Details of a large non-profit’s plans to combat the Keystone XL pipeline have surfaced, and offer some insight into the strategies and tactics of groups looking to combat the use of fossil fuels.

Canadian news channel Sun News uncovered of a PowerPoint presentation from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund detailing its work with other groups to derail the Keystone XL pipeline and other similar projects it deemed parts of “a globally significant threat.”

The presentation, written in 2008, describes the allocation of $7 million to environmental non-profits for tactics that include the use of the legislative and legal systems to delay or derail energy production in the United States and Canada, and to “raise the costs” of energy in both nations.

Here is that presentation in full (click here to view in a new window):

The strategy has some Canadian commentators fuming at what they see as foreign meddling in their affairs.

While Rockefeller and other groups are actively working to dismantle Canada’s energy production infrastructure, polling shows that Canadians overwhelmingly support oil pipeline projects. And for good reason: the energy sector employs 230,000 Canadians, and represents nearly 7 percent of the country’s economy.

Source material can be found at this site.

Related posts:

1. EPA to Raise Electricity Prices, Risk Blackouts
2. Solar Bankruptcies Mean It’s Time to End Energy Subsidies, Not Increase Them
3. Obama’s Gas Prices Picture Says All the Wrong Words

But Mitt Romney and Ron Paul haven’t laid a hand on each other.

They never do.

Despite deep differences on a range of issues, Romney and Paul became friends in 2008, the last time both ran for president. So did their wives, Ann Romney and Carol Paul. The former Massachusetts governor compliments the Texas congressman during debates, praising Paul’s religious faith during the last one, in Jacksonville, Fla. Immediately afterward, as is often the case, the Pauls and the Romneys gravitated toward one another to say hello.

Romney and Paul

The Romney-Paul alliance is more than a curious connection. It is a strategic partnership: for Paul, an opportunity to gain a seat at the table if his long-shot bid for the presidency fails; for Romney, a chance to gain support from one of the most vibrant subgroups within the Republican Party.

“It would be very foolish for anybody in the Republican Party to dismiss a very real constituency,” said one senior GOP aide in Washington who is familiar with both camps. “Ron Paul plays a very valuable part in the process and brings a lot of voters toward the Republican Party and ultimately into the voting booth, and that’s something that can’t be ignored.”

To ensure that they are heard — not just now but after Election Day, too — Paul and his followers are working to gain a permanent foothold in the Republican Party nationwide. One state at a time, Paul’s supporters are seating themselves at county committee meetings, and standing for election as state officers and convention delegates, to make sure their candidate’s libertarian vision is taken into account. The goal is a lasting voice for an army of outsiders that has long felt ignored and sees the nation headed toward ruin if things don’t change.

That is just fine with the Romney campaign, which would be happy to bring Paul’s constituency — perhaps the most intense and loyal in the country — into the fold.

Romney’s aides are “quietly in touch with Ron Paul,” according to a Republican adviser who is in contact with the Romney campaign and spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss its internal thinking. The two campaigns have coordinated on minor things, the adviser said — even small details, such as staggering the timing of each candidate’s appearance on television the night of the New Hampshire primary for maximum effect.

One advantage for Romney is that Paul’s presence in the race helps keep the GOP electorate fractured. But there is also a growing recognition that the congressman plans to stay in the contest over the long term — and that accommodating him and his supporters could help unify Republican voters in the general election against President Obama.

“Ron Paul wants a presence at the convention,” the adviser said — and Romney, if he is the nominee, would grant it.

What Paul and his supporters would demand, and what Romney would offer, are subjects of some speculation. One Paul adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity to talk freely, said prime-time speaking slots for Paul and his son Rand, the junior senator from Kentucky, are obvious goals. On the policy front, Ron Paul’s priorities are reforming the Federal Reserve and reducing federal spending. So promises to audit the Fed and to tackle deficit reduction seriously could appease the congressman and his supporters, the adviser said.

Less likely are concessions on foreign policy, where Paul’s non-interventionist stand is at odds with that of Romney and most other Republicans.

Infiltrating the party

For Paul’s campaign, playing the inside-outside game has required nudging activists into the party system, even as he and they remain wary of it.

“I’ve been involved in politics for 20 or 30 years,” Paul told an enthusiastic crowd in a Spartanburg, S.C., hotel ballroom in January. “One of the reasons I became frustrated with the whole process is that the rhetoric could be so different. Republicans would say one thing, but then, when they get into office, they haven’t done a heck of a lot.”

Paul paused, and his audience cheered loudly as he added: “Have you ever noticed that?”

The crowd that day was characteristically scrappy and diverse: a man with a ponytail and a camouflage hunting jacket, a young mother with two small children, a doctor and his wife, and a well-dressed, young professional couple.

