We Must Make The Change

Black Americans are increasingly uneasy about race relations in the United States, ranking that as the nation's number one problem along with unemployment, according to a recent Gallup poll.

Some Of Our Dead Unarmed Black Men

Much of our concern, which began growing last year, is driven by highly publicized police shooting of unarmed black men, also in the news a lot over the last five years.

The fact that race relations ranks so high is not surprising because of how often the news and entertainment media highlight stories that associate black men with violence, crime and poverty,  yet I believe that all races and genders suffer from the same epidemic as does our black communities coast to coast, "Now, Ain't That American?"

When mostly black males are focused on and portrayed everywhere we look in a negative light, our brains -no matter our race or sex - are prone and primed to believe that this portrayal is correct, even the norm, But the fact is,, it's not. Not by a long shot.

One way to address the problem is to "update" the narrative with a more full picture of "us" black men and our black teenage boys.

For example: more than 80% of black men 25 and older have at least a high school diploma. And a much repeated myth that there are more black men in prison than in college isn't true, and if you believe in that liberal disinformation, then, you're the problem.

One Of The Many Black Contributors

The U.S. is bursting with black men that are educated, good businessmen and great fathers, yet their contributions to society are greatly overlooked. So that's why America needs to update the way it views black men.

The nation is in the middle of perhaps its biggest cultural transfer in history. Over the coming years, the baby boomers will give way to the "millennials" as the largest generation in history. As that happens, America will no longer have a racial majority. All of the social myths will be  updated for better or worse. If we make a concerted effort to understand each other over the next decade, I think we can change them for the better.

Recognizing that black men are assets opens up opportunities for all people to build better cities by working with those black men who are willing to uphold important values and take constructive action. We must stop ignoring the overwhelming amount of good that black men do for our country. Letting go of stereotypes about black males will help more than just black males. Valuing all members of the human family is the most prosperous way forward for a nation as diverse as the U.S..

All of us should reject any narratives that denigrate people and prejudice one group against another, that's why I'm committed to informing people of all races and genders to bring about a more understanding, caring and prosperous collaboration.

We can each be the hero in the story of America's future. As black men and as a nation, our challenges are real, but our contributions are more real. What you focus on has power over your life. So, as black males and as Americans, we make our future when we make our choices.

When One Vote Is Not Enough

There was a time when the admonition “vote early” was accompanied with “and often.” No doubt many who used the expression had Chicago in mind, so photos of President Obama voting early in his hometown surely reminded old timers of the days when people really did vote early and often.

Although election watchdogs remain appropriately vigilant in their pursuit of voting fraud, and it is reasonable to believe that fraud is rare in American elections today, there is little attention being paid to the consequences of the nationwide trend to early voting. Is it a good thing? What impact is it having on our elections? Why are candidates across the political spectrum urging people to vote early?

Presumably the answer to the last question is that candidates believe it will give them an advantage. If supporters vote early, they are less likely to put it off and miss the deadline of Election Day. Get-out-the-vote efforts take boots on the ground; if you have more days to get people to the polls, you can cover more ground with the same number of boots. And most people are influenced by the last thing they’ve heard or read, so if you can get them to the polls before they have a chance to hear your opponent’s pitch, they might be more likely to vote for you.

 

Of course early voting was always possible, though it was known as absentee voting and you had to have a good reason to get your ballot early. Now over 30 states allow no-excuse absentee voting. In Florida, where I vote, everyone can vote early because we get our ballots in the mail almost three weeks before elections. Between the mailing of the ballots and Election Day, the candidates can’t know how you have voted, but they can know whether you’ve voted. That way they can hound those who haven’t mailed in their ballots and, if they’re reasonably sophisticated, leave early voters alone. Now there’s a reason to vote early.

But voting early, as a routine option for all voters, does have real effects on elections. Proponents of vote by mail argue that one of those effects is higher voter turnout. It makes it easier for those who might have difficulty getting to the polls or taking time from work on Election Day. The state of Washington recently adopted the Oregon model, and polling stations are certain to become extinct in other states. A white paper published last year by Runbeck Election Services declares that “vote-by-mail is the past, present and future of democracy in America with ballots on-demand.”


