gloves used in digging through the soupy carnage and discards them in the trash. He also removes his jacket, hat and sunglasses, and continues to search for the missing arm. This arm with the tattoo would positively confirm that the unrecognizable severely decomposed corpse was his son’s. The father still searching as he inhales the pungent stench of rotting flesh discovers for the first time since his son’s death, that only a torso, arm, and leg were there.
Finally, after frantically searching the carnage, the arm is found under the torso with the tattoo mostly intact. The father in a gesture of love carefully and gently wipes away the dirt. He verifies his son. The veil of doubt is lifted. His son now placed in a new casket, the family looks on as the Private is reinterred, and now all are at peace.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Mammon, more than God, caused the Christchurch earthquake 'miracle'
By Geoffrey Lean World Last updated: September 5th, 2010
It’s an “absolute miracle” that no deaths have yet been reported from the earthquake that struck New Zealand early yesterday, says Bob Parker, mayor of the stricken city of Christchurch. You can see what he means – but Mammon may have had more to do with it than God. For it underlines how wealthy countries and communities suffer much less from a given natural disaster than poor ones.
The quake was the same magnitude, 7.1 on the Richter Scale as the one that hit Haiti in January, and its epicentre was slightly closer to Christchurch than the Caribbean one was from Port au Prince (13, as against 16, miles).But the latest estimates reckon that some 230,000 people died in Haiti, compared to no-one in New Zealand.
Of course there were differences. Yesterday’s quake hit at 4.35 in the morning – when almost everyone was indoors, asleep – for example, while January’s, with almost exact symmetry, occurred at 4.53 in the afternoon. But main difference is that New Zealand is just short of the top 30 countries in the world, listed by per capita GDP, while Haiti is firmly in the bottom 30.
Eighty per cent of earthquake deaths are caused by collapsing buildings and so properly built ones save lives in even the fiercest shocks, while poorly constructed ones become killers. Eighty six per cent of the people of Haiti live in tightly packed slums, and – besides those killed – two million were made homeless when buildings collapsed.
It has long been so, even in richer countries. Most of the 100,000 people who perished in a 1988 earthquake in Armenia – then part of the Soviet Union – were in cheap concrete buildings. And even in Japan, most of the structures that collapsed in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, which killed 5,000, were substandard constructions rushed up after the Second World War.
An 1976 earthquake in Guatemala City, which killed 23,000, was even dubbed the “class quake” because of the accuracy with which it hit the city’s poorest communities and spared the richer ones. So let’s be glad of the miracle in Christchurch – but recognise that world poverty is the greatest disaster of all.
It’s an “absolute miracle” that no deaths have yet been reported from the earthquake that struck New Zealand early yesterday, says Bob Parker, mayor of the stricken city of Christchurch. You can see what he means – but Mammon may have had more to do with it than God. For it underlines how wealthy countries and communities suffer much less from a given natural disaster than poor ones.
The quake was the same magnitude, 7.1 on the Richter Scale as the one that hit Haiti in January, and its epicentre was slightly closer to Christchurch than the Caribbean one was from Port au Prince (13, as against 16, miles).But the latest estimates reckon that some 230,000 people died in Haiti, compared to no-one in New Zealand.
Of course there were differences. Yesterday’s quake hit at 4.35 in the morning – when almost everyone was indoors, asleep – for example, while January’s, with almost exact symmetry, occurred at 4.53 in the afternoon. But main difference is that New Zealand is just short of the top 30 countries in the world, listed by per capita GDP, while Haiti is firmly in the bottom 30.
Eighty per cent of earthquake deaths are caused by collapsing buildings and so properly built ones save lives in even the fiercest shocks, while poorly constructed ones become killers. Eighty six per cent of the people of Haiti live in tightly packed slums, and – besides those killed – two million were made homeless when buildings collapsed.
It has long been so, even in richer countries. Most of the 100,000 people who perished in a 1988 earthquake in Armenia – then part of the Soviet Union – were in cheap concrete buildings. And even in Japan, most of the structures that collapsed in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, which killed 5,000, were substandard constructions rushed up after the Second World War.
An 1976 earthquake in Guatemala City, which killed 23,000, was even dubbed the “class quake” because of the accuracy with which it hit the city’s poorest communities and spared the richer ones. So let’s be glad of the miracle in Christchurch – but recognise that world poverty is the greatest disaster of all.
