TRUTH BE TOLD

TRUTH BE TOLD
WORLD NEWS EVERY DAY

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Fiscal Cliff Over, Now the Attack on the People Begins

Fiscal Cliff Over, Now the Attack on the People Begins

taxes
Last night, Congress passed a watered down fiscal cliff package that will raise taxes on everyone, but the worst is yet to come, and this “deficit cutting” measure contains some surprises.
Economist Jack Rasmus highlights Obama’s comments after passage which signal what we can expect:
“I am very open to compromise . . . Medicare is the biggest contribution to the deficit.” In fact, Medicare does not contribute to the deficit because it is funded by a separate tax, but Obama has signaled – expect cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.Obama has been laying the ground work to cut social insurances since 2010.
The “deal” only cut the deficit by $620 billion of the bi-partisan goal of $4 trillion so there are a lot of budget cuts ahead and they will not come from the military or national security state, they will come from the necessities of the people. Even if the U.S. had gone over the cliff cuts to the military were minimal, DoDcuts scheduled to take effect in 2013 were only $24 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, much less than the oft-mentioned $500 billion reported in the media. The $500 billion are cuts over ten years, mostly backloaded to the out years. Thus these are cuts the military would likely never see.
The reason that the deal cut the deficit so little is because Obama backed off his campaign promise to raise taxes on the top 2%, and instead only repealed the Bush tax cuts on the top 1.5%, those earning over $400,000.  As a result, rather than raising $1.2 trillion in revenue, the deal only raised $600 billion and part of that came from working people as payroll taxes were re-instated.  The result will be more cuts on the rest of us – so later this year the bi-partisan cut to corporate tax rates can be passed.
The “deal” was not all about cuts, as Matt Stoller writes, the deficit cutters were very generous to Goldman Sachs: “Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.”  Another gift to big finance and multinationals: a provision was included that allows U.S. multinationals to not pay taxes on income earned abroad at a cost $1.5 billion to the budget.
And, the people will need their circuses as austerity hits so NASCAR got $43 million in tax breaks over two years to build race tracks and associated facilities. Hollywood studios received $150million in tax breaks for 2010 and 2011.
People facing foreclosure and living in underwater houses lost the small foreclosure relief programs that existed and tax laws were set to treat any write-down on a mortgage as income (i.e. if a mortgage was written down by $100,000 the tax payer had to pay taxes on $100,000 income) but the cliff deal delayed that tax change for one year.
Taking care of ill family members at home was dealt a set-back with a provision in the Affordable Care Act designed to let millions of elderly and disabled people get help at home rather than be placed in institutional care being repealed.
There was good news for Green energy in the deal. Roughly a dozen provisions would extend credits and incentives for plug-in electric vehicles, energy-efficient appliances, biodiesel and renewable diesel, and other alternative energy initiatives.
Budget debates are how government sets its priorities and the fiscal cliff package shows were h government’s priorities are: low taxes on the wealthy and corporations, giveaways to business and take-aways from the American people.  People can expect much worse in the months to come unless they get organized and mobilize against austerity in a big way.  Elected officials will need to be scared by the public in a big way to stop the bi-partisan assault on the people.
This article was taken from the weekly e-newsletter of Its Our Economy.  Sign up for the newsletter at www.ItsOurEconomy.US.

Jail Time for Offensive Facebook Postings?

Jail Time for Offensive Facebook Postings?

How many people would be in jail if annoying or offending a person were against the law? The answer: pretty much everyone. If you think that you might be one of these people and you like to send information electronically, there are a few places you should probably avoid.
Vernon County, Wisconsin, is among a growing number of jurisdictions that are implementing so-called cyber-bullying laws. A Vernon County ordinance makes it a crime to “send information to another person by electronic means with the intent to annoy, offend, demean, ridicule, degrade, belittle, disparage, or humiliate any person.” There is an exception if the information serves a “legitimate purpose.”
The statute is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, offensive speech is protected as long as it is not incitement to immediate unlawful conduct, obscene, child pornography, a threat, or fighting words. Here, the ordinance goes far beyond those unprotected categories of speech and targets speech that is simply annoying.
Putting First Amendment issues aside, the statute still fails to pass constitutional muster. For a criminal law to be constitutional, it must be written so that the average citizen can know what the law prohibits. If a law is too vague, it is void. This principle is appropriately called the “Void for Vagueness Doctrine.”
Does the Vernon County ordinance clearly state what conduct is prohibited? What does “annoy” mean? What does “offend” mean? What about “humiliate”? These things can mean different things to different people. As one commentator noted, the officials who implemented this law probably find criticism of the law offensive.
What if a person finds religious teachings offensive and an individual is constantly posting religious messages on his Facebook page?
The ordinance uses the phrase “any person.” Does that mean that the information can be annoying to someone other than the recipient of the message? That’s what the text of the ordinance says. If a teenager sends a text message to a friend with the intent to demean some B-List celebrity who is not a recipient of the text message, is that a violation of this law? The way the ordinance is written, our hypothetical teenager is a criminal.
By the way, so is anyone who forwards an email that winds up in the mailbox of someone offended by it. If you’re a Vikings fan, be careful what you say about the Packers—particularly this weekend—lest your email wind up in Vernon County and you wind up in jail.
The statute provides a defense if the information serves a “legitimate purpose.” Who determines what a “legitimate purpose” is? Some would argue that disparaging or humiliating someone can serve a legitimate purpose, when that person deserves to be disparaged or humiliated for something he has said or done that is morally blameworthy.
When the ordinance was being debated, the lawyer in favor of the ordinance said specifically that this would apply to Facebook posts. When siblings or friends post unflattering pictures of each other on their Facebook walls, are they criminals? If it was done, as is often the case, with the intent to annoy or humiliate the other, under this law that person might be heading for the slammer.
Are we shifting from a society where children complain to their parents about siblings or friends to one where children file complaints with the police about the same people?
It used to be, “Mom! She is being mean to me! Make her stop!” Will it soon be, “Officer! She is offending me on Facebook! Put her in jail!”?
This ordinance is incredibly overbroad and puts ordinary citizens in jeopardy of becoming criminals. This is one more example of the increasing overcriminalization problem at every level of government.

FSA kills relative of Syrian security chief in Deraa

FSA kills relative of Syrian security chief in Deraa

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebels had attacked the Ghazali compound on the outskirts of Qarfa alongside the Deraa-Damascus highway. (Reuters)
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said rebels had attacked the Ghazali compound on the outskirts of Qarfa alongside the Deraa-Damascus highway. (Reuters)
Syrian opposition fighters Friday killed a relative of political security chief Rustom Ghazali, a key regime figure, on Friday in the southern province of Deraa, a watchdog said, as government warplanes and artillery pounded restive suburbs of Damascus.

State television also reported the attack, without mentioning the family ties between Ghazali, a Sunni Muslim, and the three men.
“An armed terrorist group attacked a number of people at a petrol station near the village of Qarfa, which led to the killing of one and the wounding of another,” Syria TV said, identifying the dead man as Hussam Ghazali.