No doubt they are correct. Early voting, vote by mail and, surely soon to come, electronic voting from our home computers is the future. But these trends come with costs as well as the claimed benefits.

Campaigns can no longer plan to peak on Election Day. They have to communicate their messages by the earliest date ballots are available and then keep it up right until Election Day. Sometimes candidate debates happen after some people have voted. A late October surprise might lead some who have already voted to wish for a second chance. It’s like being in a meeting where an important decision is to be made and some of the people have filled out their ballots before the discussion is concluded.

Early voting makes it more difficult for candidates to engage in serious debates about serious issues, and goodness knows we could use more of that. It puts a premium on strategy and tactics at the expense of an informed electorate and of democratic choices that reflect the contemporaneous opinions of the citizenry. We know from the volatility in the polls that voters’ opinions can change dramatically over the course of two or three weeks. Given Romney’s momentum, it’s not surprising that the Obama campaign has been particularly enthusiastic about early voting.

Early voting and vote by mail have another cost. They make Election Day less and less an important civic occasion and more and more just the day on which the votes are counted and the winners projected within minutes of the closing of the polls — which actually doesn’t happen in Oregon and Washington because there are no polls. What was once a solemn occasion celebrating the sovereignty of the people and the all-important right to vote has been reduced to maybe 30 minutes of waiting for the talking heads to declare a winner, followed by endless chatter about why things turned out as they did.

Increasingly, our embrace of early voting — warts and all — is part of the reason things turn out the way they do.

28% Corporate Tax Rates; Dow Jones Industrial Average? Are The Books Being Cooked?

Did You Forget What Happened At Enron

The Obama administration has unveiled its corporate tax reform plan, calling for lowering the corporate rate from 35 to 28 percent while closing loopholes elsewhere. Officials billed the proposed changes as a way to make America more attractive to businesses while also raising revenue for the government 

"It's a framework that lowers the corporate tax rate and broadens the tax base in order to increase competitiveness for companies across the nation," Obama said in a written statement. He added: "This reform is fully paid for, and it won't add a dime to the deficit." 

Obama has also been all out in his assertion that we need to tax the rich to bring in more revenue so that we can get this pesky deficit under control. He doesn’t mention that he accelerated the level of deficit spending so we are now careening off a fiscal cliff. His logic and thought process to higher taxes equating higher levels of revenue are also very much off base.

Much is being made of his new proposal to lower corporate tax rates. Like most things Obama, the headline is good but the details leave a lot to be desired. This is a President that hates private industry and believes solely in big government solutions to fix problems. Remember, he destroyed the bankruptcy process with car companies and we are left with government holding 26% of GM equity. It’s a loser, just like his new plan.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner

Officials have said the reforms would actually raise money, despite the decrease in the rate, by making changes to provisions which Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner called "fundamentally unfair." The plan aims to raise $250 billion over 10 years.

Manufacturers would receive incentives so that their effective tax rate would be 25 percent. But corporations with overseas operations would also face a minimum tax on their foreign earnings; while taxes on oil and gas companies would reportedly see their taxes go up while losing many large deductions and subsidies. 

Instead of a blanket lowering of the rate on all corporations, Obama picks winners and losers and offers incentives for things like green energy. He eliminates loop holes for his least favorite kinds of companies, and opens or extends them for his favorite kinds of companies. The corporate tax proposal is simply another campaign document that gives Obama a good soundbite for the uninformed.

So, Why don’t higher taxes bring in higher amounts of revenue? It has to do with calculus. Think of tax revenue as a curve. Here is a parabola. A parabola that looks like this is the way most people think of tax rates.

The Laffer Curve

The lower you make the rate, the lower amount of revenue you generate. That is the accountants way to look at taxes, and why government numbers are always wrong no matter which party is quoting them. Even in the Republican numbers designed to poke holes in the Obama budget, I see usage of accounting numbers to make their point when convenient.


In reality, people's behavior changes significantly in response to tax rates. "At the margin" is what you need to focus on and get familiar with. Will the incentive to increase production and income increase if tax rates decrease on the next dollar made? Of course they do. More production then leads to higher amounts of revenue generated, even at lower rates. Of course, there is a limit to how low the rate can go before the curve starts to turn the other way.

Geithner, who unveiled the details publicly said, the current code is bad for business, claiming the overhaul would make the system more globally competitive. 