Obama governing as promised, so what's wrong? (Yes, they're serious)
The New London Day ^ | September 5, 2010 | The Editors
Posted on Monday, September 06, 2010 3:37:58 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
It is hard to recall another president who so aggressively pursued the policies he campaigned on only to see his popularity plummet as a result. But such is the case with President Barack Obama.
It is understandable why those who voted for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona would be so disenchanted with the Obama administration. Sen. McCain, after all, sought a far different, more modest approach to health care policy. The Arizona senator made fiscal and social conservatism a priority, talked of tax cuts and emphasized gun rights. As expected, the president has followed a much different agenda.
Harder to understand are the many who voted for Mr. Obama, only to now abandon him. This quick change of heart is most apparent among the growing ranks of unaffiliated voters who tend to float back and forth each election cycle, fingers to the wind. Their disenchantment with the president and his Democratic Party will likely mean big losses for the Democrats in the congressional elections.
As Americans prepared for their Labor Day weekend, the Rasmussen presidential tracking poll showed only 27 percent strongly approving of the president's performance, 43 percent strongly disapproving.
No one, certainly, should have been surprised that President Obama sought a dramatic overhaul of the health care system, with an increased government role to play. It was a centerpiece of the Obama campaign, a regular in his stump speech. Did those backing Mr. Obama not expect it to be expensive, complex and result in a bitter political fight? Democratic leaders going back to President Truman had attempted health care reform and failed.
The prize for President Obama achieving it was lowered approval ratings for him and his party.
As for the war in Iraq, the president achieved his goal of ending combat operations. How things play out from here, as the U.S. military transitions to a support and advisory role, remains to be seen. But the president seemingly scored no political points on an issue that once dominated the national debate, but now is an afterthought for voters.
In fiscal matters, candidate Obama made ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans a priority and is pushing forward with that plan, which no longer appears very popular. He also promised to put the cost of two wars back in the budget, knowing it would make the fiscal situation look far worse. It has.
He did not campaign on bailing out auto industries, or launching a nearly $1 billion stimulus program, but the severity of the economic crisis demanded drastic action. The auto industry was saved and the stimulus mitigated the seriousness of the recession.
President Obama has not ended wasteful government spending or improved efficiency, as he advertised, but will get the chance when dealing with a next Congress in which Republicans will likely hold a stronger hand.
Cap-and-trade to reduce carbon emissions, a financial carrot to encourage education reforms, tougher regulation of Wall Street, were all policies the president campaigned on.
Perhaps many who voted for Mr. Obama never supported these policies. Maybe they just wanted change after eight years of the Bush administration and didn't read the fine print. Certainly the lack of a vigorous recovery from the Great Recession is dragging down the president's popularity, but no economist predicted a rapid rebound.
In many ways, he's exactly who he said he'd be, and many of those who voted for him apparently don't like it.
Posted on Monday, September 06, 2010 3:37:58 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
It is hard to recall another president who so aggressively pursued the policies he campaigned on only to see his popularity plummet as a result. But such is the case with President Barack Obama.
It is understandable why those who voted for Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona would be so disenchanted with the Obama administration. Sen. McCain, after all, sought a far different, more modest approach to health care policy. The Arizona senator made fiscal and social conservatism a priority, talked of tax cuts and emphasized gun rights. As expected, the president has followed a much different agenda.
Harder to understand are the many who voted for Mr. Obama, only to now abandon him. This quick change of heart is most apparent among the growing ranks of unaffiliated voters who tend to float back and forth each election cycle, fingers to the wind. Their disenchantment with the president and his Democratic Party will likely mean big losses for the Democrats in the congressional elections.
As Americans prepared for their Labor Day weekend, the Rasmussen presidential tracking poll showed only 27 percent strongly approving of the president's performance, 43 percent strongly disapproving.
No one, certainly, should have been surprised that President Obama sought a dramatic overhaul of the health care system, with an increased government role to play. It was a centerpiece of the Obama campaign, a regular in his stump speech. Did those backing Mr. Obama not expect it to be expensive, complex and result in a bitter political fight? Democratic leaders going back to President Truman had attempted health care reform and failed.
The prize for President Obama achieving it was lowered approval ratings for him and his party.
As for the war in Iraq, the president achieved his goal of ending combat operations. How things play out from here, as the U.S. military transitions to a support and advisory role, remains to be seen. But the president seemingly scored no political points on an issue that once dominated the national debate, but now is an afterthought for voters.
