WORLD NEWS TREND

Depression feared; short-sale ban lifted
Patrice Hill-washington times
Thursday, October 9, 2008

Six central banks slashed interest rates Wednesday in the first coordinated rate cuts since the 2001 recession, signaling they think the U.S. and world economies are in danger of imploding from rapidly deflating bubbles in real estate, credit, commodities and some stock markets. But in a move that could set off more turmoil in already shattered stock markets Thursday, the Securities and Exchange Commission let a ban on short-selling of nearly 1,000 financial stocks expire at midnight - allowing investors once again to profit from bets that the stocks will fall.

And at the White House, officials were examining requests from Massachusetts, Alabama and California for emergency loans to get them through an acute credit crisis that has frozen them out of short-term borrowing markets.

Governments seem to be taking more extraordinary and unprecedented steps each day as the dangers to the economy have grown. The U.S. economy had been sinking slowly into recession since the beginning of the year, but its slide accelerated with each frantic event in the past month in a way that has left even the most conservative forecasters sure of recession and fretful about the future.

“The world economy is now entering a major downturn in the face of the most dangerous shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s,” the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday in an annual economic report that in past years has provided bland forecasts for another year of steady growth.

The IMF dramatically lowered its world growth estimates and heralded the first trans-Atlantic interest rate cuts since the September 2001 terrorist attacks as the right medicine to prevent the worst from happening - a worldwide market and economic collapse like the one during the 1930s.

“If the right policies are in place, then the probability of a ‘Great Depression’ is extremely small,” said the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard. But he added that more work is needed in Europe in particular in order to deal with the crisis in a more cohesive way to reduce the risk of depression to “nearly nil.”

The way that even the most stodgy forecasters have dispensed with using the once-taboo “R” word and are now using the “D” word to describe the threat to the economy is another sign of how dark the outlook has grown.

Another usually optimistic forecaster, the Conference Board in New York, said it expects the United States to be in a yearlong recession that started this summer, with a risk of further deterioration if the Treasury’s and Federal Reserve’s strenuous efforts to resuscitate frozen credit markets don’t work.

“We see no sign of improvement in the housing market before the first half of 2009 at the earliest, and housing prices may drop further - at significant cost to consumer spending over the next two quarters, holiday season or none,” said Bart van Ark, chief economist of the business association.

The rest of the world - particularly Europe - is being buffeted by the current storm, too, and even Asian economies are now seeing some slowdown in growth,” he noted, with the Bank of China joining U.S. and European banks in cutting rates Wednesday.

“That will affect U.S. exports, which have been a major engine of U.S. growth over the past half-year,” he said.

Joachim Fels, economist at Morgan Stanley, said “the Depression risk is reduced” because of the rate cuts and other moves by central banks this week, but “we still believe that we are heading into a global recession.

He said the Fed’s and the Treasury’s efforts to unclog credit markets with numerous innovative loan programs since March may be just as important as the rate cuts to reviving economic growth.

“Policymakers seem willing to do whatever it takes,” he said. “The battle may not be won yet,” but eventually the markets and the economy will respond to the Fed’s ministrations.

Associated Press A trader rushes across the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, where investors spent the day changing their minds about the effect of the rate cut. it ended down about 190 points.

Paul Lennox, analyst at Custom House, a Canadian investment company, said the big, half-point rate cuts by half a dozen central banks Wednesday show how desperate governments have become in the face of unresponsive credit markets, which remained largely dysfunctional Wednesday.

As long as banks and investors remain unwilling to make loans at any rate of interest, “cutting central bank rates further is very much like pushing on a string. The banks were probably aware of this,” he said, but wanted to put on a show of force to impress the markets.

“So far, the coordinated rate cut has only undermined the market’s confidence in the effectiveness of the central banks to do anything to make a real difference in this environment,” he said. “The sense is that the banks are only delaying the eventual write-off of trillions of dollars of credit derivative junk. … The central banks can’t fix or undo the damage to the financial sector.”

Associated Press photographs WORLDWIDE PAIN: A trader in Indonesia reacts to a drop of more than 10 percent by the Indonesia Stock Exchange, causing officials to shut down trading for the first time.

One of the big questions looming in the overwrought atmosphere of recent weeks is whether political leaders will continue to respond to the crisis in an enlightened way without being too hobbled by the heat of the elections. Many forecasters say the economy’s health depends on it.

Charles Geisst, a finance professor at Manhattan College, sees a parallel to 1932, when credit markets were imploding and the stock market was falling just ahead of the presidential election that put Franklin D. Roosevelt in the White House.

“But I’m not sure anyone is FDR this time,” said Mr. Geisst, author of “Wall Street: a History.” He said the odds of another Great Depression are 50 percent.

“I don’t think either candidate has a clue what they’re dealing with here,” he said. “This is more than a political problem that’s going to blow over.”

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Facts:

1. Small businesses in America are responsible for the most job creation here in the USA
2. Most small businesses do not make the $250,000 threshold set by Obama’s tax plan on business. They make less than this amount each year. These types of businesses include home businesses, cosmetic sales, cleaning sales, dry cleaners, fast food street stands, lawn gardening and so many others. These businesses would not receive a tax increase.
3. However, the small businesses that meet and exceed this dollar threshold would see a substantial increase in their taxes under the Obama plan.
4. The small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year also are responsible for the creation of the most jobs in America.

Analysis:

I am a small business owner. Allow me to offer some observations based upon sound analysis. It costs money to operate any business. My overhead consists of the following:
· Monthly lease (rent) for my store
· Utility payments to operate the store, e.g., electricity
· Technology costs, e.g., computer, land line support
· Personnel, e.g., salaries, social security, benefits
· Our product costs, e.g., all products in our store
· Property and business taxes

These are common costs found among all small business owners. The preceding are fixed costs of doing business-I owe money every month on all of these items. My ability to make ends meet is generated by the number of my sales each month. When the cost of any of the preceding goes up, my ability to make any money is diminished.