"Our tax system should not give companies an incentive to locate production overseas or engage in accounting games to shift profits abroad, eroding the U.S. tax base. Introducing the principle of a minimum tax on foreign earnings would help address these problems and discourage a global race to the bottom in tax rates," reads an outline provided by a senior administration official.

The outline says the manufacturing deduction -- emphasizing clean energy research and development -- would reduce the effective rate on manufacturing to no more than 25 percent.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, applauded the president for his overall goal of lowering rates and closing loopholes. However, he said the "corporate-only" plan "fails to address the need for comprehensive reform of our tax code." Urging the president to "keep going," he said the administration would find a "ready and willing partner" in House Republicans when it comes to pro-growth tax reform. 

Sen. Orrin Hatch

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, made clear that he was not impressed. He complained that the new plan lacked detail. 

"I'd hoped the White House would recognize the severity of the problem with a real plan and real leadership. But, after months of promises, we instead got a set of bullet points designed more for the campaign trail than an actual blueprint for fixing our tax code," Hatch said in a statement. "The devil's in the details when it comes to reforming our tax system -- details that are sorely missing in what was released today. Unfortunately, this so-called framework is murky, ill-defined and contradictory to the goal of reducing complexity and making our tax code more efficient."

Despite Hatch's concerns, the announcement last week at the Treasury Department was meant to fill in details of the tax reform outline Obama gave during his State of the Union address. 

The president said at the time he wants to lower the overall corporate tax rate "for the first time in 25 years." The U.S. corporate rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world. 

The White House is calling for more "fairness" and "simplicity" in the system, and in a bid to move companies back to the U.S., it would seek a minimum tax on global profits. Currently, many corporations do not invest overseas profits in the United States to avoid the 35 percent tax rate.

The Obama administration wants to appear to create more incentives for corporations to invest in the United States. While the rate itself may be among the highest in the world. Geithner argued that the effective rate is much lower because of all the loopholes in the system.

"We want to bring down the rate, and we think we can, to a level that's closer to the average of that of our major competitors," Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee.

During his State of the Union address, Obama pitched the tax reform as a way to "knock down barriers that stand in the way" of economic success. He described the tax code as the product of a "parade of lobbyists" rigging the system. 

"Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change," Obama said in January. He urged Congress to "simplify" the system, get rid of loopholes and use the savings to lower the corporate rate. 

Many members of both parties have said they favor overhauling the nation's individual and corporate tax systems, which they complain have rates that are too high and are riddled with too many deductions.

The corporate tax debate has also become an element of presidential politics. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has called for a 25 percent rate while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said he would cut the corporate tax rate to 12.5 percent, and Rick Santorum called for exempting domestic manufacturers from the corporate tax and halve the top rate for other businesses.

The Iranian Nuclear Dilemma

Iran is poised to greatly expand uranium enrichment at a fortified underground bunker to a point that would boost how quickly it could make nuclear warheads, and is building and a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, right or wrong, Islamic Iran is once again being cast as a pariah within the global community by its theocratic cousin Israel. And with animus and suspicion defining their relationship, is it any wonder the nuclear expertise of either state is considered an existential threat by each to the detriment of progressive regulative authority on nuclear resources in the Middle East? Until the root cause of Israeli and Iranian animosity is addressed the nuclear technology of Iran will surely remains questionable. 

Next-generation centrifuges

They said Tehran has put finishing touches on an installation that houses thousands of new next-generation centrifuges at the cavernous facility, machines that can produce enriched uranium much more quickly and efficiently than its present machines.

While saying that the electrical circuitry, piping and supporting equipment for the new centrifuges was now in place, sources emphasized that Tehran had not started installing the new machines at its Fordo facility and could not say whether it was planning to.

Still, the senior diplomats who asked for anonymity because their information was privileged suggested that Tehran would have little reason to prepare the ground for the better centrifuges unless it planned to operate them.

Fordo nuclear facility

The reported work at Fordo appeared to reflect Iran's determination to forge ahead with nuclear activity that could be used to make atomic arms despite rapidly escalating international sanctions and the latent threat of an Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities.