In fiscal matters, candidate Obama made ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans a priority and is pushing forward with that plan, which no longer appears very popular. He also promised to put the cost of two wars back in the budget, knowing it would make the fiscal situation look far worse. It has.
He did not campaign on bailing out auto industries, or launching a nearly $1 billion stimulus program, but the severity of the economic crisis demanded drastic action. The auto industry was saved and the stimulus mitigated the seriousness of the recession.
President Obama has not ended wasteful government spending or improved efficiency, as he advertised, but will get the chance when dealing with a next Congress in which Republicans will likely hold a stronger hand.
Cap-and-trade to reduce carbon emissions, a financial carrot to encourage education reforms, tougher regulation of Wall Street, were all policies the president campaigned on.
Perhaps many who voted for Mr. Obama never supported these policies. Maybe they just wanted change after eight years of the Bush administration and didn't read the fine print. Certainly the lack of a vigorous recovery from the Great Recession is dragging down the president's popularity, but no economist predicted a rapid rebound.
In many ways, he's exactly who he said he'd be, and many of those who voted for him apparently don't like it.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Lenin's New Economic Policy
The NEP of the 1920s Permitted a Soviet Version of a Market Economy
With the Soviet territory suffering from famine and deprivation, Lenin enacted a New Economic Policy that promoted trade, privatization, and enterprise.
Lenin's New Economic Policy, also known as the NEP, was a tacit acknowledgement of previous failures to socialize the Soviet economy. However, the New Economic Policy of the 1920s encouraged privatization and capitalism – the very thing the Bolsheviks rallied against. This caused confusion and resentment among some who had suffered from or believed in the Bolshevik's ideals.
Why Did Lenin Establish the New Economic Policy?
In 1921, lands and people under Soviet control were in desperate need of relief of the famine that was killing citizens in scores. Additionally, necessary goods, like cooking implements and clothing, were scarce. While Lenin had once admitted that he felt hungry people would spur on the Russian Revolution, now he knew that the country was collapsing under the weight of its residents' need.
What Did Lenin's New Economic Policy Do?
Lenin's New Economic Policy was, on a most basic level, a relaxation of strict socialism into a loose market society. Free trade was hesitantly encouraged. Lenin hoped that this injection of capitalism into the economy would drag Soviet Russia up by its bootstraps and pave the way for pure socialism after an adequate waiting period.
What Were the Results of Lenin's New Economic Policy?
Trade, manufacturing, and even agriculture began to boom. Eateries and shops were set up quickly and offered goods that had previously been absent from market stalls. Peasants who worked the land began to innovate with new technologies and procedures to offer market crops.
Enterprising individuals were everywhere; of course this meant that there were cutthroat businessmen who could buy and sell anything for profit, specifically for their own gain. These were the so-called Nepmen who flaunted their quick-won wealth and of whom the Bolsheviks were especially wary. The Nepmen were representative of everything the Revolution had meant to destroy – flagrant displays of wealth, extreme gaps between rich and poor, and the power that walked hand-in-hand with moneyed individuals.
The New Economic Policy's Affects on Foreign Trade and Finance
The NEP opened up Soviet Russia to limited international trade. Because citizens were making money both through domestic and international trade, there was greater need for banks, credit, and a stable form of currency. Lenin temporarily reversed his dismissal of the need for gold and used bullion to produce a new ruble currency.
Many hard-core Bolsheviks resented the NEP, but would-be businessmen reveled in the sudden market economy of the 1920s. While the New Economic Policy was not within keeping with the revolutionary ideals preached by politicians and intellectuals, for those who knew how to utilize the system, capitalism was a welcome change from severe deprivation.
References
Dziewanowski, M.K. A History of Soviet Russia. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Figes, Orlando. A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. New York: Penguin Books, 1996
With the Soviet territory suffering from famine and deprivation, Lenin enacted a New Economic Policy that promoted trade, privatization, and enterprise.
Lenin's New Economic Policy, also known as the NEP, was a tacit acknowledgement of previous failures to socialize the Soviet economy. However, the New Economic Policy of the 1920s encouraged privatization and capitalism – the very thing the Bolsheviks rallied against. This caused confusion and resentment among some who had suffered from or believed in the Bolshevik's ideals.
Why Did Lenin Establish the New Economic Policy?
In 1921, lands and people under Soviet control were in desperate need of relief of the famine that was killing citizens in scores. Additionally, necessary goods, like cooking implements and clothing, were scarce. While Lenin had once admitted that he felt hungry people would spur on the Russian Revolution, now he knew that the country was collapsing under the weight of its residents' need.
