29. August 2010 by admin.

THE RAPE OF INDIA

David Kostinchuk <dkost@mb.sympatico.ca>

 “THE RAPE OF INDIA”In the article ” The Jungle Of Christ” I discussed the plans of the television evangelists and their assault on India. In this article I will deal with this subject in a more detailed perspective.The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines rape as: 1. take by force. 2. commit rape on. fig. forcible interference with institutions, country, etc.The rape of India is done in a model similar to a military model used to invade, occupy, control, or subjugate a population of a given country. Intelligence is considered essential to invading a country; language, religion, culture, etc. are some of the variables considered. Division among the given population is considered essential to gain political control once inside the country. Religion can be the key variable to accomplish this. Division of wealth, social status, ethnic diversity, etc. are also variables that influence division of the population of a given country.At the present time North India is considered the core target of evangelists in their effort of world evangelism. They justify this to Christians by using derogatory remarks like ” 900 million Hindus are spiritual bondage” (Baptist Press 10/99) or “900 million people lost in the hopeless darkness of Hinduism” (Baptist Press 11/99)North India is a major population and political center. It is also considered the religious hub of India, the most socially deprived, has the lowest literacy rate, having the smallest percentage of Christians in its population as well as having immense research done on the population. The evangelists consider Hindus in North India as being the most accessible target in their plan for world wide evangelism. In addition there is the added incentive of having a Muslim population of 140 million.The AD2000 movement uses terms such as “spy out the land and its inhabitants” to get an accurate complete picture of opportunities and challenges of India. They have coined the terms PLUG, PREM and NICE to describe their goals and methodology. PLUG refers to the target group. People in every language, urban center and geographic division. PREM refers to the techniques to use. Offering prayer, research must be done and utilized effectively on the target group, an evangelist must be the catalyst to provoke change and action and to encourage ministries and their efforts to convert non Christians. NICE refers to how the work is to be done. Networking, taking initiative when the movement is slowing down, using an evangelist to speed action in evangelizing and to encourage existing groups and cohorts in their efforts to convert people to Christianity. ( http://www.ad2000.org/uters3.htm )The Gospel For Christ and The Indian Missionary Association have put together books to help evangelists evangelize India. The evangelists are also using information from The Anthropological Society of India’s work on ethno-graphic studies which has been considered essential in facilitating the evangelism efforts. This has been used to such a degree that the diverse language groups of India have been divided into PIN codes. ( These are similar to ZIP codes in the USA that divide the country into mailing districts.) The ability to send evangelists that are familiar to language, culture, etc. greatly facilitates the speed at which evangelism is able to develop and is cost effective since tactics can be formed at the home base which saves costly mistakes in the field.ad2000 ( http://www.ad2000.org/uters2.htm ) The Christian Broadcasting Network has a splinter group that is called The Joshua Project. Their target is 2.2 billion people in 1685 groups that are divided into Affinity Blocks and Gateway Clusters. Affinity groups are groups of people who have bonding of language, religion, politics and culture. Usually there is one culture that is dominate in the block. People clusters are people that are closely related in name or culture so they are clustered together. These groups usually consist of populations of over one million. There goal is to have at least one hundred Christians or more in every group of over 10,000 people. Joshua Project ( http://www.ad2000.org/ )There are too many evangelist groups in India to cover in this article however; I will discuss a few of them to give a picture of how they proliferate.The Indian Prayer + Fellowship Association has a goal to reach all non Christians to start cell groups. They have contacted over 16,000 houses, made almost 900 home contacts and over 1700 personal contacts. Their goal is to start cell groups than attach a full gospel group or plant a church if needed.They also supply tracts, literature etc. Indian Prayer And Fellowship Association ( http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy )Partners International has the goal of training indigenous people to evangelize others. They are training a Christian who has converted to Christianity every 13 minutes. They claim planting a church every ten hours in Asia and Africa. ( http://www.partnersintl.org/aboutpi/welcome.html )The southern Baptists plan to have 4,700 southern Baptists working with millions of international partners. Their goal is to have 15,000 career missionaries, 50,000 volunteers, and 1,000 southern Baptist college grads every year. The length of service for the college grads is to be two years. ( Baptist Press 11/22/99)The evangelists strategy for North India includes treating Indian missions and Indian evangelists as equal considering that India has a strong GNP and a growing middle class. Due to the large population base the evangelists strategy includes dividing up the population base into smaller target groups such as women estimated to number 487 million or girls under 15 which is estimated to number 158 million. They plan to use literacy programs o target the illiterate which is estimated to be 48% of the population. They also plan to supply the Indian church with tools such as translators, humanitarian relief, etc. so the churches can become self sustaining and would not need outside assistance. ( http://www.gem-werc.org/mmrc9812.htm)The evangelists India outreach teams -hbi ministries international India provide schools, orphanages, medical centers etc. In a six week period outreach teams ministered to 19,000 children and taught Hindu and Muslim students in Christian schools. ( http://www.gospel.net/hbi/iot/ )Dr. Houtsma of World Outreach Ministries stated that he has helped train 160,000 national ministers to continue his work when he leaves. He is targeting Jammu, Vyara, Ludhiana, etc. ( http://www.wo.org/ )One of the variables in training indigenous missionaries is the decreased cost to support missionaries. A foreign missionary cost at least $66,000 a year to support. Native missionaries cost approximately $600 a year. This greatly decreases the cost of evangelizing. Christian Aid. ( http://www.christianaid.org/ )Native missionaries now do 90% of the work in starting churches. These people are more effective in converting people because They understand the language, customs, culture, etc. In addition recent converts are often more zealous in their efforts to convert people to their way of thinking. Hundreds of thousands of zealous converts can also have a sever profound influences on the political system that is in effect.The reader of this article should be aware of the fact that these students could be influenced toward Christianity by their teachers. In addition orphanages can be the breeding ground for future evangelists. In an orphanage children could be brainwashed and conditioned during school and after school. The children in an orphanage can have their social life controlled after school so they only socialize with evangelists. These children have no family or other people outside of the evangelists to look after their welfare so they can easily be programmed.It is interesting though sad to see the results that might occur as the evangelists enter their last stage of evangelism in India. You can see considerable backlash against evangelism as stated in the newspapers. Evangelists cry to the politicians, civil right groups and newspapers in the West.Some questions must be asked though. Do evangelists have the right to disrupt society, culture, religion, and the family of people in other countries? Do people have the right to combat the attack on the culture, etc. of their country?I would welcome any comments or feedback on this article.David KostinchukVISIT MY WEBSITE: PEOPLE UNITED FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMhttp://www3.mb.sympatico.ca/~dkost/index.htm