Fordo could be used to make fissile warhead material even without such an upgrade. Although older than Iran's new generation machines, the centrifuges now operating there can be reconfigured within days to make such material because they already are enriching to 20 percent a level that can be boosted quickly to weapons-grade quality.

Inspector Herman Nackaerts

United Nation's IAEA inspector Herman Nackaerts says Iran is committed to resolving all outstanding issues and wants to continue with constructive dialogue and progressive regulative authority, offering access to all Iranian nuclear sites. 

For too long destroying the Iranian nuclear industry has been seen by Israel as the only solution, apparently. Yet bombing Iran does not rectify the problematic relationship between Israel and Iran. An attack on Iran would not necessarily prevent subsequent strategic nuclear development by Iran for the basic sake of future state security. It could lead to a greater resolve by Israel to develop still greater weapons of mass destruction to handle the possibility. And so it goes Uranium enrichment U.N. inspections may well prove Iranian proclamations on their peacefu nuclear intentions, but they do nothing about the political divisions between the theocracies of Iran and Israel.

They don't change the basic fact that uranium enrichment can produce both nuclear weapons and energy. And if animus and mistrust remain between Israel and Iran, so might the desire for greater defense systems. 

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano

Iranian officials deny nuclear weapons aspirations, saying the claims are based on bogus intelligence from the US and Israel. But IAEA chief Yukiya Amano has said there are increasing indications of such activity.

His concerns were outlined in 13-page summary late last year listing clandestine activities that either can be used in civilian or military nuclear programs, or "are specific to nuclear weapons."Among these were indications that Iran has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead.

Iran's Shahab 3 missile

The report also cited preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test and development of a nuclear payload for Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile a weapon that could reach Israel.

Iran says it is enriching only to make nuclear fuel. But because enrichment can also create fissile warhead material, the UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Tehran in a failed attempt to force it to stop.

More recently, the US, the European Union and other Western allies have either tightened up their own sanctions or rapidly put new penalties in place striking at the heart of Iran's oil exports lifeline and its financial system.

The most recent squeeze on Iran was announced Friday, when SWIFT, a financial clearinghouse used by virtually every country and major corporation in the world, agreed to shut out the Islamic Republic from its network.

The choke-holds are being applied in part to persuade Israel to hold off on potential military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities among them Fordo, a main Israeli concern because it is dug deep into a mountain and could be impervious to the most powerful bunker busting bombs.

If Obama continues on his current path, he could well have a conflict. For this reason alone, he should change course. There are two possible outcomes of the barrage of words being launched here: a war that starts inadvertently (what, one wonders, would be the reaction today if a British naval patrol in the Gulf were captured by the Iranians, as happened four years ago?); or a war that starts after an attack by Israel. A negotiated climb-down by both sides is the least likely option, although the venue for one still exists. The next round of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will be held in Istanbul. Failing any breakthrough there, western policy is caught in a cleft stick.

The British foreign secretary, William Hague, warned on successive days that the Iranian nuclear programme could trigger a Middle East cold war and that Israeli military action to forestall it would be unwise. And yet, if you do not believe that sanctions will deter Tehran from its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons (and this newspaper talked to senior US officials who do not), one judgment inexorably leads to the other.

So competing voices in the US administration are both upping the ante and scurrying every month to Jerusalem to restrain Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu from doing what they have long promised to do. The latest visitor to Israel is Tom Donilon, Barack Obama's national security adviser. Long before coming to power, Netanyahu said that Israel's date with destiny lay with Iran, not the Palestinians. And there is no reason to disbelieve his intention to attack Iran.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

One does not have to doubt the sincerity of Obama's extended hand to Iran at the start of his presidency, or the two personal letters he wrote to its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to worry about the direction in which his administration's policies are leading him now.

Obama is no George W Bush. This president has not pulled out of Iraq, and started the drawdown in Afghanistan, only to start a conflict with a country with the power to mess up both Iraq and Afghanistan if attacked. But if he continues on this path, he could well have a conflict. For this reason alone, he should change course.

So competing voices in the US administration are both upping the ante and scurrying every month to Jerusalem to restrain Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu from doing what they have long promised to do. The latest visitor to Israel is Tom Donilon, Barack Obama's national security adviser. Long before coming to power, Netanyahu said that Israel's date with destiny lay with Iran, not the Palestinians. And there is no reason to disbelieve his intention to attack Iran.