It said the victim’s father Fayez was wounded, and Jalal Ghazali was abducted.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights gave the same report, but quoted local activists as saying the three men were relatives of Major General Rustom Ghazali.

It said rebels had attacked the Ghazali compound on the outskirts of Qarfa alongside the Deraa-Damascus highway.

According to the Syrian Revolution General Commission, Free Syrian Army rebels targeted a “gathering of security forces and shabiha (militiamen) in the Ghazali complex before noon.”

Rustom Ghazali’s nephew was killed, while his brother was wounded and another nephew was kidnapped, it said.

“The siblings of Major General Ghazali and their children were the worst shabiha for the people of the town of Qarfa and the province as a whole,” the activist network quoted residents as saying.

Deraa native Ghazali, 59, has been political security chief since his predecessor and three other senior security heads were killed in a Damascus bombing in July 2012.

Ghazali was the head of military intelligence in Lebanon from 2002 to 2005, when Syrian troops withdrew from its tiny neighbor after occupying it for three decades.

On the frontlines, fighting flared in areas around Damascus as opposition fighters seeking to topple President Bashar Assad try to push into the city itself. The opposition fighters advanced in the suburbs threaten the government’s grip on its seat of power, prompting a punishing response from the military on rebel areas skirting the capital.

Anti-regime activists circulated a video they said showed an explosion near a military intelligence office in the town of Nabk, north of the capital. They had no information on casualties and the government did not comment on the bombing.

Syria’s 21-month conflict has turned into a bloody stalemate that the United Nations says has killed more than 60,000 people, and it warns the civil war could claim the lives of many more this year. International efforts to stop the fighting have failed so far, and although rebels have made gains in recent months, they still can’t challenge Assad’s hold on much of the country.

Muslims behaving badly

THAILAND: Muslims behaving badly when they don’t get their way

Muslims have killed more than 5000 Buddhists in Thailand including 50 Children, 150 Teachers and 450 Women, so far in last eight years.

rotectbuddhistentityofthailand-vi

All photos below are the work of Islamic Separatists who want their own sharia-ruled country within Southern Thailand. 

Hindu Existence  (h/t Susan K) Education is bad, Sharia is good. Sharia loving people are now killing the teachers mercilessly who do not believe in Sharia  maintaining  the Islamic dictum  to instill the Terror in the mind of Infidels. As Quran says: in  8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”  The threat of Islamic terror is now working. Now, the Buddhist Teachers in Southern Thailand have become the series target of Malay Muslim militants forcing many to seek transfers fearing further attacks.

5_reuters_JPG-vi

Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra  visited Muslim majority southern Thailand on Thursday on 13th Dec 2012 , after horrific attacks this week in which six people died, including an 11-month-old baby and two teachers, who are increasingly seen as targets. The most recent killings caused the southern teachers’ union to stage a two-day strike last week, shutting 1,300 public schools.

thailand-family-children-beheaded

Prime Minister of Thailand, Yingluck Shinawatra and the head of the Thai Army visiteof Thailand accordingly the area on Thursday, although Human Rights Watch said insurgents circulated leaflets during their visit that promised further school attacks. Yingluck met teachers and security officials during her visit. “Whatever happens, children need to have a safe place to learn. I thank teachers for having the courage to teach and I will ask for reinforcements and extra troops to ensure their security,” Yingluck told reporters.

thailandbeheadings06500x375-vi

Attacks on Buddhist schoolteachers by Muslim insurgents in southern Thailand have escalated terribly in recent days, like last week, when men with M-16s walked into a school cafeteria in Pattani Province, separated out two Buddhist instructors and killed them on the spot. One of them, the school principal, was shot in the head at point-blank range.

thai-soldiers-ambush-killed-muslim-jihad-narathiwat-province-01-500x376

With teachers becoming targets of militant attacks, a large number of Buddhist educators in the troubled deep South have applied for transfers. Their morale is at its lowest point following reports that they have become a new target group in the southern insurgency, Deputy Education Minister Sermsak Pongpanich said recently. Statistics show that 80 per cent of the roughly 150 teachers killed in the violence in the area over the past eight years were Buddhists, he said.

thailand-muslims-jihad-07

More than 5,000 people have been killed since 2004 in the three Muslim majority provinces (Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat)in the country’s south in the Buddhist majority country. Most attacks have been blamed on Muslim insurgents.

Teachers at 1,200 schools in South Thailand have decided to suspend classes today and tomorrow following a spate of attacks by insurgents. The decided to suspend classes after meeting school administrators on Wednesday on 12th Dec 2012.

thailand-muslims-jihad-03

Car bombs, home-made grenades, assassinations and arson have become part of daily life in southern Thailand since a wave of separatist and sectarian violence began there in 2004.

The closure of all schools in 10 secondary educational service areas will allow security forces to review their performance, lay out plans to protect teachers, and hunt down the assailants, Boonsom Tongsriprai, the chairman of Confederation of Teachers in the Southern Border Provinces said.

thailandmuslimsjihad13500x375-vi

The confederation called an urgent meeting with school administrators in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat the three Muslim majority provinces yesterday after fresh attacks.

Khru Ya, a retired teacher in Pattani, and a Muslim, told The Bangkok Post: “There is a saying among insurgents: ‘Get Buddhists, gain merit.’ They believe that if they kill Buddhists, they will go to heaven.”

thai-soldiers-ambush-killed-muslim-jihad-narathiwat-province-03

An investigative report released Monday on 10th Dec by Human Rights Watch demanded that the insurgents end their school attacks and called for added security measures by the Thai government.

“Insurgents in southern Thailand who execute teachers show utter depravity and disregard for humanity,” said Brad Adams, Asia director for Human Rights Watch (HRW). “These attacks harm not only teachers and schools, but the Muslim students, their families, and the broader Muslim community the insurgents claim to represent.”

thai_jihad_6

Teachers in the Thai-Malaysian border areas have asked for security cameras to be installed at their schools, the HRW. report said, along with increased hazard pay for educators and government compensation for the relatives of victimized teachers.

More than 50 children have been killed and some 340 injured in the provinces bordering Malaysia since 2004, according to the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF’s representative in Thailand, Bijaya Rajbhandari, called the attacks “a tragic, senseless and unacceptable act”.

thai_jihad_3-vi

Successive governments of Thailand (a Buddhist Country) have spent more than 160 billion Thai Baht (1.00 THB = 1.79 INR / 1.00 USD = 30.59 THB) in the past eight years to quell the violence but the Islamic insurgency has rumbled on only to annihilate Buddhist community people in of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat provinces in order to make a sovereign Muslim region there.