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Missionaries, Evangelism, Christianity, India | Print | No Comments »

28. August 2010 by admin.

GEOPOLITICS OF USA - ISRAEL RELATIONSHIP

 In geopolitics, we are frequently confornted with what appears to be a great deal of movement. Sometimes it is current geopolitical reality breaking apart and a new one emerging. Sometimes it is simply meaningless motion in a fixed geographical reality - nothing more than illusion of maneuver generated for political reasons as players maneuver within a fixed framework for minor advantage or internal political reasons. In other words, we need to distinguish between geopolitics and politics.

Nowhere it is more important than in the Middle East, which has come to be defined in terms of Arab-Israeli equations for reasons I fully don’t understand. Leaving that aside, in recent months we have seen a lot of endless happenings and rumours of happenings. The current impasse between US and Israel, Flotilla Crisis, Iran’s outbursts against Israel, Turkey is no longer a trusted ally, etc. Israel has always been invoked as an ally of US against “War on Terror” (though this term is no longer used) - or even the very reason why US is in the war in first place. Some will say that Israel maneuvered the US into Iraq to serve its own purpose. Some will say it orchestrated 9/11 for its own ends. Others will say that , had US supported Israel more resolutely, there would have been no 9/11.

There is probably no relationship on which people have more diverging views than on that between US and Israel. This seems to be an opportune time to consider the geopolitics of US-Israeli relationship.

Let us begin with some obvious political points. There is relatively small Jewish community in the United States, though its political influence is magnified by its strategic location in critical states like New York and the fact that it is more actively involved in politics than some other ethnic groups.

The Jewish community, as tends to be the case with groups, is deeply divided on many issues. It tends to be united on one issue - Israel - but not with the same intensity as in the past, nor with even semblance of agreement on the specifics. The American Jewish community is as divided as the Israeli Jewish community, with a large segment of people who don’t care much. At the same time, this community donates a huge amount of money to American and Israeli organizations, including groups that lobby on behalf of Israeli issues in Washington. These lobbying entities lean toward the right wing of Israel’s political spectrum, in large part because the Israeli right has tended to govern in the past generation and these groups tend to follow the dominant Israeli strand. It is also because American Jews who contribute to Israel lobby organizations lean right in both Israeli and American politics.

The Israel lobby, which has a great deal of money and experience, is extremely influential in Washington. For decades now, it has done a good job of ensuring that Israeli interests are attended to in Washington, and certainly on some issues it has skewed US policy on the Middle East.

There are however two important questions. The first is whether this is in any way unique. Is a strong Israel lobby an unprecedented intrusion into foreign policy? The key question though, is whether Israeli interests diverge from US interests to the extent that the Israel lobby is taking US foreign policy in directions it wouldn’t go otherwise, in directions that counter the US national interest.

Begin with the first question. Prior to both world wars there was extensive debate on whether the US should intervene in the war. In both cases, the British government lobbied extensively for US intervention on behalf of UK. The British made two arguments. The first was that US shared a heritage with England - code for the idea that white Anglo-Saxon Protestants should stand with white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The second was that there was a fundamental political affinity between British and US democracy from German authoritarianism.

Many Americans, including President Franklin Roosevelt, believed both the arguments. The British lobby was quite powerful. There was German lobby as well, but it lacked the numbers, the money and the traditions to draw on.

But from geopolitical viewpoint, both the arguments were very weak. The US and UK not only were separate countries, they had fought some bitter wars over the question. As for political institutions, geopolitics as a method, is fairly insensitive to the moral claims of regimes. It works on the basis of interest. On that basis, an intervention on behalf of UK in both wars made sense because it provided a relatively low cost way of preventing Germany from dominating Europe and challenging American sea power. In the end, it wasn’t the lobbying interest, massive though it was, but geopolitical necessity that drove US intervention.

The second question, then is: Has the Israel lobby caused the US to act in ways that contravene US interests? For example, by getting the US to support Israel, did it turn Arab world against the Americans? Did it support Israel against Palestinians, thereby generate an Islamist radicalism that led to 9/11? Did it manipulate US policy on Iraq so that US invaded Iraq on behalf of Israel? These allegations have all been made. If true, they are very serious charges.