A way out still exists: it means allowing Iran the ability to produce civilian nuclear energy as it is entitled to do under the non-proliferation treaty. To date, Iran has not broken the provisions of the NPT. The IAEA has a list of unanswered questions about suspected research into warhead miniaturization and nuclear triggers, but nothing has been proved. The gap between suspicion and proof creates the space for negotiation which would cap the amount of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride that Iran could produce, limit the sites in which such enrichment could take place, and prevent enrichment to military-grade levels. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose "deviant current" is battling Khamenei for candidates in the forthcoming parliamentary elections, has offered to stop higher enrichment in exchange for fuel rods. At the moment Iran, Israel and US are watching who will blink first. In the Middle East, that is a dangerous activity.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

These Numbers Only Make Sense, If You're Obama

The Invisible Work Force

Last week, the White House claimed that unemployment dropped for the fifth consecutive month to 8.3 percent, the lowest it has been in nearly three years  after adding 243,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I'm telling you right now that these the figures have been manipulated  and that the significant drop in employment was because of the fact that the federal agency charged with computing key economic data has significantly decreased the number of Americans in the workforce.

If you hold the workforce participation rate constant over the past year, unemployment would be about 9.3 percent instead of 8.3 percent, So it is a weird number that is out there, and I think people have to be looking at that carefully.



The same Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report that showed unemployment dropping to 8.3 percent showed total workforce participation the number of people either working or looking for work declining by 1.2 million people in one month. This is easy to explain in that 1.2 million seasonal employees (Christmas workers) gained employment during the holidays and it is here where the skew takes place.

The unemployment rate is determined by dividing the number of unemployed job-seekers by the total labor force. By reducing the number of workers in the overall workforce, the Obama administration can show actual unemployment dropping, when, in fact, improvements has been non-existent at best.

Many economists feel the official statistics seriously underestimate how bad the unemployment situation really is. They maintain that the key measure is the number of people who would like to have a job, but can’t find one.

When people retire from the workforce because of the aging of the nation’s population or give up looking for work because of prolonged unemployment, the BLS declares the unemployed person a “discouraged worker.”



At that point, the BLS lists them as “marginally attached to the workforce,” and they no longer are considered to be part of the nation’s working population.

Dropping them off the employment calculations keeps the unemployment rate substantially lower than it would be otherwise and has been key to the imagined  unemployment numbers during the past year, and it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million, the fact that BLS is skewing records in claims about the shrinking workforce. The most recent unemployment number was based on the assertion that the entire U.S. workforce has shrunk to a 30-year low.

An analysis of the Washington Times shows the labor force as a percentage of the available population hit 66 percent in October 1988, and remained there throughout the presidency of George H.W. Bush. It then reached 67 percent or better for 40 straight months during President Bill Clinton’s presidency, and was above 66 percent for virtually all of President George W. Bush’s presidency.

CEO Charles Biderman

But by the end of President Obama’s first year in office, it had dipped to 64.6 percent, before dipping to just 63.7 percent last month — its lowest point in more than thirty years.

One analyst who is stridently critical of the BLS numbers is TrimTabs.com CEO Charles Biderman. His firm uses what he considers a more modern and timely measurement, actual tax receipts to the IRS, to calculate employment.

By his firm’s calculations, the economy added only 44,000 jobs in January, not even enough to keep the unemployment rate from growing.




The BLS numbers "are just guesses,” Biderman said. “I don’t know whether they’re politically motivated or not." The White House is doing "cartwheels" over the positive jobs numbers being promulgated from the BLS, the Christian Science Monitor says.

"These numbers will go up and down in the coming months, and there's still far too many Americans who need a job or need a job that pays better than the one they have now,” President Obama said. “But the economy is growing stronger.”

BLS said that the bureau publishes its methodologies for calculating the unemployment rate online. While its tweaks its various formulas to keep them up to date, he states there has been no major change in how the rate is calculated in over a decade.

“The definitions have not changed . . . if someone is not actively looking for work for the four weeks preceding the reference week, they’re not in the labor force,” he says. “That was true years ago, and it’s true today.”