What Did Lenin's New Economic Policy Do?
Lenin's New Economic Policy was, on a most basic level, a relaxation of strict socialism into a loose market society. Free trade was hesitantly encouraged. Lenin hoped that this injection of capitalism into the economy would drag Soviet Russia up by its bootstraps and pave the way for pure socialism after an adequate waiting period.
What Were the Results of Lenin's New Economic Policy?
Trade, manufacturing, and even agriculture began to boom. Eateries and shops were set up quickly and offered goods that had previously been absent from market stalls. Peasants who worked the land began to innovate with new technologies and procedures to offer market crops.
Enterprising individuals were everywhere; of course this meant that there were cutthroat businessmen who could buy and sell anything for profit, specifically for their own gain. These were the so-called Nepmen who flaunted their quick-won wealth and of whom the Bolsheviks were especially wary. The Nepmen were representative of everything the Revolution had meant to destroy – flagrant displays of wealth, extreme gaps between rich and poor, and the power that walked hand-in-hand with moneyed individuals.
The New Economic Policy's Affects on Foreign Trade and Finance
The NEP opened up Soviet Russia to limited international trade. Because citizens were making money both through domestic and international trade, there was greater need for banks, credit, and a stable form of currency. Lenin temporarily reversed his dismissal of the need for gold and used bullion to produce a new ruble currency.
Many hard-core Bolsheviks resented the NEP, but would-be businessmen reveled in the sudden market economy of the 1920s. While the New Economic Policy was not within keeping with the revolutionary ideals preached by politicians and intellectuals, for those who knew how to utilize the system, capitalism was a welcome change from severe deprivation.
References
Dziewanowski, M.K. A History of Soviet Russia. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Figes, Orlando. A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. New York: Penguin Books, 1996
Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles
The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.
The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.
A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.
"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.
"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms."
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to Live
3G Buying Burger King for $24/Share
8 Most Deceptive Terms Used in Credit Card Offers
7 Steps to Becoming a One-Income Family
Pending Home Sales Rise 5.2%
Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.
"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken."
But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check.
"Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States."
M1 carbines can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted -- including most semi-automatics.
"Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said.
"But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns."
He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department."
Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department.
According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.
Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down.
"It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training."
Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so."
Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.
The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.
In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987.
A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said.
"M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified."
Henigan disagrees.
"They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said.
The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department.
The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.
A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.
"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.
"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms."
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Ten Worst Places to Live
3G Buying Burger King for $24/Share
8 Most Deceptive Terms Used in Credit Card Offers
7 Steps to Becoming a One-Income Family
Pending Home Sales Rise 5.2%
Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.
"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken."
But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check.
"Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States."
M1 carbines can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted -- including most semi-automatics.
"Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said.
"But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns."
He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department."
Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department.
According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.
Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down.
"It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training."
Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so."
Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.
The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.
In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987.
A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said.
"M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified."
Henigan disagrees.
"They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said.
The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department.
'Islamization' of Paris a Warning to the West
PARIS - Friday in Paris. A hidden camera shows streets blocked by huge crowds of Muslim worshippers and enforced by a private security force.
This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.
It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.
An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of "Maxime Lepante. "
His camera shows that Muslims "are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers."
"The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization....so it's completely illegal," he says.
The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France's Laicite', or secularism law.
"It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion," Lepante explained. "But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on."
Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.
"They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory," he said.
France's Islamic Future?
If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called "The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048," a bestseller in Russia, not in France.
French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.
"Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can't say to the poor people, 'You're wrong,' otherwise, you're a fascist," Robin explained.
The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.
Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.
But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.
"The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers," said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. "The problem is one of principles. It's an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?"
"It doesn't matter how many there are," he aded. "The problem is the people who follow Islam; they're somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state."
In Denial or Fed Up
From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.
"We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam," Robin said.
About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said "the veil is in the Koran" and "we only submit to God and nobody else."
But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.
They've started staging pork and wine "aperitifs," or cocktail parties in the street. They're patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.
A Warning to the West
The French parliament is expected to debate the burqa law in September. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.
"We cannot accept the development of such practice because it's not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see," he said. "And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. "
For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd's blog Hurd on the Web.
For more insight on 'Islamization' around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror.
Islam Explained in Layman's Terms
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77..5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Palestine -- Muslim 99% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel." -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
This is all illegal in France: the public worship, the blocked streets, and the private security. But the police have been ordered not to intervene.