It is important to remember that US-Israeli ties were not extraordinarily close prior to 1967. President Harry Truman recognized Israel, but the US had not provided major military aid and support. Israel, always in need of an outside supply of weapons, first depended on the Soviet Union, which shipped via Czechoslovakia. When the Soviets realized that Israeli socialists were anti-Soviet as well, they dropped Israel.

Israel’s next patron was France. France was fighting to hold on to Algeria and maintain its influence in Lebanon and Syria, both former French protectorates. The French saw Israel as a natural ally. It was France that really created the Israeli air force and provided the first technology for Israeli nuclear weapons.

The US was actively hostile to Israel during this period. In 1956, following Gamal Abdul Nasser’s seizure of power in Egypt, Cairo nationalized the Suez Canal. Without the canal, the British Empire was finished, and ultimately the French were as well. UK and France worked secretly with Israel, and Israel invaded the Sinai. Then, in order to protect the Suez Canal from and Israeli-Egyptian war, a Franco-British force parachuted in to seize the canal. President Dwight Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw - as well as the Israelis. US Israeli relations remained chilly for quite some time.

The break point with France came in 1967. The Israelis, under pressure from Egypt, decided to invade Egypt, Jordan and Syria - ignoring French President Charles de Gaulle’s demand that they do not do so. As a result, France broke its alignment with Israel.

This was a critical moment in US-Israeli relationship. Israel needed a source of weaponry as its national security needs vastly outstripped its industrial base. It was at this point that the Israeli lobby in the United States became critical. Israel wanted a relationship with the US and Israeli lobby brought tremendous pressure to bear, picturing Israel as a heroic, embattled democracy, surrounded by bloodthirsty neighbours, badly needing US help. President Lyndon B. Johnson, bogged down in Vietnam and wanting to shore up his base, saw a popular cause in Israel and tilted toward it.

But there were critical strategic issues as well. Syria and Iraq had both shifted into pro-Soviet group, as had Egypt. Some have argued that, had US not supported Israel, this would not have happened. This, however, runs in face of history. It was US that forced the Israeli out of Sinai in 1956, but the Egyptians moved into the Soviet camp anyway. The argument that it was uncritical support for Israel that caused anti-Americanism in the Arab world doesn’t hold ground either. The Egyptians became anti-American in spite of an essentially anti-Israeli position in 1956. By 1957 Egypt was a Soviet ally.

The Americans ultimately tilted toward Israel because of this reason, not the other way round. Egypt was not only providing the Soviets with naval and air bases, it also was running covert operations in the Arabian Peninsula to bring down the conservative sheikdoms there, including Saudi’s. The Soviets were seen as using Egypt as base of operations against US. Syria was seen as another dangerous radical power, along with Iraq. The defense of the Arabian Peninsula from radical, pro-Soviet Arab movements, as well as the defense of Jordan, became a central interest of US.

Israel was seen as contribution by threatening the security of both Egypt and Syria. The Saudi fear of PLO was palpable. Riyadh saw the Soviet inspired liberation movements as threatening to Saudi’s survival. Israel was engaged in a covert war against PLO and related groups, and that was exactly what the Saudis wanted from late 1960s until early 1980s. Israel’s covert capability against PLO, coupled with its overt military power against Egypt and Syria, was very much in the American interest and that of its Arab allies. It was a low cost solution to some very difficult strategic problems at a time when US was either in Vietnam or recovering from the war.

The occupation of the Sinai, the West Bank and Golan Heights in 1967 was not in US interest. The US wanted Israel to carry out its mission against Soviet backed paramitlitaries and tie down Egypt and Syria, but the occupation was not seen as part of the mission. The Israelis intially expected to convert their occupation of the territories into peace treaty, but that only happend much later, with Egypt. At Khartoum summit in 1967, the Arabs delivered the famous 3 NOes: NO NEGOTIATIONS, NO RECOGNITION & NO PEACE. Israel became an occupying power.

The claim has been made that if US had forced Israelis out of Gaza and West Bank, then it would receive credit and peace would follow. There are 3 problems with that theory:

1. Israelis did not occupy these areas prior to 1967 and there was no peace then,
2. groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah have said that a withdrawal would not end the state of war with Israel, and therefore,
3. the withdrawal would create friction with Israel without any clear payoff from the Arabs.

It must be remembered that Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel and does not seem to care about the Palestinians. The Saudis have never risked a thing for the Palestinians, nor have Iranians. The Syrians have, but they are far more interested in investing in Beirut hotels than in invading Israel. No Arab state is interested in the Palestinians, except for those that are actively hostile. There is Arab and Islamic public opinion and non state organizations, but none would be satisfied with an Israeli withdrawal. They want Israel destroyed. Even if US withdrew all support for Israel, however, Israel would not be destroyed. The radical Arabs do not want withdrawal; they want destruction. And the moderate Arabs don’t care about the Palestinians beyond rhetoric.

Noe getting to the heart of the matter. If US broke all ties with Israel, would the US geopolitical situation be improved? In other words, if it broke with Israel, would Iran or al Qaeda come to view US in a different way? Critics of the Israel lobby argue that,except for the Israeli lobby’s influence, the US would be much secure.