Yet the insurgents are executing a concerted strategy to infiltrate the Republican Party. Five Paul supporters, for instance, sit on the state GOP’s central committee in Iowa, where their candidate finished a strong third in the Jan. 3 caucuses. In Nevada, the vice president of the state GOP backs Paul. In Virginia, Paul supporters are lining up to attend county and district conventions to influence the election of national delegates.

In Reno, regional coordinator Wayne Terhune used a slide show on a recent weeknight to teach volunteers how to participate in a Republican precinct meeting to help Paul win delegates in the state’s caucuses on Saturday. He has tutored packed rooms at Denny’s as well as smaller crowds in the campaign’s Reno headquarters, located in a low-slung office building alongside the airport.

In a tiny conference room with a water cooler and two dogs on the floor, Terhune told the volunteers not to allow paper ballots out of their sight once votes take place — and to dress neatly and inconspicuously, so fellow Republicans won’t be disinclined to elect them as caucus delegates.

A common refrain is to “cover your tattoos and cut your hair,” said Paul’s campaign manager, Jesse Benton, who often tells coordinators to “dress for business, because we mean business.”

“You’ll nominate yourself,” Terhune told the room. “They’ll probably have you give your speech. Have a meeting a day ahead so all the Ron Paul people know who the other Ron Paul people are, so you can vote for them. Then you give a generic speech, and the non-Ron Paul people say, ‘Oh, he’s solid, I can vote for him.’?”

Terhune also urged the volunteers to pull out their iPhones and record the proceedings on caucus night if party officials “don’t play by the rules.”

Teaching the establishment

Paul’s infiltration strategy began in 2008, after his last presidential bid, when he saw the potential to continue building his movement by working within the Republican Party.

But the idea took off in 2010 when Paul’s son Rand ran for Senate. On an outsider, small-government message very similar to his father’s, Rand Paul won the Republican primary that year against an opponent who was handpicked by Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader and senior senator from Kentucky.

Then, quite strangely, the establishment and the Pauls came together.

At McConnell’s request, the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent an adviser to Kentucky to watch over Rand Paul’s general-election campaign — “to be the grown-up in the room,” according to one Washington Republican who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly.

The adviser, Trygve Olson, developed a friendship with Rand Paul, and the two realized that they could teach each other a lot — to the benefit of both candidate and party. Olson showed Paul and his campaign establishment tactics: working with the news media, fine-tuning its message. And Paul showed Olson — and by extension, McConnell — how many people were drawn to the GOP by his message of fiscal responsibility.

One day that year, at Paul’s request, McConnell joined him for a tea party gathering in Kentucky, according to a Republican who was there. “Who are these people?” McConnell asked, bewildered by the dearth of familiar faces at a political event in his home state.

And at Rand Paul’s suggestion, Olson joined his father’s presidential campaign this year, basically to do what he did for Rand: help bring the Paul constituency into the Republican coalition without threatening the party. It’s probably no small coincidence that the partnership helps Rand’s burgeoning political career, too.

“You can dress in black and stand on the hill and smash the state and influence nobody, or you can realize the dynamics and the environment and get involved in the most pragmatic way to win minds and win votes and influence change,” said Benton, the campaign manager. “That’s what we’re trying to do.”

Related posts:

1. Gingrich Moves Past Cain and Romney to Become Tea Party’s Top Choice
2. Only Rick Santorum Can Stop Romney
3. InsiderAdvantage Poll: Gingrich Now Leads Romney in South Carolina

The California Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union were the top two spenders for lobbying in 2011 with combined efforts totaling more than $10 million, according to Sacramento Bee. Now they’re using their muscle to champion Brown’s tax hike.

Brown’s plan “would raise tens of billions of dollars by temporarily increasing the sales tax and the income tax on wealthy Californians, generating about $35 billion over five years,” according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The involvement of government unions is nothing new, according to Heritage’s James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics. He said these actions illustrate how unions lobby and support initiatives that lead to higher taxes and bigger government

Sherk documented the CTA’s involvement in previous debates over taxes:

The California Teachers Association spent $2 million gathering signatures for an initiative on the November 2010 ballot that would raise business taxes by $2 billion a year. Separately, public employee unions protested at the state capitol demanding the legislature raise taxes by $40 billion a year, including raising the top state income tax bracket to 11 percent, applying the sales tax to services in addition to goods, and increasing the state’s vehicle license fee by 2 percentage points.

The CTA and SEIU’s support of the tax increases depicts their motive—generate as much money as possible to get more union members hired, pay them higher salaries, and give them better benefits, all at the cost of the taxpayer.

As competition has limited the influence of private-sector unions, more union members are now working for the government. This means that unions are now looking to taxpayers to front the bill for their workers’ paychecks. Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst Jason Richwine’s research shows that government employees in California receive 30 percent more than they would in the private sector.