America Under Attack: An Inside Job

Beware America, I bring you news of your own death; a pale shroud laid out by your own hand. Idiotically, you have given religion status to an enemy invader called Islam; thereby egregiously violating the foremost principles of national security, sovereignty and warfare: An enemy invader must never be classified as a religion.

Doing so is equivalent to a mad doctor injecting deadly cancer cells into a healthy patient; in this case America. Look how Muslims are shoving mosques down our throat even at the hallowed "Ground Zero" of 9/11. They thumb their noses and jeer us, adding insult to injury. Why? Islam is "programmed" to bring down America and knows no limits. M.A. Khan in his excellently informative book, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy Of Forced Conversion, Imperialism And Slavery states:

"The perpetuation of a global Islamic rule for eternity is the ultimate goal of Allah"

Dr. Wafa Sultan

Perhaps this is why Dr. Wafa Sultan has named her book A GOD WHO HATES emphasizing Islam's God (Allah) hates all things non-Muslim and utilizes this hatred to fuel the fervor for global Islamic rule mentioned by M.A. Khan above. Needless to say, any ideology with a bigoted, hateful and murderous God should be prohibited religion status in all civilized nations. 

What's next? Don't be surprised if Muslims demand it's their religious right to tear down the White House and replace it with a mega mosque, give them an inch and they will take a mile. In the same way that a blood thirsty tiger cannot survive without devouring its prey. Islam cannot sustain itself without devouring other nations and ideologies. This is a fact; not an opinion; 1400 years of Islamic history prove the case a million times over. Steven Emerson's Investigative Project on Terrorism gives hundreds of up to date examples verifying the dubious nature of Allah's minions. I dare say, that those so called experts who consider Islam to be a religion are not competent in the field of ideology, philosophy, religion, history, sociology or warfare.

Rather than experts, these are "Damned fools" who cannot distinguish between a wooden nickel and a gold coin, and there are legions of them infesting our universities, the media, the state department, the justice department, the military brass, the CIA, the department of defense, the FBI, the NSA, and the Oval Office.

Deplorably, the very persons who are paid to defend us are actually aiding and abetting the overthrow of America by permitting Islam to be categorized as a religion on their watch. There can be no hope for the survival of America long term unless our leaders immediately reverse course by vociferously stating that Islam is not a religion in broad daylight on a world wide scale.

Verifying this epidemic of incompetence and dereliction of duty is the book entitled: Sharia The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis: Report Of Team B II, it states:

Inside Our Perimeter

"The fact the information from Team B II is not even being taught at the basic level to FBI counterterrorism agents and analysts, nor is it taught at the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security, The State or Defense Departments or the CIA . . . We have an enemy inside our perimeter. But for this nation, the challenge is not just the inability to distinguish friend from foe. Rather, it is an unwillingness to do so."

Returning to our medical analogy, this means that "physicians" paid to treat "cancer" are not allowed to study anything about "cancer" or even mention the name. What a laughing stock and painful embarrassment Americas defenders have become in the face of the Islam's ideological blitzkrieg. They might as well just all pack up and go home!

There is no doubt that Islam is an enemy invader. Its Koran shouts it, its prophet shouts it, its Imams shout it, its 1400 years malevolent history shouts it, its key texts shout it, its student organizations "shout it", its lawyers shout it, its refusal to assimilate in governments worldwide shouts it, and its bellicose and bigoted demands for Sharia shout it!

In his insightful article, "What Is Islam" Amil Amani cuts to the crux of the matter by voicing a similar opinion:

"Islam is not a religion, but a harmful thorn; thus, we must make laws to fight this unwanted thorn growing like mushrooms in our backyards . . . Islam is not a religion by any standards. It is a militant, political and savage cult created by one man: Muhammad. It is time that we treat Islam as the greatest threat to the human race. . . Islam is a comprehensive totalitarian form of slavery, it is the opposite of freedom."

 Rebecca Bynum

Our leadership urgently needs to heed the wise consul of Amil Amani. Surely the "experts" can only be considered competent to the extent they agree with him. Amil Amani is not alone in his convictions. Author Rebecca Bynum in her book , Allah Is Dead: Why Islam Is Not a Religion states a similar theme:

"Islam is a recipe for perpetual war... I believe Islam to be the duck-billed platypus of belief systems... If however, Islam continues to be classified as a religion and given the full protection and benefits religions receive in America, then we will be helpless to contain it... That is why Islam cannot remain in the religion category. "

Just An Example

Rebecca Bynum clearly states that Islam as a religion cannot be contained. The evidence is blatantly apparent; Muslims make up only 1 to 2 percent of our population but look at the enormous amount of havoc, disruption, and chaos they reek upon our society.