It shows that even though some in the French government want to get tough with Muslims and ban the burqa, other parts of the French government continue to give Islam a privileged status.
An ordinary French citizen who has been watching the Islamization of Paris decided that the world needed to see what was happening to his city. He used a hidden camera to start posting videos on YouTube. His life has been threatened and so he uses the alias of "Maxime Lepante. "
His camera shows that Muslims "are blocking the streets with barriers. They are praying on the ground. And the inhabitants of this district cannot leave their homes, nor go into their homes during those prayers."
"The Muslims taking over those streets do not have any authorization....so it's completely illegal," he says.
The Muslims in the street have been granted unofficial rights that no Christian group is likely to get under France's Laicite', or secularism law.
"It says people have the right to share any belief they want, any religion," Lepante explained. "But they have to practice at home or in the mosque, synagogues, churches and so on."
Some say Muslims must pray in the street because they need a larger mosque. But Lepante has observed cars coming from other parts of Paris, and he believes it is a weekly display of growing Muslim power.
"They are coming there to show that they can take over some French streets to show that they can conquer a part of the French territory," he said.
France's Islamic Future?
If France faces an Islamic future, a Russian author has already written about it. The novel is called "The Mosque of Notre Dame, 2048," a bestseller in Russia, not in France.
French publisher Jean Robin said the French media ignored the book because it was politically incorrect.
"Islam is seen as the religion of the poor people, so you can't say to the poor people, 'You're wrong,' otherwise, you're a fascist," Robin explained.
The book lays out a dark future when France has become a Muslim nation, and the famous cathedral has been turned into a mosque.
Whether that plot is farfetched depends on whom you ask. Muslims are said to be no more than 10 percent of the French population, although no one knows for sure because French law prohibits population counts by religion.
But the Muslim birthrate is significantly higher than for the native French. Some Muslim men practice polygamy, with each extra wife having children and collecting a welfare check.
"The problem of Islam is more than a problem of numbers," said French philosopher Radu Stoenescu, an Islamic expert who debates Muslim leaders on French TV. "The problem is one of principles. It's an open question. Is Islam an ideology or just a creed?"
"It doesn't matter how many there are," he aded. "The problem is the people who follow Islam; they're somehow in a political party, which has a political agenda, which means basically implementing Sharia and building an Islamic state."
In Denial or Fed Up
From the 1980s until recently, criticizing or opposing Islam was considered a social taboo, and so the government and media effectively helped Islam spread throughout France.
"We were expecting Islam to adapt to France and it is France adapting to Islam," Robin said.
About the burqa controversy, one French Muslim man told a reporter that Europeans should respect Muslim dress. One Parisian woman wearing a headscarf said "the veil is in the Koran" and "we only submit to God and nobody else."
But even if many government elites are in France are in denial over Islam, the people in the streets increasingly are not. Some have become fed up with what they see as the growing Islamization of France.
They've started staging pork and wine "aperitifs," or cocktail parties in the street. They're patriotic demonstrations meant to strike back against Islam. Another national demonstration is planned for Saturday, Sept. 4.
A Warning to the West
The French parliament is expected to debate the burqa law in September. Jean-Francois Cope, president of the Union for a Popular Movement political party, has a warning for the West and for America.
"We cannot accept the development of such practice because it's not compatible with the life in a modern society, you see," he said. "And this question is not only a French question. You will all have to face this challenge. "
For more insight on the slide toward a post-Christian Western society, check out Dale Hurd's blog Hurd on the Web.
For more insight on 'Islamization' around the world, check out Stakelbeck on Terror.
Islam Explained in Layman's Terms
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77..5% Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Palestine -- Muslim 99% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100% Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
"Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel." -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
BBC Chief Admits 'Massive' Left-wing Bias, Vows to Remedy Imbalance
By Lachlan Markay
BBC Director General Mark Thompson admitted to the UK Daily Mail in an article today that Britain's state-run news outlet has had a "massive" left-wing bias. He insisted, though, that the network is taking steps to remedy the ideological slant.
BBC has a history of promoting the ultra-leftist agenda on most issues. But to see the channel's top dog admit it in an interview with the Daily Mail was quite a sight.
Now if only some television outlets on this side of the pond would do the same.
While Thompson pleaded guilty to a liberal slant, he insisted that a new crop of journalists is changing the political face of the BBC.
The Daily Mail's Paul Revoir reported today:
The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government.