Islamic States do not allow Temples, Pagodas, Churches or Synagogues anyway. Then, why a Buddhist State Thailand allowed so many Mosques there? Removal of  all the epicentres of Terrorism is beneficial to the Modern States.

 thai_jihad_5-vi

$1 Trillion Obamacare Tax Comes in January

$1 Trillion Obamacare Tax Comes in January

12/31/12
Americans for Tax Reform reported:
On January 1, regardless of the outcome of fiscal cliff negotiations, Americans will be hit with a $1 trillion Obamacare tax hike.
Obamacare contains twenty new or higher taxes. Five of the taxes hit for the first time on January 1. In total, for the years 2013-2022, Americans face a net $1 trillion tax hike for the years 2013-2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The five major Obamacare taxes taking effect on January are as follows…
  1. Medical device tax
  2. Flex account tax
  3. Investment income surtax
  4. Limiting medical itemized deuctions
  5. Medicare payroll tax hike
Huckleberry commented:
Largest tax increase in the history of our nation. 1 out of 7 are now on food stamps and our homes are worth 39% less than they were 4 years ago. More people going in to poverty each and & every day and this president wants to raise taxes. Welcome to Obamaville, the newest 3rd world country.  

How to Bypass Internet Censorship

Introduction

On 10 December 1948, the adoption by the General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights launched a new era. Lebanese scholar Charles Habib Malik described it to the assembled delegates as follows:
Every member of the United Nations has solemnly pledged itself to achieve respect for and observance of human rights. But, precisely what these rights are we were never told before, either in the Charter or in any other national instrument. This is the first time the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms are spelled out authoritatively and in precise detail. I now know what my government pledged itself to promote, achieve, and observe. … I can agitate against my government, and if she does not fulfill her pledge, I shall have and feel the moral support of the entire world.
One of the fundamental rights the Universal Declaration described, in Article 19, was the right to freedom of speech:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
When those words were written sixty years ago, no one imagined how the global phenomenon of the Internet would expand people's ability to "seek, receive and impart information", not only across borders but at amazing speeds and in forms that can be copied, edited, manipulated, recombined and shared with small or large audiences in ways fundamentally different than the communications media available in 1948.

More information in more places than ever imagined

The unbelievable growth in the past several years of what is on the Internet and where it is available has the effect of making an unimaginably vast portion of human knowledge and activity suddenly present in unexpected places: a hospital in a remote mountain village, your 12-year-old's bedroom, the conference room where you are showing your closest colleagues the new product design that will put you ahead of the competition, your grandmother's house.
In all of these places, the possibility of connecting to the world opens up many wonderful opportunities for improving people's lives. When you contract a rare disease on vacation, the remote village hospital may save your life by sending your test results to a medical specialist in the capital, or even in another country; your 12-year-old can research her school project or make friends with kids in other countries; you can present your new product design simultaneously to top managers in offices around the world, who can help you improve it; your grandmother can send you her special apple pie recipe by e-mail in time for you to bake it for dessert tonight.
But the Internet does not contain only relevant and helpful educational information, friendship and apple pie. Like the world itself, it is vast, complex and often scary. It is just as available to people who are malicious, greedy, unscrupulous, dishonest or merely rude as it is to you and your 12-year-old child and your grandmother.

Not everyone wants to let the whole world in

With all of the best and worst of human nature reflected on the Internet and certain kinds of deception and harassment made much easier by the technology, it should not surprise anyone that the growth of the Internet has been paralleled by attempts to control how people use it. There are many different motivations for these attempts. The goals include:
  • Protecting children from material perceived as inappropriate, or limiting their contact with people who may harm them.
  • Reducing the barrage of unwanted commercial offers by e-mail or on the Web.
  • Controlling the size of the flow of data any one user is able to access at one time.
  • Preventing employees from sharing information that is viewed as the property of their employer, or from using their work time or an employer's technical resources for personal activities.
  • Restricting access to materials or online activities that are banned or regulated in a specific jurisdiction (for example a country or an organization like a school) such as explicit sexual or violent materials, drugs or alcohol, gambling and prostitution, and information about religious, political or other groups or ideas that are deemed to be dangerous.
Some of these concerns involve allowing people to control their own experience of the Internet (for instance, letting people use spam-filtering tools to prevent spam from being delivered to their own e-mail accounts), but others involve restricting how other people can use the Internet and what those other people can and can't access. The latter case causes significant conflicts and disagreements when the people whose access is restricted don't agree that the blocking is appropriate or in their interest.

Who is filtering or blocking the Internet?

The kinds of people and institutions who try to restrict the Internet use of specific people are as varied as their goals. They include parents, schools, commercial companies, operators of Internet cafés or Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and governments at different levels.
The extreme end of the spectrum of Internet control is when a national government attempts to restrict the ability of its entire population to use the Internet to access whole categories of information or to share information freely with the outside world. Research by the OpenNet Initiative (http://opennet.net) has documented the many ways that countries filter and block Internet access for their citizens. These include countries with pervasive filtering policies, who have been found to routinely block access to human rights organizations, news, blogs, and Web services that challenge the status quo or are deemed threatening or undesirable. Others block access to single categories of Internet content, or intermittently to specific websites or network services to coincide with strategic events, such as elections or public demonstrations. Even countries with generally strong protections for free speech sometimes try to limit or monitor Internet use in connection with suppressing pornography, so-called "hate speech", terrorism and other criminal activities, leaked military or diplomatic communications, or the infringement of copyright laws.

Filtering leads to monitoring

Any of these official or private groups may also use various techniques to monitor the Internet activity of people they are concerned about, to make sure that their attempts at restriction are working. This ranges from parents looking over their child's shoulder or looking at what sites were visited on the child's computer, to companies monitoring employees' e-mail, to law enforcement agencies demanding information from ISPs or even seizing the computer in your home looking for evidence that you have engaged in "undesirable" activities.

When is it censorship?

Depending on who is restricting access to the Internet and/or monitoring its use, and the perspective of the person whose access is being restricted, nearly any of these goals and any of the methods used to achieve them may be seen as legitimate and necessary or as unacceptable censorship and a violation of fundamental human rights. A teenage boy whose school blocks access to his favorite online games or to social networking sites such as Facebook feels his personal freedom to be abridged just as much as someone whose government prevents him from reading an online newspaper about the political opposition.

Who exactly is blocking my access to the Internet?

Who is able to restrict access to the Internet on any given computer in any given country depends on who has the ability to control specific parts of the technical infrastructure. This control may be based on legally established relationships or requirements, or on the ability of governmental or other bodies to pressure those who have legal control over the technical infrastructure to comply with requests to block, filter or collect information. Many parts of the international infrastructure that supports the Internet are under the control of governments or government-controlled agencies, any of which may assert control, in accordance with local law or not.
Filtering or blocking of parts of the Internet may be heavy-handed or very light, clearly defined or nearly invisible. Some countries openly admit to blocking and publish blocking criteria, as well as replacing blocked sites with explanatory messages. Other countries have no clear standards and sometimes rely on informal understandings and uncertainty to pressure ISPs to filter. In some places, filtering comes disguised as technical failures and governments don't openly take responsibility or confirm when blocking is deliberate. Different network operators even in the same country and subject to the same regulations may execute filtering in quite different ways out of caution, technical ignorance, or commercial competition.
At all levels of possible filtering, from individual to national, the technical difficulties of blocking precisely what is viewed as undesirable may have unexpected and often ridiculous consequences. "Family-friendly" filters meant to block sexual materials prevent access to useful health information. Attempts to block spam may filter out important business correspondence. Attempts to block access to specific news sites may also cut off educational resources.