Al Qaeda does not perceive Israel by itself as its central problem. Its goal is the resurrection of the caliphate - and it sees US support for muslim regimes as the central problem. If US abandoned Israel, al Qaeda would still confront US support for countries such as Egypt, Saudi and Pakistan. For al Qaeda, Israel is an important issue, but for US to soothe al Qaeda, it would have to abandon not only Israel but also its allies in Middle East. As for Iran, the Iranian rhetoric has never matched its action. During Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian military purchased weapons and parts from the Israelis. It was more delighted than anyone when Israel destroyed the Iraqi  nuclear reactor in 1981. Iran’s problem with US is its presence in Iraq, its naval presence in Persian Gulf and its support for the Kurds. If Israel disappeared from the world map, Iran’s problems would still remain the same.

It has been said that Israelis inspired the US invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt that Israel was pleased when, after 9/11, US saw itself as an anti-Islamist power. Let me clarify that, benefitting from something does not mean you caused it. However, it has never been clear that Israelis were all that enthusiastic about invading Iraq. Neoconservative Jews like Paul Wolfowitz were enthusiastic, as were non Jews like Dick Cheney. But the Israeli view of a US invasion of Iraq was at the most mixed, and to some extent dubious. The Israelis liked the Iran-Iraq balance of power and were close allies of Turkey, which certainly opposed the invasion. The claim that Israel supported the invasion comes from those who mistake neoconservatives, many of whom are Jews who support Israel, with Israeli foreign policy, which was much more nuanced that the neoconservatives. The Israelis were not at all clear about what the Americans were doing in Iraq, but they were in no position to complain.

Israeli-US relations have gone through three phases. From 1948 to 1967, the US supported the Israel’s right to exist but was not its patron. In the 1967-1991 period, the Israelis were a key American asset in the Cold War. From 1991- the present, the relationship has remained close and little bumpy lately but it is not pivotal to either country. Whether it will remain in the 3rd phase or the relationship will enter into a new phase, only time can say. The fact is US cannot help Israel with Hezbollah or Hamas. The Israelis cannot help US in Iraq or Afghanistan. If the relationship were severed, it would have remarkably little impact on either country - though keeping the relationship is more valuable than severing it.

To sum up:

There is a powerful Jewish, pro Israel lobby in Washington, though it was not very successful in first 20 years or so of Israel’s history. When US policy toward Israel swung in 1967 it has far more to do with geopolitical interests than with lobbying. The US needed help with Egypt and Syria and Israel could provide it. Lobbying appeared to be the key, but it wasn’t; geopolitical necessity was. Egypt was anti-American even when US was anti-Israeli. Al Qaeda would be anti-American even if the US were anti-Israel. Rhetoric aside, Iran has never taken direct action against Israel and nor does it seem to be a real possibility.(existential threat notwithstanding- I will cover that part in my next note).

Portraying the Israeli lobby as super powerful behooves 2 groups: Critics of US Middle Eastern policy and the Israel lobby itself. Critics get to say the US relationship with Israel is the result of manipulation and corruption. Thus, they get to avoid discussing the actual history of Israel, US and Middle East.

The lobby benefits by projecting robust power because one of its jobs is to raise funds - and the image of a killer lobby opens a lot more pockets than does the idea that both Israel and US are simply pursuing their geopolitical interests and that things would go on pretty much the same even without slick lobbying.

The great irony is that the critics of US policy and the Israeli lobby both want to believe in the same myth - that great powers can be manipulated to harm themselves by crafty politicians.

The British did not get US into the World Wars, it was not anti-Nazism that led US to war, similarly the Israelis aren’t maneuvering the Americans into being pro-Israel. Beyond its ability to exert itself on small things, Israeli lobby is powerful in influencing Washington to do what it is going to do anyway.

What happens next in Afghanistan or Iraq  is not up to the Israeli lobby - though Israeli lobby and Saudi Embassy have a different story for it.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Middle East, Geopolitics, Israel, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

26. August 2010 by admin.

Why Christian Concept of Secularism is meaningless in India?

The very idea of a secular form of government- with priestly authority separated from the affairs of the state- is relatively a recent development in Europe. But it is a practice of extremely long standing in India- going back to Vedic times. 

Brahmins in India have long been classified as Vaidika and Laukika. Vaidika Brahmins are those that are engaged in priestly duties, while Laukika Brahmins are those that are active in the secular professions like medicine, engineering, law, teaching and others.

More importantly, the texts used as guides for religious and secular activities have always been different. This is not the case in Islam in which the Quran is not only the prayer book, but also the law book. It is claimed to be the basis for Shariat - or Islamic Law.

We can see this distinction more clearly when we look at Hindu religious texts. Many devout hindus use the Vishnusahasranama or some other prayer book in the religious functions. But it has never been Dharmashastra and others authored by sages like Brihaspati, Manu, Gautama. Kautilya’s Arthshastra was a standard manual on adminsitration. None of these is considered a religious text, or ever used in religious ceremonies. We find a clear separation the religious and the secular.

This was even true in vedic times. The vedas and the Brahmanas are religious texts, but they were never used as law books. The guidelines for legal and adminsitrative duties were laid down in sutra works like Dharmasutras, Nyayasutras and others. Even among sutra works, there was separation into Grihya (household) and srauta (sacred).