According to Sherk:

In states without right-to-work laws, unionized employees must pay union dues or lose their jobs. State and local governments use their payroll systems to collect dues for the union. The government automatically deducts the dues—typically 1 percent to 2 percent of a government employee’s pay—and deposits it in the union’s bank account. One percent of the pay of several hundred thousand government workers is a lot of money. The New Jersey Education Association has 179,000 active members who each have to pay union dues of $761 every year. That works out to more than $136 million in dues a year. The American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME) national headquarters brought in $193 million in union dues in 2008.

Much of the money unions collect from dues goes to lobbying, which is then used to advocate for tax increases to sustain their members’ salaries. The CTA and SEIU are two prime examples.

“Unions consistently press for higher taxes and more government spending across America,” Sherk said. “The labor movement has made higher taxes and more government spending one of its top priorities.”

Source material can be found at this site.

Related posts:

1. In California Unions Are The Government
2. No Bailouts for Government Unions
3. Wisconsin Unions Lose First Round, But Win the Luck of the Draw in the Second

“Mitt is tough, he’s smart, he’s sharp and he’s not going to allow bad things to continue to happen to this country we all love,” The Associated Press quoted Trump as having said in a joint news conference with Romney in Las Vegas.

The endorsement was the finale in a puzzling chain of events that began Wednesday, when Trump’s office announced he would be flying to Las Vegas for a “major announcement” related to the presidential contest.

Gingrich’s advisers suggested Trump had sent “signals” that he would endorse the former House speaker, but that turned out to be false.

Romney, AP reported, said he was glad to get the support, and said, “There are some things you just can’t imagine happening. This is one of them.”

Trump had considered joining the Republican race himself, but announced in May that he would not do so.

He did, however, manage to force President Barack Obama to publicly release his birth certificate to prove that he was born in Hawaii and is thus eligible to serve as President.

The birth certificate was produced after Trump had begun questioning why Obama hadn’t ensured the long form was released and even claimed to have investigators in Hawaii researching Obama’s birth.

Trump’s endorsement of Romney comes two days before the Nevada caucuses, which will take place on Saturday. AP reported, however, that the endorsement is not likely to affect the results of the primary.

On Tuesday, Romney won the Florida primary.

Source material can be found at this site.

Related posts:

1. Donald Trump Releases Birth Certificate Without Hesitation; Questions Obama
2. Trump May Assist Obama to Get Re-Elected; Is Again Considering Running as Independent
3. DONALD TRUMP: Obama Has Blown It; I’m Going To Run For President

Senator Hatch

On December 31, a set of approximately 50 tax-reducing provisions commonly referred to as the “tax extenders” expired. These provisions, which apply to both individuals and businesses, include popular measures such as the Research and Experimentation credit for businesses and the optional deduction for state and local sales taxes for individuals. Congress will need to retroactively extend these tax laws at some point this year; otherwise, a steep tax increase on certain groups of taxpayers will remain in place.

Retroactively addressing the tax extenders is nothing new. Congress generally waits as long as it possibly can to extend them. But by routinely delaying on the extenders, Congress creates uncertainty for the businesses and individuals, who need to plan for the future and make important financial decisions.

When it does finally act, Congress usually spends its time arguing about how to pay for keeping these tax-reducing provisions in law before ultimately passing the tax extenders with little scrutiny of the individual provisions in the package. This is a waste of time and energy, because none of the tax extenders is a new tax cut—so extending them does not require a budgetary offset.

Not all individual provisions in the tax extenders are good policy, but that gets lost in the shuffle. As Heritage has argued before, Congress needs to spend its time sifting through the separate policies, determining which it wants to keep and discarding the others. It should then lower other taxes by the amount of revenue the discarded provisions would raise. That way the exercise isn’t a tax hike.

This would serve as a mini-tax reform and a stepping stone for much-needed fundamental reform of the entire tax code. It would also lessen the drag the tax code places on the economy by eliminating policies that artificially alter markets. It is long overdue for Congress to take this route with the tax extenders, rather than the business-as-usual approach.

The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the tax extenders recently, and Senator Orrin Hatch (R–UT) at long last addressed these major problems with the tax extenders. In his opening statement, he said:

Certainty in the Tax Code is a very important factor in allowing businesses to plan their affairs, make investments, and create jobs. And these job creators don’t want bad certainty — they don’t want to hear that their taxes are going up. Congress should provide this certainty by making permanent the provisions that are worthy of remaining in the law, and eliminating those that are not. Chairman Baucus and I agree, along with many of our colleagues, that the current tax code demands comprehensive reform. In the meantime, before tax reform is accomplished, Congress needs to decide what to do about the tax extender provisions that have expired.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Congress should finally do as Senator Hatch suggests and carefully examine each tax provision in the tax extenders group. It will find that if it treats the extenders as a small version of more fundamental tax reform, it will have given itself a useful guide for that more difficult task.

Source material can be found at this site.