What methods exist to bypass filtering?

Just as many individuals, corporations and governments see the Internet as a source of dangerous information that must be controlled, there are many individuals and groups who are working hard to ensure that the Internet, and the information on it, is freely available to everyone who wants it. These people have as many different motivations as those seeking to control the Internet. However, for someone whose Internet access is restricted and who wants to do something about it, it may not matter whether the tools were developed by someone who wanted to chat with a girlfriend, write a political manifesto, or send spam.
There is a vast amount of energy, from commercial, non-profit and volunteer groups, devoted to creating tools and techniques to bypass Internet censorship, resulting in a number of methods to bypass Internet filters. Collectively, these are called circumvention methods, and can range from simple work-arounds, protected pathways, to complex computer programs. However, they nearly all work in approximately the same manner. They instruct your Web browser to take a detour through an intermediary computer, called a proxy, that:
  • is located somewhere that is not subject to Internet censorship
  • has not been blocked from your location
  • knows how to fetch and return content for users like you.

 

What are the risks of using circumvention tools?

Only you, the person who hopes to bypass restrictions on your Internet access, can decide whether there are significant risks involved in accessing the information you want; and only you can decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks. There may be no law specifically banning the information you want or the act of accessing it. On the other hand, the lack of legal sanctions does not mean you are not risking other consequences, such as harassment, losing your job, or worse.
The following chapters discuss how the Internet works, describe various forms of online censorship, and elaborate on a number of tools and techniques that might help you circumvent these barriers to free expression. The overarching issue of digital privacy and security is considered throughout the book, which begins by covering the basics, then addresses a few advanced topics before closing with a brief section intended for webmasters and computer specialists who want to help others bypass Internet censorship.

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, ...

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, ...

 



H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby ...

...removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
113th Congress, 2013–2015. Text as of ().
Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

...of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Introduced:
Jan 04, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor:
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY15]
Status:
Referred to Committee
The resolution’s title was written by the resolution’s sponsor. H.J.Res. stands for House joint resolution.

TO ALL THE GUN OWNERS

IF THEY COME TO TAKE YOUR GUNS USE Napalm


How to Make Napalm: http://youtu.be/ei0sS57QbuA via @youtube

SEE IF THEY BULLET PROOF VEST CAN PROTECT THEM FROM NAPALM

The Police State & Warfare State: Both Couched On a Bad Idea

The Police State & Warfare State: Both Couched On a Bad Idea



CopBlock
January 5, 2013
Tonight, when hanging out at the Keene Activity Center, my bud Darryl Perry told me that New Hampshire – where I now live – has a drone base.
A quick Google search by Garret Ean found the write-up below by David Brooks, which was published in The Nashua Telegraph on June 15th, 2012.
In the interest of being unbiased, it’s worth mentioning – as you’ll see if you read the article – it’s claimed that the drones housed in NH are tiny and not militarized.
Is that slight delineation of fact really a big deal (assuming of course, it was true and is still true)?
Anyone thinking can see where the trajectory is heading. Assuming the Statist Quo continues.
How did we reach this point? Where it’s plausible that weaponized aerial tech controlled by some indoctrinated person* sitting in a shipping container out in the southwest desert might push a button and end the life of someone just up the road?
And why is this topic being discussed on Cop Block, which gives as its mission police accountability? Because I don’t believe most folks are happy with the paramilitary nature of policing today**, and because the same perverse incentives are inherent in the warfare state as in the police state.
Much of the growth has happened since 9/11. And now local police departments are getting their own drones.
Let’s apply this to an issue many seem focused on: firearms.
Some people clamor that a big “gun grab” is near. But that wouldn’t be even a consideration if those same folks weren’t first given the authority to regulate guns.
At its root, the real issue is: Why does any uninvolved third party have anything to say about your property?
People boast about having a permit or license to carry concealed, but doesn’t that action – requesting permission to act – denote just who is the slave and who is the master?
When you allow for even a kernel of a double-standard to exist, it will always increase. When you allow a person to steal from you to “protect” you, how do you expect things to go?
That’s why, throughout history, it’s always been the “authorities” responsible for the most death. The most famine, property destruction and environmental degradation. There is simply no accountability. It’s the reason internal investigations can never “fix” the issue police brutality.
The allowance for double-standards – or democide, as coined by R.J. Rummel – brought-about over 250,000,000 deaths last century. Such genocide has occurred due largely to the belief in a bad idea. The police state is based on the same bad idea***.
The proliferation of drones, Bearcats, and prisons is the natural consequence that occurs when a person is granted extra rights.
Do you believe someone, based on their place of occupation or costume worn, has extra rights? I sure don’t. If you don’t, I encourage you to have a conversation about that with those in your sphere.
Ideas have consequences. Think for yourself and encourage others to do the same.
There’s clearly a reality being crafted that many who advocate for peaceful interactions, or just a ‘live and let live’ mindset, aren’t fans of.
Fortunately, the future is not set, and many good folks are working to bring-about one better.
BTW – Essam, the artist who made the NYPD drone image at the top of this post, was kidnapped by men with badges. Is the “free” society you want to perpetuate?
* with the glaring exception of Brandon Bryant
** fortunately more current police employees are thinking for themselves
*** watch my recent video, Want to End Police Brutality? Focus on the Institution
This article originally appeared at CopBlock

H.J.Res. 15 amendment to remove term limits on the President of the United States

H.J.Res. 15 amendment to remove term limits on the President of the United States


H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Do you want Obama for life?
Oppose this bill here…
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hjres15
H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, …
…of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Introduced:
Jan 04, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor:
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY15]
Status:
Referred to Committee
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjres15

No term limit for President Obama?


No term limit for President Obama?


Honduran president overthrown
Hondurans celebrate ousting of Zelaya (AP/Javier Galeano)
A resolution, H.J. Res. 5, was introduced into committee on January 6, 2009 which seeks to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, thus removing term limits for U.S. presidents.
Yes, you read it right. Democrat Representative Jose Serrano of New York wishes to allow unlimited terms for President Obama.
The presidential term limit was ratified as an amendment to the Constitution in 1951. However, our founding fathers adhered to the principle of a two-term limit on their own accord. The only president that served more than two terms was Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt, who served four non-consecutive terms.
Shall we go the way of the Venezuelan dictatorship? Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and President Obama both expressed opposition to the recent ousting of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, calling it a coup, rather than a legal overthrow of a president who was violating Honduran law and attempting to change their constitution to permit him to stay in office indefinitely. The action had gone through the proper legal process, was voted on by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress, and had the support of the majority of the people.
According to an AP report, Obama stated, "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections," he added. "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions. ... We don't want to go back to a dark past."
What’s he afraid of? Why would Obama side with a tyrant rather than the people of Honduras? Could this “precedent” be a threat to his future plans?
The AP article also reports that Obama said the United States will "stand on the side of democracy" and work with other nations and international groups to resolve the matter peacefully. What does this mean – "work with other nations and international groups"? Does this mean he intends to intervene in the results of the Honduran political process in ousting their tyrant?
I am outraged by our president’s support for a power-hungry tyrant over the will of the people.