This was so even in practice as we learn from from ancient literature. The famous vedic sage Vishwamitra was born into a royal family but wanted to be known as a vedic seer. He has to give up his kingdom and perform a long penancebefore he could gain recognition as one. The reverse was also true. In the case of emperor Bharata (son of Dusyant and Shakuntala) it was the opposite. Finding his owns sons unfit to rule, he adopted a son of vedi priestly family of Bharadvaja as his heir. It was this Bharadvaja’s son Vitatha who succeeded Bharat as King. But he was no longer recognized as a sage or priest.

This remained true even in historical times. The famous Madhava seer Jayatirtha (1440-88) was born into royal Deshpande family. But he had to give up his claim to royalty before being accepted as the head of the Madhava sect. The message is simple: one could not be both ruler and priest. Theocracy was out of the question - both in theory and in practice. It is well know that Gautama Buddha was born into a hindu royal family, but gave up his claims when he founded his religion. Same is the case with Vardhman Mahavir, who was also born into a hindu royal family but gave up his kingdom and later founded Jainism. 

Madhavachaerya, better known as Vidyaranya inspired the founding of the Vijayanagar Empire when Hinduism was facing its greatest crisis. Similarly, Ramdas inspired Shivaji. But neither Vidyaranya nor Ramdas sought any political power. 

Contrast this with the record of Ayatollah Khomeini, the spiritual leader of Iran.

This record of Hinduism should be compared to the history of Christianity (of medieval Europe) and Islam, and the ideology that underlies them. Both these religions are also theocracies. In Islam, Quran is not only the prayer book, it is also the law book. For the same reason, there is no clear separation between priestly and secular duties as there has been in Hinduism since time immemorial. The Islamic code of law - the so called Shariat- is based on the Quran which is also the prayerbook of Islam. Muslim clergy claim the right to interfere in the affairs of the stae in the name of religious duty.

The same was true of Medieval Christianity. Government as the secular arm of the church and therefore subject to priestly authority was a claim that was fully broken only by the disestablishment of religion in Europe following the French Revolution. In the United States, the First Amedment to the Constitution removed all influence of religion upon the government.

Seven hundred years ago Pope Boniface VIII has assereted his secular authority in the following words:

”Both swords, the spiritual and the material (or secular), are in the power of the Church. The Spiritual is wielded by the Church; the material for the Chruch. The one by the hand of the priest; the other by the hands of kings and knights at the will and sufferance of the priest.”

This is a clear statement of how the Church regarded the state as the “secular arm” of the Church. West broke the power of Church through secularization of the state. In Islamic countries this has still not happened. For this to happen these countries have to completely remove the influence of clergy - the mullahs- from the affairs of the state. Even in India, muslims have not let that happen, organizations like Muslim Personal Law Board are insisting on separate laws - laws that would be administered by the clergy. The same phenomenon is raising its head in Britain. Even in United States, there has been one at least one case of forced marriages of under-age Muslim girls against the law of the land. Blasphemy law has also been exercised by assassinating an Egyptian scholar living in Texas for expressing his dissenting views. In India, in the name of “Secularism” and “religious rights”, muslim religious leaders are demanding the right to function as a theocratic State with a State administered according to Islamic Law.

The reality is: as with Medieval Christianity, Islam even today regards secular authority as far more important than the spiritual content. More often than not the Muslim clergy have no spiritual vision to offer, being simply politicians in religious garb. God is simply the pretext used to extend and strengthen its power and influence in the temporal world. This is the characteristic of a theocracy rather than a true spiritual tradition. 

The question is what is the source of this theocratic ideology?

The simple answer is Monotheism/Exclusivism is the foundation of Theocracy.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Christianity, Politics, History, Islam, Hindus & Hinduism, India | Print | No Comments »

18. August 2010 by admin.

Obama: Muslim missionary? Part 1 

Posted: August 16, 2010

By Chuck Norris

Unlike any other time in U.S. history, our First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion are in jeopardy. As if recently passed “hate-crime” laws and a politically correct culture weren’t bad enough, now our president is using internationalpressure and possibly law to establish a prohibition against insulting Islam or Muslims.

Let me remind us how we got here.

Speaking for most founders in his day, John Jay, America’s first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington himself, said, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Two hundred years later, President Obama has already denied America’s rich Judeo-Christian heritage before the eyes and ears of other countries, as he publicly declared in Turkey on April 6, 2009, for the whole world to hear: “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.”

Then there was Cairo in June 2009, when President Obama vowed to establish “a new beginning between the United Statesand Muslims around the world … I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. … I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. … And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.”

He goes on to say, “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

That last line is really one of the most unique U.S. presidential religious passions and missions stated to date: “And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Another big question is: What did the president mean when he said, “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t”? It makes no sense at all to refer to a partnership between a country and religion – America and Islam. Why not say partnership between America and Muslim nations or a partnership between Americans and Muslims or even a partnership between Christianity and Islam? That comment is very strange to me and has a much deeper meaning.

Roughly six months later, in February 2010, Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to serve as his special envoy to theOrganization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, an inter-governmental body of 56 Muslim countries that also forms an official body represented in the United Nations. (Where is the same treatment from this White House for countries that uphold Judeo-Christian values to unite and have the same treatment that allows them to form an official body represented in the U.N.? Or any religion, for that matter? There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark!)