His usual position with Islam

Under the cover of a religion Islam has been given a free pass to sabotage America from within, and has made enormous progress since 9/11, increasing geometrically, becoming more pugnacious, belligerent and demanding. This means 9/11 has caused America to cower down ideologically and submissively roll out the red carpet to Islam; all this, because we have given an obvious enemy invader the privileged and protected status of a religion. "How stupid can you get?" Author Craig Winn in PROPHET OF DOOM has attempted to wake us up by declaring:

"The Qur'an condemns all non-Muslims-- Christians and Jews and those who worship many gods and no gods. It is an equal opportunity hater... In fact, the Qur'an was written to justify some of the most ungodly behavior the world has ever known... The simple truth is: good Muslims are bad people." 

 Nadal Malik Hassan

Our homegrown America born Jihadist, the "Fort Hood Shooter", Major Nadal Malik Hassan proved he was a good and devout Muslim by murdering 13 and wounding 32 unarmed innocent colleagues inspired by his hateful God Allah.

Now ask yourself, how can any ideology that is referred to as an "equal opportunity hater" and rightly so, ever be given the privileged status of a religion in the civilized world. The truth be told, Islam is the epitome of a barbarian invader, bigoted, totalitarian, pillaging and enslaving. Paraphrasing the wisdom of Winston Churchill, "Islam is the most retrograde of forces."

Once something has been labeled a religion, no American will question, challenge or think objectively about it. Call yourself a religion and Americans turn into zombies letting you do anything you want, even "kill them". The greatest military power in world history lays supine, lily livered, gutless and enfeebled, and it's all because we have wrongly given Islam the protected status of a RELIGION. "Good Bye America it's been nice knowin ya" Surely, this is the bleakest hour in American history when our nation cannot tell friend from foe, nor religion from invader.

There is no doubt that we Americans suffer from a collective mental illness, mental block, emotional imbalance, and psychological disorder, precipitated every time we hear the word religion. Let's call it schizo-religionitis. Mention the word "religion" and we immediately become deaf, dumb and blind, suspending all rational thought and common sense. Here is the childishly insane logic Americans apply to their criteria for a religion:

Apple juice is a liquid and drinking a cup is good for you; therefore drinking a cup of hemlock must be good for you because it is also a liquid.

The absurd conclusion is that drinking a cup of anything liquid is good for you whether it be apple juice or poison. Just hang out a sign with the word religion on it and Americans will instantly "drink up" any poison you feed them.

In other words, it's "one bullet" to the back of our head, with the "kill shot" coming from our own servile leadership. I am harping on this point because the wall of denial is extremely thick, marked by an "epidemic" of shallow mindedness, apathy, flagrant intellectual dishonesty and rampant monetary corruption; the whole quagmire tainted by middle east oil money engulfing our entire military industrial complex, intelligence community, political leadership, media, White House, academic and religious communities. Christopher Logan has written a brilliantly insightful satire called "United States Department of Jihad!" revealing the subversion of our own leadership.

The best thing all Americans can do is tell the truth that Islam is an enemy invader-- not a religion. Doing otherwise is equivalent to "cutting the throat" of America, which our leaders and citizenry do on a daily basis, while "sitting up" for Muslim oil money like puppies doing tricks for doggie biscuits.

In the Art Of War translated by John Minford, Sun Tzu remarks, "He who knows neither self nor enemy will fail in every battle." Today America exhibits a catastrophic failure because it knows neither self nor enemy and stands as helpless as a kitten against the onslaught of Islam's ideological offensive.

One thing is certain, every Imam in the United States is putting on a smiling face and speaking in a sickeningly sweet voice while touting the immaculate splendors of Islam, as they guide their flock to infiltrate and trash this nation" by hook or by crook" as emphatically commanded by the Koran which is irrefutably a manual of war and blood thirsty totalitarian conquest rather than a sacred and holy book.