If you could would you make Obama president for life?

If you could would you make Obama president for life?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Absolutely not. But there are a few Democrats in government that are working on a bill to amend the 22nd Amendment (H.J.Res.5)

Source(s):

Other Answers (15)

  • America, always watch the democrats who are trying to amend the Constitution to remove term limits for the presidency. These liberal democrats will say anything that suits their agenda at the moment. Liberal democrats oppose term limits for every other part of government. If they could, they would remove them for the president as well. Don't listen to them. Don't fall for their lies. They think they have the game won because of the last election. They think that a republican will never will a popularity contest in America. They might be right. But look for them to try and tinker with term limits. The only president to have EVER served more than two terms got elected FOUR times. Gee, guess what? He was a liberal democrat. It was FDR. If he hadn't died in his fourth term, he might have been elected over and over again. It is because of him that we have the constitutional term limit on the presidency. DON'T BELIEVE WHAT LIBERAL DEMOCRATS SAY.
  • No, and this line of thinking is more nonsense being pushed out there by the usual people with an interest in seeing to it that you aren't paying attention to what they are doing in the House.

    Obama isn't that great, and he isn't that bad, and this garbage about a third term, or martial law is ridiculous.
  • No I would have impeached him after he Gave 1.5 Billion American Dollars to the terrorists Anarchists the Muslim Brotherhood who killed our Ambassador and three Marine Hero’s.

    IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
  • I'd make my mother-in-law President for life before I'd make Obama
  • NO, but if I could I would impeach him.

    Source(s):

    OBAMA WATCHED AMBASSADOR STEVENS MURDER FROM A DRONE
  • No, I believe as Eisenhower said, 8 years is enough for any president, be it in the USA or any other country.
  • I would make Jim Belushi president for life.
  • Someone would like to see that which backed him with 6 Billion to win. George Soros is lurking to always topple a country.
  • lol

    If I could, I would delete his 2 terms as President.
  • Only if he dies sometime before the next election.
  • God no. There is a reason why we have term limits.

    And I voted for him.
  • I think two terms is more than enough Obama.
  • No. I would the president to have one 6 year term.

Obama President For Life? H.J. Res 15 Would Remove Presidential Term Limits If Passed

Obama President For Life? H.J. Res 15 Would Remove Presidential Term Limits If Passed
Saturday, January 5, 2013 12:07
0
<a href="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=50cea33e4473b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" ><img src="http://ox-d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=326914&cs=50cea33e4473b&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>

Is THIS really what America wants or needs? If the just introduced H.J. Res 15 passes, Barack Obama will LEGALLY be able to be our dictator for the remainder of his life. I surely hope that all liberty loving patriots speak up to their Congressmen and women that 4 years of Barack Obama has been bad enough, we surely don’t need him around running America into the ground for another 40 years. The story below from Investment Watch Blog.:

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Oppose this bill here… https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hjres15

H.J.Res. 15: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, …
…of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Introduced:
Jan 04, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor:
Rep. José Serrano [D-NY15]
Status:
Referred to Committee

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hjres15 

Is comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler or other dictators of the past fair?

2013 WARNING: President Barack Obama Adolf Hitler Connection TRUTH 2013: http://youtu.be/A5xiS4sZBY4 via @youtube



Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith



Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith


David Green, Barbara Green
David and Barbara Green of Hobby Lobby
(CNSNews.com) - In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration is claiming that the First Amendment—which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion—nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs even on a matter that involves the life and death of innocent human beings.
Because federal judges—including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—have refused to grant an injunction protecting the owners of Hobby Lobby from being forced to act against their Christian faith, those owners will be subject to federal fines of up to $1.3 million per day starting Tuesday for refusing to include abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plan.
The Obama administration is making a two-fold argument for why it can force Christians to act against their faith in complying with the regulation it has issued under the Obamacare law that requires virtually all health care plans to cover, without co-pay, sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs.
The first argument the administration makes against the owners of Hobby Lobby is that Americans lose their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion when they form a corporation and engage in commerce. A person’s Christianity, the administration argues, cannot be carried out through activities he engages in through an incorporated business.
“Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery in a filing submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
“Because Hobby Lobby is a secular employer, it is not entitled to the protections of the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” Delery told the court on behalf of the administration. “This is because, although the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association are ‘right[s] enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike,’ the Free Exercise Clause ‘gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.’”
In keeping with Delery’s argument, the Washington Post, as a corporation, can use its First Amendment-protected freedom of speech to write editorials in support of the Obama administration imposing its contraception mandate on businesses like Hobby Lobby. But the members of the family that created and owns Hobby Lobby, because they formed Hobby Lobby as a corporation, have no First Amendment freedom of religion that protects them from being forced by the government to act against their religious beliefs in providing abortion-inducing drugs.
The second argument the administration makes to justify forcing Christians to act against their faith is more sweeping. Here the administration argues it can force a person to act against his religion so long as the coercion is done under the authority of a law that is neutral and generally applicable—in other words, as long as the law was not written specifically to persecute Christians as Christians, the government can use that law to persecute Christians.
Hobby Lobby is a family business. David Green created it in his garage in Oklahoma City in 1972. He and his wife, Barbara, and their three children—Steve, Mart and Darsee Green Lett-- have grown the business to where it now operates 500 stores in 41 states. David Green is Hobby Lobby’s CEO; Steve Green is its president; Mart Green is vice CEO; and Darsee Lett is vice president. Mart Green is also CEO of the privately owned Mardel chain of Christian bookstores, which operates 35 stores in 7 states. Through Hobby Lobby, the Greens have created more than 13,000 jobs. Mardel has created 372 jobs.
The Greens, who are Evangelical Christians, do not suspend their religious beliefs while running their businesses. Instead, they strive to run them fully in accordance with their Christian beliefs. They are unanimous in stating that they have always “sought to run Hobby Lobby in harmony with God’s laws and in a manner which brings glory to God.” They do not have two sets of morals—one for when they are at church or at home and another for when they are working on their businesses. They have only one set of morals—that they strive to follow at work or any other activity. For example, they close their business on Sundays, so their employees can spend that day with their families, and they pay their full-time workers a minimum hourly wage of $13, which is far exceeds the federal minimum wage.
They also provide their employees with a generous self-insured health care plan, and they even operate an on-site, cost-free health clinic at their corporate headquarters. But, guided by their Christian faith, the Greens believe that human life begins at conception and that aborting on unborn life is wrong. In keeping with this, they do not cover in their employee health plan abortions, abortion-inducing drugs or IUDs that prevent implantation of an embryo.
Unlike Catholics, the Greens do not believe that contraception and sterilization are morally wrong.
In September, the Greens, Hobby Lobby and Mardel bookstores sued Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the departments of Health Human Service, Labor and Treasury. Their complaint said that the Obamacare contraception mandate violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion because supporting abortion or counseling for abortion is contrary to their religious faith.
As the mandate now stands, the Greens must begin complying with it on Jan. 1. On Nov. 11, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton refused to grant a preliminary injunction to stop the mandate from being enforced on the Greens while the court decided their case on its merits. In his ruling on the injunction, Judge Heaton determined that the Greens were not likely to establish they had a right to “free exercise” of religion while operating Hobby Lobby.
‘[T]he court concludes plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success as to their constitutional claims,” said Judge Heaton. “The corporations lack free exercise rights subject to being violated and, as the challenged statutes/regulations are neutral and of general applicability as contemplated by the constitutional standard, plaintiffs are unlikely to successfully establish a constitutional violation in any event.”
The Greens appealed their request for an injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. A panel of two appeals court judges refused their plea. They then appealed to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sits over that circuit, and she declined to reverse the lower courts and issue an injunction.
When Sotomayor ruled against a preliminary injunction on Thursday, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the Greens, issued a statement indicating that the Greens would not start complying with the mandate on Tuesday and that they would continue to pursue their case in federal court.
“Hobby Lobby will continue their appeal before the Tenth Circuit,” said Becket Fund General Counsel Kyle Duncan. “The Supreme Court merely decided not to get involved in the case at this time. It left open the possibility of review after their appeal is completed in the Tenth Circuit. The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees. To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs.”
As the nation approaches the much publicized fiscal cliff, it also approaches a moral cliff: Will the Obama administration compel Christians to act against their faith? As of now, the answer seems plain: Starting Tuesday, it will.