Obama rejoiced, “I’m proud to announce today that I am appointing my special envoy to the OIC – Rashad Hussain. As an accomplished lawyer and a close and trusted member of my White House staff, Rashad has played a key role in developing the partnerships I called for in Cairo. And as a hafiz of the Quran, he is a respected member of the American Muslim community, and I thank him for carrying forward this important work.”

In 2007, then President George W. Bush explained the initial purpose for a OIC representative: “Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America’s views and values. This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship.”

But Obama has considerably upped the OIC ante. Today, the White House purports from its website that special envoy, Muslim and hafiz of the Quran, Rashad Hussain, “will deepen and expand the partnerships that the United States has pursued with Muslims around the world since President Obama’s speech in Cairo last June.”

Again, notice the differences between the Bush and Obama plans with the special OIC envoy: from Bush’s mission to “listen and learn from representatives” to Obama’s mission to “deepen and expand the partnerships.”

The OIC members (including U.S. Special Envoy Rashad Hussain) pledge to its charter mission to rid the world of “the defamation of religion.” But the “defamation of religion” translates to mean “defamation of Islam.” An article on the OIC website explains, “Western foreign policy is considered to be the single most significant factor determining the attitudes of many Muslims toward the West. … Unfortunately, Islam often conjures in the Western minds images of authoritarian government, subjugation of women, cruel punishments of Shariah law and violence in the popular Western mind.”

“Unfortunately”?!

The world also just learned recently from the assistant secretary for public affairs in the State Department, P.J. Crowley, that theWhite House has repeatedly sent out as an American ambassador of peace the Islamic fundamentalist and executive director of the Ground Zero mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is being sponsored by the U.S. State Department for repeated trips to the Middle East, where he is teaching on Muslim life in America and promoting religious tolerance.

But doesn’t one who called the U.S. an “accessory” to Sept. 11 just a few weeks after the tragic event and one who still refuses to call Hamas a foreign terrorist organization seem a strange choice for a U.S. ambassador of peace who promotes religious tolerance?

It is absolutely no surprise, therefore, though gravely unfortunate and disappointing for our commander in chief to blurt out last Friday night, while celebrating the holy month of Ramadan at a White House dinner, that he is in favor of building the mosque near Ground Zero!

The president explained the next day, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”

White House spokesman Bill Burton reiterated the next day about Obama’s stance on constructing the mosque: “Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans. What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.”

But I could not agree more with Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was killed at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11: “As an Obama supporter, I really feel that he’s lost sight of the germane issue, which is not about freedom of religion. It’s about a gross lack of sensitivity to the 9/11 families and to the people who were lost.”

And Debra Burlingame, a spokeswoman for some Sept. 11 families and the sister of one of the pilots killed in the attacks, summed it up perfectly: “Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see.”

Obama is not just rebooting America’s image in the Muslim world. He’s deepening and expanding Islamic belief, practice, culture around the world, like a Muslim missionary.

(Next week in Part 2, I will discuss how the Obama administration has changed course in just this past year regarding passing anti-First Amendment defamation of religion resolutions, as well as demonstrate how Obama has been prejudice in his treatment of Islam versus Christianity).

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Obama, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

18. August 2010 by admin.

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

(N.B. This version of the document contains even more tax hikes than the original version did)

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.  These will all expire on January 1, 2011: Personal income tax rates will rise.  The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below: - The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
- The 25% bracket rises to 28%
- The 28% bracket rises to 31%
- The 33% bracket rises to 36%
- The 35% bracket rises to 39.6% Higher taxes on marriage and family.  The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut. The return of the Death Tax.  This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Higher tax rates on savers and investors.  The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.  These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013. Second Wave: Obamacare There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare.  Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.  They include: The Tanning Tax.  This went into effect on July 1st of this year.  It imposes a new, 10% excise tax on getting a tan at a tanning salon.  There is no exemption for tanners making less than $250,000 per year. The “Medicine Cabinet Tax”  Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike.  This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Brand Name Drug Tax.  Starting next year, there will be a multi-billion dollar tax assessment imposed on name-brand drug manufacturers.  This tax, like all excise taxes, will raise the price of medicine, hurting everyone. Economic Substance Doctrine.  The IRS is now empowered to disallow perfectly-legal tax deductions and maneuvers merely because it judges that the deduction or action lacks “economic substance.”  This is obviously an arbitrary empowerment of IRS agents. Employer Reporting of Health Insurance Costs on a W-2.  This will start for W-2s in the 2011 tax year.  While not a tax increase in itself, it makes it very easy for Congress to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits later. Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.  These major items include: The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.  According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level.  The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers. Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.  Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.  This will be cut all the way down to $25,000.  Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment.  In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.” Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.  There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place.  The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others.  Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs. Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.  The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.  Tax credits for education will be limited.  Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.  Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.  Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.  The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families. Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.  Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.  This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.”  This ability will no longer be there. Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0wuEeV0XS

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Economy, United State of America | Print | No Comments »

13. August 2010 by admin.

How Christian Evangelists Target Hindu American Students By Francis C. Assisi

Source Link:

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=051706093445

In a fictional account of a freshman year at an American State University, author Chris Sherman tells us of an Indian-American student from the Midwest, who is “born again” after a year of intensive prayer and prodding by his evangelical Christian roommates.

Born in India and raised in the United States, the protagonist Hari Singh is caught between the Hindu-Indian culture of his immigrant parents and his desire to “be rid of his Indian roots.”