But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'.
He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation.
His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.
The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.
Talk about honesty!
But while the BBC is looking into ways to remedy its "massive" slant to the left, swaths of the American news media have yet to even acknowledge that that slant exists.
First, do no harm...
BBC Director General Mark Thompson admitted to the UK Daily Mail in an article today that Britain's state-run news outlet has had a "massive" left-wing bias. He insisted, though, that the network is taking steps to remedy the ideological slant.
BBC has a history of promoting the ultra-leftist agenda on most issues. But to see the channel's top dog admit it in an interview with the Daily Mail was quite a sight.
Now if only some television outlets on this side of the pond would do the same.
While Thompson pleaded guilty to a liberal slant, he insisted that a new crop of journalists is changing the political face of the BBC.
The Daily Mail's Paul Revoir reported today:
The TV chief also admitted there had been a 'struggle' to achieve impartiality and that staff were ' mystified' by the early years of Margaret Thatcher's government.
But he claimed there was now 'much less overt tribalism' among the current crop of young journalists, and said in recent times the corporation was a 'broader church'.
He claimed there was now an 'honourable tradition of journalists from the right' working for the corporation.
His comments, made in the New Statesman magazine, are one of the clearest admissions of political bias from such a senior member of its staff.
The BBC has long been accused of being institutionally biased towards the Left, and an internal report from 2007 said it had to make greater efforts to avoid liberal bias.
Talk about honesty!
But while the BBC is looking into ways to remedy its "massive" slant to the left, swaths of the American news media have yet to even acknowledge that that slant exists.
First, do no harm...
Malaysian blogger faces jail over satirical post
A Malaysian journalist was charged Thursday over a satirical blog which made fun of the state power firm Tenaga, and faces a year's jail if convicted.
State media said that Irwan Abdul Rahman, a 36-year-old sub-editor with a Malay-language daily, pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court to a charge of posting a fictitious comment.
It said he was accused of "intent to hurt" over the posting, entitled "TNB to sue WWF over Earth Hour" which jokingly said Tenaga would take action over the World Wildlife Fund's annual energy-saving initiative.
In an entry earlier this week, Irwan said on his blog http:nose4news.wordpress.com that he was hoping "for cool heads and a developed sense of humour to prevail".
He has deleted the offending item, which he said was merely "a stupid joke that does no one harm".
Malaysia's opposition condemned the prosecution as "not only harsh but ridiculous".
"Does this mean a satire or a joke is now illegal in Malaysia? What has become of our country?" said Lim Guan Eng, secretary-general of the Democratic Action Party which is a member of the opposition alliance.
Lim said Malaysia had a great tradition of satire, which was also used in the independence struggle against British colonial rule, and that the government must respect freedom of expression.
Irwan's prosecution has caused a stir because unlike the mainstream press, the web and online media in Malaysia have remained relatively free, despite occasional raids, bans and government criticism.
Major newspapers and broadcasters are closely linked with the ruling coalition, so the Internet has become a lively forum for dissent and debate.
The government in 1996 pledged not to censor online content as part of a campaign to promote its information technology sector.
State media said that Irwan Abdul Rahman, a 36-year-old sub-editor with a Malay-language daily, pleaded not guilty in the Sessions Court to a charge of posting a fictitious comment.
It said he was accused of "intent to hurt" over the posting, entitled "TNB to sue WWF over Earth Hour" which jokingly said Tenaga would take action over the World Wildlife Fund's annual energy-saving initiative.
In an entry earlier this week, Irwan said on his blog http:nose4news.wordpress.com that he was hoping "for cool heads and a developed sense of humour to prevail".
He has deleted the offending item, which he said was merely "a stupid joke that does no one harm".
Malaysia's opposition condemned the prosecution as "not only harsh but ridiculous".
"Does this mean a satire or a joke is now illegal in Malaysia? What has become of our country?" said Lim Guan Eng, secretary-general of the Democratic Action Party which is a member of the opposition alliance.
Lim said Malaysia had a great tradition of satire, which was also used in the independence struggle against British colonial rule, and that the government must respect freedom of expression.
Irwan's prosecution has caused a stir because unlike the mainstream press, the web and online media in Malaysia have remained relatively free, despite occasional raids, bans and government criticism.
Major newspapers and broadcasters are closely linked with the ruling coalition, so the Internet has become a lively forum for dissent and debate.
The government in 1996 pledged not to censor online content as part of a campaign to promote its information technology sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