How to bypass Windows 7, vista and xp administrator password


How to bypass Windows 7, vista and xp administrator password

Summary:
Are you trying to bypass Windows 7,vista and xp password? This post shows you 3 top ways to bypass Windows 7 password and other windows ( xp/vista/2000) administrator password with or without password software.
Three Methods for bypassing windows password:
Note: We cannot bypass windows 7 and vista password on safe mode, because the administrator account of windows 7 and vista is inactive by default.

Method 1: Bypass (Remove) Windows 7, vista and xp password

If lost windows 7 password or other version windows password of your computer, removing the lost password is a quick and easy way to regain access to your windows and go on with your work.

  1. Download Spower Windows Password Reset Professional and install it. Spower Windows Password Reset Professional can be installed in Windows 2000 or later.
  2. Create a Windows password reset USB or CD/DVD disk. If want to create USB password reset disk, choose "USB device". If want to create CD/DVD password disk, choose "CD/DVD". Screenshot as follow:
    • 2.1 Insert writable CD/DVD disc and click "Begin Buring" button to create a CD/DVD password reset disk.

    • Insert USB flash drive and click "Begin Buring" button to create a USB password reset disk.
  3. Set the locked computer to boot from CD/DVD-ROM or USB drive.
  4. Boot computer from Windows password reset disk. Insert the Windows password reset disk to the computer and then restart computer.
  5. Remove (bypass) the password of selected account.
    • Select a Windows system from list box.
    • Select an account from list.
    • Click Reset button to remove password of selected account.
    • Click Reboot button to restart computer. After restarting computer, you can login Windows with administrator account. Now you have bypassed (remove) windows 7 , vista and xp password.

Method 2: Bypass Windows 7, vista and xp password by creating a new account.

This method describes how to create a new account offline (offline means you do not need to login windows), login with new account, and delete the account. So you can bypass Windows password without changing current account and password.
Follow the steps below to bypass password windows 7, vista and xp password:
Step 1: Download Spower Windows Password Reset Special and install it. Spower Windows Password Reset Special can be installed in Windows 2000 or later.
Step 2: Create a USB or CD/DVD Windows password bypass disk.
  • To create a Windows password bypass CD/DVD disk, insert writable CD/DVD disc and click "Begin burning" to burn a CD/DVD password bypass disc.
  • To create a Windows password bypass USB disk, insert USB Flash Drive and click "Begin Burning" button to burn a USB password bypass disk.
 
Note: step 3, step 4 and step 5 ware done on the computer which you want to bypass.
Step 3: Set the computer to boot from CD/DVD-ROM or USB disk.
Step 4: Boot computer from password bypass disk.
After setting the locked computer to boot from CD/DVD-ROM or USB drive, insert Windows password bypass disk to computer, and restart the computer.
Step 5: Create a new account and delete the unused account.

Create a new account (screenshot as above):
  • Select the windows you want to create account for.
  • Click the Add User button to add a new account.
  • Click Reboot button to reboot computer.
  • After rebooting, you can login with new account. Now you have bypassed the Windows password.
Delete the account if don’t use it any more (screenshot as above):
  • Select the Windows whose account you want to delete.
  • Select the account you want to delete.
  • Click Delete User button to delete the account.
  • Click Reboot button to reboot computer.

Method 3: Bypass Windows xp password on safe mode.

Tip: We cannot bypass windows 7 and vista password on safe mode, because the administrator account of windows 7 and Vista is inactive by default.
When Windows xp was installed, a built-in account named administrator was created at the same time.  The Administrator account has a blank password until you create a new password for it. So we can easily bypass the windows password by this leak. Now we try to login Windows with administrator account.
  1.  When power on computer, press F8 repeatedly until the Windows Advanced Options Menu screen appears.
  2.  Select Safe Mode to boot windows to safe mode.
  3.  Click Administrator account to login. OK! You have bypassed Windows xp password.
Tip: We can also use this method to bypass the login password in normal mode – Boot Windows to welcome screen, double press CTRL+ALT+DEL to bring out the classic login screen, and then input: administrator and blank password.
If the administrator account has been set a password, we cannot use the method to bypass the windows xp password. We should use Method 1 or Method 2..
Tip: To reset, recover or by ass windows password, more workable solutions can be found on technical center.

Get windows password reset and bypass windows password:



Related Topic:

A US Muslim Brotherhood Leaders Says Having Photos With Santa An “Abomination”

A US Muslim Brotherhood Leaders Says Having Photos With Santa An “Abomination”