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Evangelism, Hindus & Hinduism | Print | No Comments »

3. August 2010 by admin.

Inside AT&T’s National Disaster Recovery Batcave: Who AT&T Calls When the Death Star Explodes

When the World Trade Center collapsed, it took out a critical AT&T switch, crippling service. It was restored in 52 hours—including the time to drive a caravan of eighteen-wheelers from Atlanta to a lot in Jersey City.

***

It’s hot, and muggy, like it usually is in Georgia at the end of July. There’s no AC in this warehouse, a concrete desert with a tin roof, lit by strips of undying fluorescent lights and streaks of the sun flooding in from the open bay doors in the back. A single industrial-sized fan is blowing, almost like someone’s idea of a practical joke. It’s a vast industrial space that feels utterly empty, even with dozens of 18 wheelers lined up, a convoy waiting for a calamity. The only signs that humans work here are a basketball hoop and a climbing rope. I was hoping for a more Batcave-y Batcave.

This nondescript warehouse, in an even more nondescript town outside of Atlanta, is home to AT&T’s National Disaster Recovery program, one of six depots scattered around the country. When an AT&T central office or other piece of critical networking infrastructure, is wiped off the face of the earth, NDR is what makes shit work again.

***

The World Trade Center came down on top of a node in tower number two and took out a switch for voice calls in the adjacent building. The 52 hours it took NDR to restore service included not just the time it took to drive a caravan of eighteen-wheelers straight up the East Coast, but picking up stranded workers all along the way. (The FAA had grounded all flights into NY.) The trailer city became AT&T’s de facto office in New York for three months. That’s what NDR is, effectively—AT&T on lots and lots of wheels that can set up anywhere and assimilate any function of a “smoking hole” office. It’s like the Super Star Destroyer from Empire, after the Death Star is blown up.

I guess the simplest way to think about NDR is in terms of the fleet: over 300 trailers nationwide, loaded with networking equipment. The warehouse I’m standing in houses around 40 of them. When AT&T’s Global Networking Operations Center, located in New Jersey of all places, declares that a disaster has ensued—an office destroyed, a switch crushed or something else that majorly crimps the network—a convoy is dispatched. On average, it takes 20-40 trailers (think eighteen-wheelers) and about 96 hours to replicate an office, depending on the kind of service they’re trying to restore.

The guts of AT&T, vis-a-vis the microcosm of a tractor-trailer, are what you’d expect, almost mundane: a lot of cables and switches and wires. Trailer after trailer, the hallways, lit by cold fluorescent lights, are straight out of your more claustrophobic nightmares of Area 51. But disappointingly, without dripping goo. They’re almost like giant routers stretched across a hallway. Super duper routers, really, since the newer trucks have the capacity of an OC-768 line (38.486016 gigabits a second), or 80,000 voice circuits. And in the back, man-sized modular batteries that last for up to a decade.

And then there’s the “Home Depot on wheels.” One of the things that AT&T’s learned about disasters like Katrina since starting NDR in 1991 is that if you need something, bring it with you—with thousands of crazy people running around, it’s probably not going to be there. The trailer is a full workshop, with enough saws, hammers, power tools and materials to build a small fortress or seven. It smells like a toolshed should, the dirt and grime and plywood a nicely organic contrast to the yellow plastic and blue cables lining the surrounding networking trucks.

When an NDR team lands in the middle of a shitstorm, first it looks for somewhere to setup. It needs space, and if possible, access to fiber. For the WTC, Manhattan wasn’t an option. So it investigated three vacant lots in New Jersey, all located near troves of “dark fiber,” masses of inactive fiber that’s already been laid down, making it easy to jack into the network. (Preferably, it can just plunk down next to the dead office, like in Galveston, post-Rita, where it spliced in via manholes.) Trailers are then set and leveled off. Phone lines established; then power is jacked in and grounded; networking and optical lines between the trailers are hooked up; and finally tech people start flipping switches to start rerouting everything where it needs to go. A weekly data backup is made for each office—Lucent merges the tape with configuration data to establish all the circuits correctly. All of this is what happens in the course of 4-7 days.

***

We’re back in the conference room, where the morbid business of disaster planning takes place. A map of the US on the wall is filled with red pushpins, looking like it has a weird case of the measles. It’s where they’ve held training exercises, which happen once every three months, since actual disasters don’t happen quite that often. A weatherman appears on the TV hanging overhead, blathering about the latest on Tropical Storm Bonnie, and where in the Gulf it might head next. My AT&T escorts look up, briefly fixated on the map he’s gesticulating toward. He might be telling them where they’re headed next.