Related posts:

1. Hatch’s Bill Picks Up Administration’s Slack on Immigration Enforcement
2. Chart of the Week: Taxing the Wealthy to Cover Future Deficits Won’t Work
3. Flashback: Senator Outlines Objections to ‘Unaccountable’ Consumer Czar (VIDEO)

VHS has been a staple of the American way of watching television and movies. VHS has supported countless manufacturing jobs, and even though there are better products out there, let’s face it: We need a variety of ways to watch our programs. The states and local economies that have VHS production facilities have experienced and benefited from VHS production, but without a little help from the taxpayers, jobs will be lost and the industry will atrophy. VHS production has bipartisan support, will be good for American manufacturing jobs, and will diversify our program-watching ability. America needs VHS, and VHS needs the taxpayers’ help.

The above plea isn’t real, but this extremely flawed style of economic rationale is what’s driving the justification for wind energy production tax credits (PTC).

With enough taxpayer dollars, you can prop up just about any industry. But it doesn’t mean those jobs are adding value and growing the economy. Still, politicians use this nonsensical thinking to justify projects that benefit them at the expense of the rest of America. The latest is the push to extend wind energy’s subsidies through 2016.

Governors Sam Brownback of Kansas (R) and Terry Branstad of Iowa (R) sent a letter to the House and Senate committees negotiating the payroll tax extension asking to include an extension of the PTC for wind energy. Unsurprisingly, they use VHS-style thinking that wastes taxpayer dollars and destroys economic value. The letter urges that “The wind energy sector is an American success story that is helping us build our manufacturing base, create jobs, lower energy costs and strengthen our energy security.”

One might wonder how the wind industry can be considered a success story if it needs taxpayer handouts to survive.

Nonetheless, the governors write that “As a country we should support energy diversity and the development of all domestic resources, creating an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy. In order to prevent the nation from being too heavily reliant on a single energy source, our state and national energy plans have long relied on varying policies and incentives, such as the PTC, to deploy technologies that ensure a diverse, domestic energy fleet.”

There are major flaws here. First, an “all of the above” energy strategy does not justify subsidizing all of the above. Second, we have a diverse, competitive electricity sector that includes coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and oil (about 1 percent). And finally, that diverse energy mix is produced almost entirely domestically.

The only “all of the above” strategy America should embrace is the answer to this question: Which of these energy sources should we not subsidize? A.) Fossil Fuels B.) Nuclear C.) Renewables D.) All of the Above.

The main argument for extending the wind subsidy is that failure to do so will result in job losses. The letter goes on to say, “Unfortunately, the leading wind project developers and manufactures are canceling their plans for 2013 and wind development will grind to a halt due to the uncertainty of a PTC extension.” It goes on to point out that “A recent report completed by Navigant finds that an expiration of the PTC would lead to a nearly fifty percent decrease in the number of wind energy jobs.”

If Navigant’s numbers are accurate, it means two things: 1.) The subsidy has been artificially propping up jobs in the industry and shifted labor and capital away from other, more productive sectors of the economy; and 2.) Wind can compete without subsidies and the industry won’t entirely disappear.

Removing the subsidies could actually benefit the wind industry in the long term. Rather than having the subsidies promote technological stagnation in the industry, investments and resources would flow toward the most promising wind companies and technologies. This would allow for a strong wind industry that that can compete without subsidies. If the result is more wind energy without subsidies, all the better.

Policies like the production tax credit concentrate benefits on a few recipients and disperse the costs among the rest of us through higher taxes and energy costs. If wind energy is not economically viable without the crutch of taxpayer money, then we’re propping up a market loser. If wind energy is a market winner, then the subsidy is taking money out of the taxpayers’ wallets and simply padding the bottom line for the politically connected.

An extension of the wind energy tax credit makes as much sense as a VHS production tax credit.

Source material can be found at this site.

Related posts:

1. Another Free-Money Report
2. Solar Bankruptcies Mean It’s Time to End Energy Subsidies, Not Increase Them
3. Why Ethanol and Natural Gas Don’t Deserve Subsidies

Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.

Gallup adds:

Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.

Related posts:

1. It’s Official: Obama Is Now The Worst American President
2. Gallup: Under Obama, Growing Percentage See Big Government as ‘Biggest Threat’
3. Majority now think Obama is a LEFTIST

Taliban

In a secret NATO report recently leaked to the British media, Taliban insurgents told their interrogators that they are increasingly confident that the Taliban will retake power once NATO forces depart Afghanistan, and that Pakistan is positioning itself for such an outcome. NATO officials have sought to downplay the report’s contents, emphasizing that it represents uncorroborated pieces of information, not an overall analysis of the military situation.

Still, the contents of the report should give pause to those who are pushing for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. There are well-founded concerns that the Taliban are uninterested in genuine peace talks and will try to string the U.S. along in talks that would simply allow them to play for time and obtain release of their prisoners. The U.S. must guard against the possibility that the Taliban will use any negotiations to strengthen their influence in Afghanistan without breaking ties to international terrorist groups or giving up their goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate.