A liberal Arabic website is reporting that Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti has prohibited Muslim children from having their photos taken with Santa Claus, calling the practice a’ sin’ and ‘an abomination’ that contravenes the tenets of Islam. According to a MEMRI translation:
The liberal Arabic website Elaph.com recently reported that the Mufti of Washington D.C., Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti, prohibited Muslim children from having their photos taken with Santa Claus, as this is a’ sin’ and ‘an abomination’ that contravenes the tenets of Islam. The site emphasized that the Mufti’s position does not represent the view of most Muslims living in the U.S., and that the imam of a mosque in Maryland has even urged Muslims to celebrate Christmas along with the Christians as a means of promoting their integration in American society. The issue of Christmas celebrations has been a bone of contention among Muslims in Australia as well. Australian sources reported that Sheikh Yahya Safi, the imam of Australia’s largest mosque, the Lakemba Mosque in Sydney, has ruled that Muslims must not extend Christmas greetings to Christians. The Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Muhammad, said in response that these were irresponsible statements and that Islam respects other religions. [1] The following are excerpts from the Elaph article:[2]     Washington Mufti Sheikh Muhammad Al-Hanooti: Taking Pictures With Santa – An Abomination ‘Muslim children’s affection for Santa Claus could have been an opportunity to prove that [the Muslims] are part of the multi-cultural social fabric of the U.S., after [some] other groups in American society have accused them of a tendency to isolate themselves socially. American-Muslim parents hoped that this year’s Christmas celebrations would break the ice between their children and their Christian friends…
Read the rest here
Sheikh Al-Hanooti’s online CV indicates multiple ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood including serving as a former Imam for the Dar Al Hijrah Mosque in Northern Virginia area, a former Imam of the Islamic Center of Passaic. and as a member of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA). All three organizations have close ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. In addition, an analysis of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) reported on Sheikh Al-Hanooti’s ties to Hamas:
A 2001 FBI memo identifies current ISNA-affiliated Fiqh Council of North America member Mohammad Al-Hanooti as a participant in a 1993 Philadelphia meeting of “senior leaders of HAMAS, the Holy Land Relief Foundation and the Islamic Association of Palestine. The memo also cites FBI informants who said that Al-Hanooti “was a big supporter of HAMAS and that “it was well known in the Palestinian community in the northern New Jersey area that Al- Hanooti was an active HAMAS supporter, purportedly holding fund-raising activities, as well as supporting visitors to the United States from Israel and Jordan, to speak on behalf of HAMAS. ” Another FBI informant stated that “In 1993, that Al-Hanooti collected over six million U. S. dollars for support of HAMAS in Israel. ”
Finally, a a Hudson institute report identifies a Mohamed Hanooti as a leader of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and explains how a 1988 U.S. Brotherhood document included him as one of the heads of its committees:
The same spreadsheet identifies a number of committees, focusing on such issues as finance, politics, social issues, curricula, security, and Palestine. Those identified as heads of committees may include individuals mentioned throughout this report: Mohamed Hanooti, Jamal Badawi, Bassam Othman, Abdurahman Alamoudi, and Hammad Zaki.The spreadsheet also identifies several organizations as being part of the U.S. MB. These groups were AMSS, AMSE, IMA, ISNA, MAYA, MSA, MISQ, and NAIT

RECOMENDED READING: “One Expert’s Thorough Examination Of The Brotherhood”

RECOMENDED READING: “One Expert’s Thorough Examination Of The Brotherhood”

The Egypt Independent has published an article titled “One expert’s thorough examination of the Brotherhood” that looks at a new book analyzing the internal politics of the Muslim Brotherhood. The article begins:
Noha El-Hennawy Mon, 31/12/2012  A submission to Salafi thought, wishy-washy attitudes vis-à-vis social protests, the adoption of a rural culture. With these three inflammatory headlines, a remarkable book had hit the market in summer 2012 highlighting the internal politics of the Muslim Brotherhood on the eve of the January 2011 revolution.In eight academic articles, ‘The Muslim Brotherhood: Pre-revolution Years’ provides an intricate dissection of the social dynamics and power struggles that had rocked Egypt’s oldest Islamist organization in the last decade. At certain points, Hossam Tammam, a seasoned expert on the group who died in October 2011, goes further back in time to explain certain contemporary traits of the country’s largest sociopolitical organization and de facto ruling group. One of the text’s compelling stints is a chapter that traces how Salafi doctrines have penetrated the 84-year-old organization. The author’s main argument is that the Brothers had deviated from the initial doctrines of the group, as laid out by founder Hassan al-Banna, with their submission to Wahhabi Salafi thought. Tammam begins his chapter with a flashback on the organization’s early days, drawing an intriguing portrait of Banna. He contends that he showed more tolerance of the other and more openness to different Islamic schools of thought. Banna never meant for the organization to draw on Wahhabi intransigent thought, according to the book. To prove his point, Tammam highlights the Sufi component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s identity in the first half of the twentieth century. This Sufi element is enough to convince readers that Banna did not envisage a Salafi organization as Sufism and Salafism are two dichotomous paradigms. For, Salafis, Sufism bears several heretical elements. Besides, the book says, Banna had discouraged his followers from adopting a special appearance that would distinguish them from the rest of the society. While Salafis have to grow their beards, Banna advised his Brothers against beards, out of fear that such an appearance would contribute to building a psychological barrier between them and their peers outside the organization. Meanwhile, Muslim Sisters of the early days did not use to dress so differently from other women. A headscarf was the only addition to their modern outfit, according to the book.For Tammam, this relative openness had faded away since the 1950s, in wake of former President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s ruthless crackdown on the organization. While thousands of Brothers languished in Nasser’s prisons, many others had to flee. ‘Saudi Arabia represented the main refuge to Muslim Brotherhood leaders and cadres who fled Nasser’s regime,’ wrote Tammam. ‘The Brothers who settled in [Saudi Arabia] were not immune to the influence of the Wahhabi Saudi environment. It was a closed environment that left no room for religious pluralism, let alone ideological pluralism,’ adds Tammam.
Read the rest here.

one expert's thorough examination of the Brotherhood



A submission to Salafi thought, wishy-washy attitudes vis-à-vis social protests, the adoption of a rural culture. With these three inflammatory headlines, a remarkable book had hit the market in summer 2012 highlighting the internal politics of the Muslim Brotherhood on the eve of the January 2011 revolution.
In eight academic articles, “The Muslim Brotherhood: Pre-revolution Years” provides an intricate dissection of the social dynamics and power struggles that had rocked Egypt’s oldest Islamist organization in the last decade. At certain points, Hossam Tammam, a seasoned expert on the group who died in October 2011, goes further back in time to explain certain contemporary traits of the country's largest sociopolitical organization and de facto ruling group.
Leaning right
One of the text’s compelling stints is a chapter that traces how Salafi doctrines have penetrated the 84-year-old organization. The author's main argument is that the Brothers had deviated from the initial doctrines of the group, as laid out by founder Hassan al-Banna, with their submission to Wahhabi Salafi thought.
Tammam begins his chapter with a flashback on the organization’s early days, drawing an intriguing portrait of Banna. He contends that he showed more tolerance of the other and more openness to different Islamic schools of thought. Banna never meant for the organization to draw on Wahhabi intransigent thought, according to the book.
To prove his point, Tammam highlights the Sufi component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s identity in the first half of the twentieth century. This Sufi element is enough to convince readers that Banna did not envisage a Salafi organization as Sufism and Salafism are two dichotomous paradigms. For, Salafis, Sufism bears several heretical elements.
Besides, the book says, Banna had discouraged his followers from adopting a special appearance that would distinguish them from the rest of the society. While Salafis have to grow their beards, Banna advised his Brothers against beards, out of fear that such an appearance would contribute to building a psychological barrier between them and their peers outside the organization. Meanwhile, Muslim Sisters of the early days did not use to dress so differently from other women. A headscarf was the only addition to their modern outfit, according to the book.
For Tammam, this relative openness had faded away since the 1950s, in wake of former President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s ruthless crackdown on the organization. While thousands of Brothers languished in Nasser’s prisons, many others had to flee.
“Saudi Arabia represented the main refuge to Muslim Brotherhood leaders and cadres who fled Nasser’s regime,” wrote Tammam. “The Brothers who settled in [Saudi Arabia] were not immune to the influence of the Wahhabi Saudi environment. It was a closed environment that left no room for religious pluralism, let alone ideological pluralism,” adds Tammam.
Eventually, the Brothers perceived Saudi Arabia as the perfect model of the Islamic rule, concludes the author, who dubbed that period the “first wave of Salafization" of the Brothers.
As for the second wave, it kicked off in the aftermath of the 1970s oil boom. The lavish Saudi resources lured thousands of Brothers, who were just released from jail by former President Anwar Sadat, to fly eastward. Meanwhile, the petrodollars helped the Saudis spread their Wahhabi thought beyond their boundaries and influence the religious sphere in neighboring countries, namely Egypt, according to the book.
The failure of Nasser’s Arab nationalist project, manifested in the 1967 defeat in the war against Israel, gave enough leeway to the Saudi Wahhabi project to fill the ideological vacuum, argues the author. Saudi Wahhabi books invaded Egypt and influenced the ultraconservative Islamist youths who had formed the Jama'a al-Islamiya on Egyptian campuses at that time.
Meanwhile, the embattled Muslim Brotherhood leaders were trying to revive the organization after Sadat had allowed Islamists back into politics. To rejuvenate their group, they sought to recruit Islamist university students who became steeped in Wahhabi thought. The new comers ended up reinforcing the Salafi component within the organization.
These youths “had accused the Brothers of giving up on religious matters, neglecting creedal issues and not adopting Salafi positions on growing beards, art, morals, etc.” the book reads.
To appease the new recruits, the group’s old guards gave up the group’s identity as defined by the early founders and surrendered to Salafi doctrines, writes Tammam.