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in Technology | Print | No Comments »

1. August 2010 by admin.

Story of the diamond in the crown of Queen of England The following chapter has been adopted from “A Forgotten Empire: Vijayanagar; A Contribution to the History of India” Authored by Robert Sewell in 1907. CHAPTER A DiamondsHowever much it may at first sight appear that our chroniclers have exaggerated in their description of the wealth of the Hindu sovereign and his nobles, and of the wonderful display of jewels made on days of high festival by the ladies of their households, an account of which is given us by Paes, I for one see little reason for doubt.Nuniz distinctly states (p. 389) that the diamond mines, in their day the richest in the world, were farmed out on condition that all stones above twenty mangellins in weight — about twenty-five carats — were sent to the Raya for his personal use, and there must have been many of these. Barradas (p. 226 above) states that, according to rumour, even after the downfall of the empire the king at Chandragiri in 1614 A.D. had no less than three large chests full of diamonds in his possession; and every traveller and chronicler has something to say on the subject. The principal mines were on the north bank of the Krishna river, and in the Kurnool and Anantapur countries, notably at Vajra Karur. Generically these are known as “the mines of Golkonda,” and the phrase has passed into a proverb. Linschoten (ii. 136) writes (this is the original text): “They (diamonds) grow in the countrie of Decam behinde Ballagate, by the towne of Bisnagar, wherein are two or three hilles, from whence they are digged, whereof the King of Bisnagar doth reape great profitte; for hecauseth them to be straightly watched, and hath farmed them out with this condition, that all diamonds that are above twenty-five Mangellyns in weight are for the King himselfe (every Mangellyn is foure graines in weight).There is yet another hill in the Countrie of Decam, which is called Velha, that is the old Rocke, from whence come the best diamonds and are sold for the greatest price…. Sometimes they find Diamonds of one hundred and two hundred Mangelyns and more, but very few.” As regards the diamond “as large as a hen’s egg,” said to have been found at the sack of Vijayanagar and presented to the Adil Shah (above, p. 208), Couto (Decade VIII. c. xv.) says that it was a jewel which the Raya had affixed to the base of the plume on his horse’s head-dress. Garcia da Orta, who was in India in 1534, says that at Vijayanagar a diamond had been seen as large as a small hen’s egg, and he even declares the weights of three others to have been respectively 120, 148, and 250 MANGELIS, equivalent to 150, 175, and 312 1/2 carats (Tavernier, V. Ball, ii. 433). Dr. Ball has gone carefully into the question of the diamonds known as “Babar’s,” “the Mogul’s,” “Pitt’s,” “the KOH-I-NUR,” and others, and to his Appendix I. I beg to refer those interested in the subject. It is clear that this hen’s egg diamond could not be the same as Sultan Babar’s, because the former was taken at Vijayanagar in A.D. 1565, whereas Sultan Babar’s was received by his son Humayun at Agra in 1526, and could not have been, forty years later, in the possession of the Hindu king of the south.[651]Dr. Ball has shown that probably the KOH-I-NUR is identical with the “Mogul’s diamond.” Was, then, this “hen’s egg” diamond the same? Probably not. If we had been told that the “hen’s egg,” when found in the sack of Vijayanagar, had been cut, the proof CONTRA would be conclusive, since the KOH-I-NUR was certainly uncut in A.D. 1656 or 1657. But there is no information available on this point. The “hen’s egg” was apparently taken by the Adil Shah to Bijapur in 1565, and it is not likely to have found its way, still in an uncut state, into the possession of Mir Jumla in 1656.The KOH-I-NUR was found at Kollur on the river Krishna, probably in A.D. 1656. Mir Jumla farmed the mines at that time, and presented it uncut to the emperor, Shah Jahan. It is said to have weighed 756 English carats (Ball, ii. 444). It was entrusted to a Venetian named Hortensio Borgio, and was so damaged and wasted in his hands that, when seen by Tavernier in Aurangzib’s treasury in 1665, it weighed not more than 268 1/2 English carats. In 1739 Nadir Shah sacked Delhi and carried the stone away with him to Persia, conferring on it its present immortal name the “Mountain of Light.” On his murder in 1747 it passed into the hands of his grandson, Shah Rukh. Four years later Shah Rukh gave it to Ahmad Shah Durani of Kabul, and by him it was bequeathed to his son Taimur. In 1793 it passed by descent to his son Shah Zaman, who was blinded and deposed by his brother Muhammad; but he retained possession of the stone in his prison, and in 1795 it became the property of his brother Sultan Shuja. In 1809, after Shuja became king of Kabul, Elphinstone saw the diamond in his bracelet at Peshawur. In 1812, Shuja, being dethroned by Muhammad, fled to Lahore, where he was detained as a quasi- prisoner by Ranjit Singh, the ruler of the Panjab. In 1813 an agreement was arrived at, and Shuja surrendered the diamond to Ranjit Singh. Ranjit often wore the stone, and it was constantly seen by European visitors to Lahore. Dying in 1839, the KOH-I- NUR was placed in the jewel-chamber till the infant Dhulip Singh was acknowledged as Ranjit’s successor. In 1849 it was handed over to Sir John Lawrence on the annexation of the Panjab, and by him was sent to England to Her Majesty the Queen. In 1851 it was exhibited at the first great Exhibition, and in 1852 it was re- cut by an Amsterdam cutter, Voorsanger, in the employ of Messrs. Garrards. The weight is now 106 1/16 carats. It would be interesting to trace the story of the “hen’s egg” diamond after its acquisition by the Bijapur sultan, Ali Adil.H. de Montfart, who travelled in India in 1608, saw a very large diamond in the possession of the Mogul emperor. Jahangir at Delhi,[652] but this had been pierced. “I have seene one with the great MOGOR as bigge as a Hen’s egge, and of that very forme, which he caused expressly to bee pierced like a pearle to weare it on his arme…. It weighteth 198 Mangelins.”

Posted via email from Jay’s Blogs

Posted in U.K., India | Print | No Comments »