The leaked NATO report, based on thousands of interrogations of captured insurgents, also asserts that Pakistan supports and directs their attacks against NATO forces and is “intimately” involved in efforts to topple the Karzai government. Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar dismissed the report as “old wine in an even older bottle,” and said it was more important “to look at the conversations that are taking place with the Taliban by many other important capitals of the world.” Although Pakistan claims it is not interfering in Afghanistan’s affairs, there have been no indications that Pakistan has cracked down on Taliban sanctuaries on its side of the border.

The NATO report, combined with findings from a recent intelligence estimate on Afghanistan that conclude the Taliban have little interest in peace talks, should cause the Administration to think twice when considering concessions to the Taliban. These reports reveal that the situation is not yet ripe for genuine reconciliation, and the Administration would be jumping the gun if it releases senior Taliban prisoners at this juncture. U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged in congressional hearings yesterday that the U.S. may release five top Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay as an incentive to bring the Taliban leadership to talks.

The building blocks for genuine peace and stability in Afghanistan are simply not yet in place. The Administration must pay more attention to the facts on the ground before diving into a pseudo-reconciliation process merely to justify an early drawdown of troops.

Source material can be found at this site.

Related posts:

1. Pakistan to Re-Open Border for NATO
2. Obama Looks For Honorable Exit From Afghanistan: Qatar Mediating US-Taliban Talks
3. Taliban Leaders At Guantánamo To Be Released By Obama – Official: “It Wouldn’t Make Any Real Difference” If All Rejoin Fight Against USA

(By PI Munich)

The Turkish author Zafer Senocak, who has dealt in extensively with Islam, summed it up in a clear and unmistakable way in his detailed article “Terror comes from the heart of Islam” at Welt Online:

“Even when most Muslims don’t want to admit it, terror comes from the heart of Islam; it comes right out of the Quran. It is oriented against everyone who doesn’t live and behave according to the rules of the Quran, thus against democrats, Western-inspired thinkers and scholars, against agnostics and atheists. It is especially oriented against women. It is the handiwork of a male-centric Islam, one that would exert all power possible to prevent women from being equal and finding an end to their centuries-long subjugation.”

The ageless relevance of the Quran, the immense consequences of its contents and its disastrous implication for us “infidels” can’t be the subject of discussion often enough. PI Munich, therefore, has prepared an analysis about this titled “The Quran – The World’s Most Dangerous Book. Here are a few excerpts from it:

This book is grossly underestimated in the Western world. But it is not just any book: it is the Holy Book of all Muslims. For them, every word in it comes directly from the god Allah:

“The sending down of this book is doubtlessly from the lord of the worlds” (32:2)

The Quran is full of guidelines and commands. They are clearly formulated and, according to Islamic opinion, ageless as well as unalterable:

“This is with all certainty the book of Allah, that gives no reason for doubt; it is a proper guide for the devout.” (2:2)

This religion has easy to understand, simple principles: Muhammad is the last of the prophets, for Muslims the “perfect person” and their “perfect example.” He received every instruction from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Islam means submission, and thus all believers must submit themselves to Allah’s will. Any form of criticism or contradiction is uncompromisingly prohibited:

“This happens because they resist Allah and his emissary; and those who resist Allah – truly Allah is strict in punishment.” (59:4)

Muslims must recognize the teachings which Muhammad used to influence his compatriots in the Arab bedouin society as universally applicable. His god Allah intends that belief in him be enforced against all other religions. And in a militant way, to be sure:

“It is He who sent his emissary with leading and the true religion so that He will cause it to be the victor over every other religion. And Allah is witness enough.” (48:28)

Therefore, a battle follows, willed by God against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others, that has already caused 270 million deaths, according to estimates by the Shoebat Institute. This god Allah, in all seriousness, wants the battle to the ultimate victory against his own creatures:

“Allah has commanded it: Of a certainty, I will win, I and my emissary. Truly, Allah is strong and mighty.” (58:21)

Islam is also supposed to seize international authority, which makes a separation of state and religion impossible:

“To Allah belongs the lordship over heaven and earth. Allah has the authority over all.” (3:189)

This god leaves no question about his plans. Non-believers don’t need to have illusions about supposed tolerance or peacefulness:

“Allah will prove the devout and exterminate the infidels” (3:141)

Any person that doesn’t accept this idea of a threatening and battle-thirsty god is bullied:

“This is nothing other than an admonishment and a clear Qur’an in which he warns everyone alive and fulfills the word against the infidels.” (36:69)

It has been handed down through islamic history that Muhammad had many of his critics killed. This killing is not only allowed in the Quran, rather it is explicitly instructed. The word “kill (or ‘slay’)” appears 189 times in the Quran, 27 times in the imperative:

“And kill them wherever you happen upon them, and drive them out from the place where they have driven you out; for the deception of the infidels is worse than killing. However, do not fight them at the holy mosque unless they fight against you there. Attack them, however, and slay them dead. Such is the reward of the infidels.” (2:191)

Have you not wondered about the notorious assurances by Muslim representatives since 9/11 that Islam is a “peaceful religion” and that violence has “nothing to do with Islam”? Mohammed Atta and his co-believers acted, for example, according to the following verse in their airplane attacks in the US among others:

“Allah has redeemed the life and goods from the devout for Paradise: They battle for Allah’s cause; they kill and are killed” (9:11)

Such unmistakable instructions are learned in 40,000 Quran schools worldwide. In Germany, around one hundred thousand young Muslims are indoctrinated each year with such verses. It is to be feared that the breeding ground has been cultivated for future terrorist generations.