“The group’s leaders had to grow their beards and to commit to all matters of appearance,” Tammam writes.
Besides, the group’s official discourse had shown obvious Salafi traits. For example, the Brothers' mouthpiece dismissed the construction of churches as haram, contended that Christians should pay Jizya, opposed music and and held that Sharia should be implemented regardless of the ruler’s or the people’s will, adds the book.
With the 1990s satellite media boom and resilient Saudi attempts to spread their beliefs, Muslim Brotherhood preachers with Salafi leanings began to make use of satellite channels to propagate their understanding of Islam. Eventually, they became very popular and influential among Muslim Brotherhood rank and file, according to the book.
“It is clear that  symbols with dual identities, Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood, have become the most important sources of education among the Brothers,” writes Tammam.
Among the hybrid preachers Tammam lists are two currently controversial figures: Safwat Hegazy, who had promoted President Mohamed Morsy as the only leader capable of reviving the Islamic caliphate and retrieving Jerusalem during the presidential race, and Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, the Salafi presidential hopeful who was kicked out of the race because his mother held dual citizenship.
In the lead-up to the revolution, this Salafi mood has resonated with the group's hawkish figures, who used to subscribe to the radical thoughts of Islamist thinker Sayed Qutb. Qutb, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, was executed by Nasser after having drafted an incendiary book that promoted jihad against the ruling regime and accused society of languishing in heresy.
Although Qutb's ideas were later dismissed by the Muslim Brotherhood's leaders, the Guidance Bureau still has members who, despite their renunciation of violence, still believe in Qutb's radical views on politics and society. Mohamed Badie, the supreme guide, and his deputy, Mahmoud Ezzat are considered among the representatives of Qutb's wing within the group, says Tammam.
For Tammam, this conservative context, coupled with Mubarak's crackdown on the group in late 2006, paved the way for the marginalization of reformist Brothers and a takeover by the hawkish wing.
This takeover was first manifested in the group's political platform released in 2007, says the book. Although reformists had been making statements suggesting that the group had fully espoused democracy and several liberal values, the Brotherhood's political program came to refute all these claims. Three controversial clauses proved that the conservative wing was in full control. A provision stipulating that all bills should be approved by a clerical body and two clauses denying Copts and women the right to run for president were enough to elicit the stir of liberals and Christians.
The hawkish control was asserted further in the 2009 elections of the Guidance Bureau, which culminated in the exclusion of progressive voices such as Abdel Moneim Abouel Fotouh and Mohamed Habib, says Tammam. Then, the conservative incursions reached their peak with the election of Badie, who belongs to the Qutb's school, in early 2010.
Discomfort over labor unrest
Another insightful chapter dissects the group’s position on the labor unrest that had rocked Egypt during the last five years of Hosni Mubarak’s rule. Tammam described the Brothers’ stance on the matter as "highly perplexed" and "hesitant." Throughout the chapter, he lists the reasons why the group refrained from supporting the social discontent triggered by Mubarak’s neo-liberal policies. First, Tamman contends that the group’s paradigm differs entirely from this kind of protest movements. While social protests are preoccupied with precise issues, namely salaries and working conditions, the Brothers hold a "traditional" perception of political action that gives priority to a comprehensive agenda for political reform.
Second, the group's "introversion" and "snobbism" made it hard for it to open up to these movements, wrote Tammam. Third, the Brothers are inherently averse to protests that invoke economic rights as they feel they are influenced by leftist ideologies, contends the author. Historically, Islamists have been hostile to leftist paradigms for their critical stance on religion.
Fourth, the Muslim Brotherhood is more of a middle-class project that has been always distant from the poor and marginalized classes. Fifth, the Brothers could not throw their backing behind these protests because they themselves have been supportive of a free-market economy, privatization and economic restructuring since the 1970s, concludes Tammam.
The group's ruralization
Finally, the book, authored before the revolution, includes an intriguing chapter on the assertion of a rural culture within the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood in recent years.
“Upon initiatives from the Guidance Bureau, the influence of rural provinces has increased in recent years," wrote Tammam. “The recruitment and promotions within the organization have been favoring those coming from the countryside at the expense of the indigenous urban population."
The influx of Brothers with a rural baggage has culminated in the weakening of internal institutional channels, the proliferation of patronage and the reinforcement of traditional norms, according to the book.

“The influence of governorates such as Daqahlia, Sharqiya, Gharbiya, Assiut and Minya has increased. These governorates have controlled most of the key positions in the group," reads the book. Tammam goes on listing the Brothers with rural culture who had risen to senior positions in the last decade. Morsy and Saad al-Katatny, former speaker of the now-dissolved People's Assembly, are among the names listed. Meanwhile, the representation of "urban cosmopolitan" centers such as Cairo and Alexandria has decreased, adds the author.
Despite the smart observation, the author fails to provide a precise definition of "a rural" background. Being from outside Cairo or Alexandria is not enough evidence of bearing a rural culture because many of Egypt's governorates have full-fledged urban centers. Meanwhile, a Cairene or an Alexandrian Brother does not necessarily come in with an urban culture because he may belong to one of the many rural areas that surround both cities.
It remains to be seen if the Brothers would be obliged to reverse some of the attitudes laid out in the book after their ascent to power. Upholding the same averse position on social protests, neglecting economic rights, and pursuing neo-liberal policies may be politically costly for a government presiding over a large disenchanted poor population.
On another front, proceeding with Salafi thought and adhering to a traditional rural culture would not serve the Brothers' attempts to open up to the west and prove themselves as a moderate force capable of maintaining domestic and regional stabilit