“And when the holy months are over, then kill the idol worshippers wherever you find them, and attack them and besiege them andlure them out with any trap. However, if they repent and carry out the prayer and pay the Zakah, then make the way free for them. Truly, Allah is all forgiving, merciful” (9:5)

These clear calls for killing apply for all time, and especially when Jihad is declared. Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and other fanatical theocratic warriors are obedient pupils of their master Muhammad:

“When you meet the infidels, then off with the head, until you havewreaked a massacre among them; then tie the bonds. After this, do not demand grace or ransom until the war takes its burden from you. It is that way. And if Allah had willed, he could have done the extermination himself, but he wanted to test one of you through the others. And those who have fallen in the way of Allah – he will never nullify it.” (47:4)

Therefore, battling and Islam quite plainly belong inextricably together:

“It is commanded of you to fight, even if it is repulsive to you. However, it may be that the thing repulsive to you is that which is good for you; and it may be that the thing you like is bad for you. And Allah knows, but you do not know.” (2:216)

When infidels stand up against the warlike islamic expansion or criticize its ideology, monstrous punishment is thought out for them:

The reward of the one who feuds with Allah and his emissary and carries out corruption on the earth is that they will be killed or crucified, or that their hands and feet will be cut off in turns, or that they will be driven out of the country. It will be a disgrace for them in this world and in the afterlife a serious punishment will be meted out to them. (5:33)

Every warrior of god is instilled with the idea that in all his work he is constantly being monitored by his strict lord in heaven:

“And fight in Allah’s way and know that Allah hears all and is omniscient.” (2:244)

But not only is battle a duty in Islam, the goading of other believers into holy war is as well:

“Therefore battle for Allah’s sake – you will be held responsible for nobody but yourself – and encourage the believers to battle. Perhaps Allah will hold back the power of those who are unbelieving; and Allah’s power is much greater, and he is stricter in punishment.” (4:84)

This battle is also richly rewarded in which Muhammad plays down the meaning of terrestrial life, but emphasizes that of the afterlife:

“Therefore, let those fight for Allah’s sake, who sell the earthly life for the prize of the hereafter. And to the one who fights for Allah’s sake, whether he is killed or wins, we will give a great reward.” (4:74)

According to official islamic sources, Muhammad was involved in 89 military actions in the space of ten years. Thus, since its beginnings, Islam has been an ideology of perpetual battle to the end that there will be only Muslims in the world:

“And battle against them so that no more seduction can take place, and fight until all honor is given to Allah alone. Separate yourself, however, from the infidel, for truly, Allah sees very well what you do.” (8:39)

In the face of these perpetual war campaigns, Muhammad had to motivate his followers effectively. This was accomplished with the help of Allah:

“Oh prophet, stir the fires of battle within the believers. If there are only twenty among you that have patience, they shall overcome two hundred; and if there one hundred among you, they will overcome one thousand who do not believe, because they are a people who do not understand.” (8:65)

There is much of battle and killing in the Quran; talk of love, in contrast, appears only seldom – except for with brave warriors:

“Truly, Allah loves those who fight for his cause, arrayed in an order of battle as though they were entrenched stonework.” (61:4)

Scruples or a bad conscience in killing is removed from the Muslims – for it is really Allah himself killing through the hands of the devout:

“You did not kill them, rather Allah has killed them. And you have not thrown as you have thrown, but Allah threw, and through that he causes the devout to undergo a beautiful test from him. Surely, Allah is all hearing and all knowing.” (8:17)

The most dangerous thing about the islamic ideology of violence is the absence of the fear of death. For the god of the Muslims rewards all who die in battle:

“And truly, if you are slain or die in the way of Allah, truly, Allah’s forgiveness and mercy is better than that which you scrape together.And if you die or are slain, you will be gathered together before Allah.” (3:157)

Muhammad recognized that the fighting power of his companions was considerably greater with a contempt for death than with a fear of death:

“And do not consider those as dead who have fallen in Allah’s way. No!They live with their lord, and there they are cared for.” (3:169)

Fallen warriors also receive a remission of sins with Allah and are taken directly to Paradise. This separates them from all other Muslims who do not know for sure whether they will enter Paradise.

“And those who migrated away and were driven out of their houses and suffered in my way and fought and fell – truly, I will wipe away all their misdeeds, and truly, I will lead them into gardens where the brooks hasten by, as a reward from Allah. And with Allah is the best reward.” (3:195)

Muslims are instructed in the Quran to wage battle without compromise as soon as they find themselves in a promising position.

“Truly those who are infidels and turn away from Allah’s way, and then die as infidels – Allah will in no wise pardon them. Therefore, do not diminish the battle and do not call for a cease-fire where you have the upper hand. And Allah is with you, and he will not diminish your deeds.” (47:34)

This warlike prophet sees himself as the inexorable pioneer employed by his god Allah in the slaughter of the “infidels”:

“It doesn’t befit a prophet to make prisoners until he slaughters on earth. You desire this world’s goods, but Allah desires the afterlife for you. And Allah is mighty and wise.” (8:67)

All “infidels” are dedicated to destruction according to the Quran:

“But those who are unbelieving – down with them! He causes their works to fail. It is this way because they hate him whom Allah has sent; therefore he brings their works to nought.” (47:8)

Muhammad demands uncompromised battle with a contempt for death from his followers, and for this he promises them Paradise in the afterlife:

“However, the Sent One and the devout ones with him who fight with their goods and their blood are the ones on whom good will be bestowed; and they are the ones who will have success. Allah has prepared gardens for them through which brooks flow; there they are to spend eternity. That is the greatest bliss.” (9:88)

Allah cares for his warriors after the death of battle:

“And for those who migrate away for Allah’s will and then are slain or die, Allah will prepare a splendid provision. Truly, Allah – he is the best provider.” (22:58)

But in Paradise, not only worldly goods await the devout. Muhammad knew how to entice his warriors with sexual temptations:

“… and we will wed them with virgins. They will desire fruits of all kinds there and live in security. Death they will not taste there except for the first death. And he will keep them from the punishment of the Jahim as a grace from their lord. That is the greatest bliss. (44:51)

Muhammad describes these virgins in the afterlife very vividly so that he can develop the desired effect among his warriors:

“Truly, there is gain for those that fear God: Gardens and berry hedges and girls with swelling breasts, companions and cups filled to overflowing.” (78:31)

In contrast to the enticing promise of Paradise, all “infidels” are threatened with the worst hell:

“…We have prepared a fire for the evil doers so that they will be enclosed as in a tent. And when they cry for help, they will be helped with water like molten metal that burns the faces. How terrible is the drink and how wicked their place of rest!” (18:29)

Muhammad’s fantasy knew no limits where it had to do with the deterring portrayal of suffering in hell:

“For those who are now unbelieving, their clothing will be singed by fire; boiling water will be poured over their heads so that what is in their bellies and their skin will melt. And iron clubs have been determined for them. As often as they try to escape the distress, they will be driven back to it; and that means: Taste the punishment of burning.” (22:19)

The prophet also promised earthly goods, which he very easily has taken away from the “infidels.” And thus, in the Quran there is a complete Sura that bears the name “The Spoils.” For himself, he secured a 20% commission:

“And know that whatever you may take as spoils, a fifth of that belongs to Allah and his emissary and the relatives and the orphans and those in need and the son of the way, if you believe in Allah and in that which we have sent down to our servant on the day of decision, the day when both hosts met together; and Allah has authority over all things.” (8:41)

So motivated, the Muslim armies were able to subdue the Arab peninsula in just a few years.

“Allah has promised much booty, which you will make, and he has given this quickly over to you and has held the hands of men from you so that this will be a sign for the devout, and that he will lead you on a straight path.” (48:20)

This way, Islam expanded with lighting speed in all directions because Allah promised rich spoils throughout:

“And another part of the spoils that you have failed to obtain, Allah has done so in his power. And Allah has power over all things.” (48:21)

The quickly growing armies were instructed to leave their homeland in order to carry the battle to other lands, and thus increase Islam’s dominion:

“Those that believe and migrate away, and fight with their goods and their blood for Allah’s sake receive the highest rank with Allah; and they are the ones who will overcome.” (9:20)

With such godly instructions in their baggage, the Muslim armies were able, even after Muhammad’s death in 632, to plow through unprecedentedly successful campaigns all the way to France.

“Move out, light and heavy, and fight with your goods and your blood for Allah’s sake! It is better for you, if you only knew it!” (9:41)

A disregard for this philosophy of expansion brings serious consequences with it:

“If you do not move out, he will punish you with painful punishment, and will choose another people in your place, and you will certainly will not be able to hurt him. And Allah has the power over all things.” (9:39)

Muhammad also convinced the Muslims of a superior position of exception, which principally means the justification for the takeover of power in any country:

“You are the best fellowship that has ever existed for the people. You will command that which is right and forbid the wrong, and you will believe in Allah. And if the people of the scriptures had believed, it would have been good for them! There are believers among you, but the majority of them are evil doers.” (3:110)

The “people of the scriptures” are Christians and Jews. Everyone among them who doesn’t believe in Allah are therefore evil doers. In the course of taking over power, the humiliation of those in other faiths is highest law:

“Humiliation is commanded for them wherever they are met, unless they would be secure because of their bond with Allah or with the people. And they draw to themselves the anger of Allah, and poverty is commanded for them because they denied Allah’s signs and unjustly murdered the prophets. Such a thing happens since they were rebellious and transgressors.” (3:112)

Every dissident thinker is warned about resistance:

“Truly, those that resist Allah and his emissary will certainly be humiliated, even as those who were humiliated before them; and truly, we have already sent clear signs down. And the infidel will be imparted with a shameful sign.” (58:5)

The principle of subjugation and demand for tribute can also be best recognized from the supposedly peaceful period of islamic government in Spain. For in “Al Andalus” relative quietness ruled when the Jews and Christians bowed to massive pressure, submitted themselves as second-class people, accepted considerably fewer rights and paid additional taxes.

“Fight against those who do not believe in Allah and in the last day, and those who do not declare forbidden what Allah and his emissary have declared forbidden, and those who do not follow the true faith – from those who have received the scriptures until they pay tribute from their own hand in complete submission.” (9:29)

Mercy exists in Islam only among one another in the Umma, the fellowship of Muslims. Infidels, on the other hand, deserve harsher forms of handling:

“Muhammad is the emissary of Allah. And those who are with him areharsh against the infidels, but merciful to each other. You see them bow in prayer, prostrate themselves and strive for Allah’s grace and favor. Their character can be seen in their faces: the signs of prostration.” (48:29)

The one who resists Islam is threatened with the worst punishment. Long-term pPeaceful coexistence with such an ideology is impossible.

“The lord instructed his angels: “I am with you; therefore, strengthen the believers. Into the hearts of the unbelievers I will cast fear. Therefore, slit their throats and strike every finger off from them!” (8:12)

Europe has defended itself successfully throughout the centuries against the islamic attempts of invasion: 732 Poitiers, 1529 Vienna, 1571 Lepanto and 1683 Vienna yet again. Islam has never belonged in Europe, but it has constantly wanted to conquer it. It didn’t work militarily, so now they are attempting to do so by stealth. Thus it behooves every European with common sense to make the statement: Islam, at least in its 1400 year old empirically comprehensible from, should also not be allowed in Europe!

Dutch politician Geert Wilders says the following about this:

“Islam is not a religion but an ideology that labels itself through murder and killing. We Europeans have the duty to resist it.”

If the islamic associations and organizations in Europa do not distance themselves in an obliglatory way from the Sharia, the verses in the Quran that legitimize violence and killing, from the discrimination against those of other faiths, from the oppression of women and from the sole claim to world power, then there is the threat, considering developments in demographics, of the complete islamization of the continent within few decades.

The original German article of this Qu’ran analysis can be found here.

Related posts:

1. Holy Book Burnings Spark Hypocrisy
2. Lesson on Faith: Sbarro Bombing and a Book on Kindness
3. Report: Iraq More Dangerous, Iran Suspect

The announcement is surprising since lawmakers previously believed the state had enough cash to last through the fiscal year that ends in June.

But Chiang said additional cash management solutions are needed because state tax revenues are $2.6 billion less than what Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers assumed in their optimistic budget last year. Meanwhile, Chiang said, the state is spending $2.6 billion more than state leaders planned on.

The Assembly budget committee approved a bill today that would enable $865 million of borrowing from existing state accounts, Senate Bill 95. Chiang, after consultation with the Department of Finance and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, is also seeking about $2.4 billion in delayed payments to universities, counties and Medi-Cal, as well as additional borrowing from outside investors.

Absent these actions, the state would fall below its prudent $2.5 billion cash cushion on Feb. 29, Chiang estimated. On March 8, the state would actually end up $730 million in the red. The state would be below the safe cash cushion for several weeks ending April 13, save for several days at the end of March.

With such actions, Chiang believes the state would not have to use IOUs or delay tax refunds, maneuvers that have been relied upon in previous years. But Chiang also said that “more cash solutions may be required if our revenues continue to erode or if disbursements significantly exceed estimates.”

California borrows money early each fiscal year because the state has regular monthly expenses but receives the bulk of its tax revenues in the spring. The state borrowed $5.4 billion last fall for this purpose.

Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, D-Woodland Hills, downplayed the significance of the new borrowing in a hearing. He said $5.4 billion was small relative to the $10 billion state leaders were prepared to borrow last year.

Some Republicans raised questions about when the borrowing from state accounts from would be paid back and why the state is spending more than expected.

Michael Cohen, chief deputy director of Brown’s Department of Finance, said the state would pay back special funds whenever programs need the money to operate. Cohen also said the state is spending more money than expected because courts have blocked some cuts, while some savings may come later in the fiscal year than forecasters predicted.

Source: The Sacramento Bee

Related posts:

1. California is a greater risk than Greece, warns JP Morgan chief
2. California, An Example of Liberalism Failed
3. 22 Facts Reflecting The Demise Of California