This conceptually is the same thing that happens within all of our homes. Our homes are really “small businesses.” We all have fixed costs: rent/mortgage, utility, electronic, communication, food, clothing, taxes, transportation to name but a few. When any of these items increases our quality of life or even our ability to live is dramatically impacted. What do we do in times of economic challenge? We cut our expenses as best we can or we go out and look for more work or ways to increase our monthly income. Running a small business is the same as running a household.

Recently, where my store is located, the local authorities have indicated they want to increase taxes on our store, our sales and even upon our product line. In order to remain in business, I must examine my fixed costs and ask, “Where can I cut back and reduce my monthly costs? The answer is painfully clear: I must reduce my work force and lay off some of my workers. These are people with their own families, there own need for money-they have bills to pay and I must put them out of work. Now, multiply this by tens of thousands of small businesses across the USA and the results will be enormous. This will have the following impact on our entire economy:

· People without jobs cannot buy things as they do now
· Reduced employment means fewer people in tax brackets who actually pay taxes.
· Reduced tax payers reduces the revenue coming into local, state and federal agencies
· Within a matter of months and weeks in some states, e.g., California, existing programs and employment linked to these programs will be cut
· A domino effect will begin to occur as people will buy fewer products, reduce their service expenses, e.g., eating out once or more a week, going to a show. The tax base continues to shrink.

These are but a few of the outcomes we can anticipate-history proves the case being made. In times of economic downturn it makes no sense to increase the cost to a family or to a small business responsible for the creation of jobs. It is crucial to understand that economies world over experience ups and downs aka good and bad times. What we are going through is not new and we will get through it. Perhaps some of us have been spoiled and actually believed the economy would continue to grow as it has the last 18 years; yes, it has grown contrary to pundits and political parties operating out of their own agenda.

Does this mean there are some fundamental changes in order-of course, this is precisely what needs to happen and good people are working diligently to make sure this occurs. Again, in every economic crisis during the last 100 years in America, people in action created the change. Whining, complaining and blaming others have NEVER fixed a problem. Only people who focus on fixing a problem and then take the appropriate action behaviors transform a problem into a solution. I am pleased to say we, in America, are doing precisely this-yet, the whiners, complainers and blamers are receiving the most press-I wonder why? We know the answer don’t we?

As a family man, I ask that no one raise my taxes-I am not one of the 5-10 per centers. Belt tightening has been in place for some time. I realize it is my responsibility to “live within my means” even when I do not feel like it. This means saving money every month-I notice that we all adjust to the new threshold. Paying off all credit card balances each month and we do our best to no longer rely upon credit to buy products or services. We pay cash for larger items. For example, we want one of those new HD flat-screen televisions-rather than charging it we have established a flat screen savings account and by early next year, in time for the Super Bowl, we will have it! If we need to use credit, we do the research, secure the credit that is best for us and can afford! Individuals have to work in partnership with the organizations, agencies that contribute to all of our economic well- being.

To increase taxes on the very entity that provides us jobs, income and livelihood makes for great emotional speaking points BUT contradicts all economic common sense. Do you believe that you or any other family member in the work force today is motivated to improve his/her lot in life by working harder thus increasing his/her weekly salary only to have all of this hard work taxed away and given to local agencies, organizations and governments that do not use our money in any wise manner?

It is astounding, in today’s age of 24/7 information, how ignorant most of us are regarding taxes-myself included until I decided to get by the rhetoric of all parties. It is crucial to understand the facts and how they apply to our daily lives. Putting aside politics I discovered what do people think the rich pay in taxes:
· The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes.
· Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent,
· While another 10 percent thought the rich’s share is between 20 and 30 percent.
· In other words, most people thought the rich pay less — far less — than they actually do.
· Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent

Half of Americans believe, to this day, that the ”rich” pay little taxes-nothing could be farther from the truth. If you believe this no wonder you believe what some others are telling you about taxes. If you believe this false statement, no wonder you want to believe that a change in tax policy is fair. If by fair you mean that someone else, other than you, should shoulder the tax burden is “popularist” rhetoric and contrary to personal responsibility. What are the facts regarding the “rich”?
· The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 — the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes.
· The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes.
· The top 1 percent’s taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government’s revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

The common story line is “the rich can afford to pay these increase in taxes, so make them pay more”. The social and humanistic programs that so many Americans are the recipients of and employed by are funded by these taxes. To suggest that the “non-rich” are penalized is patently false, unfair and absurd at best. If you increase their taxes, less money over time will become available to fund these programs as I have previously discussed in this article. If you feel that it is a fairness issue, allow me to ask do you believe you are entitled to certain levels of money or do you believe it must be earned? Your response will explain much about who you are and what you value.

Rather than believe what some pundit or political talking head says about taxes seek out the facts. Listen carefully to each of the two parties positions regarding taxes and vote for the candidate of your choice.

SHÂN ROSS
Scotsman

Suppose it’s only natural, since down south, in England, sharia courts are the latest rage in “diversity.”

“Sharia courts set to bring Muslim law to bear in Scottish cities,” by Shan Ross for News Scotsman, October 8: SECRET talks are under way to bring Islamic sharia law courts to Scotland, The Scotsman has learned.

Qamar Bhatti, director of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT), which runs the courts, admitted discussions were taking place with lawyers and Muslim community groups in Scotland.

The group is believed to be aiming to set up courts in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

In September it emerged that five sharia courts, ruling on civil cases from divorce to domestic violence and financial disputes, had been operating for more than a year in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and at MAT headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire.

The courts have legal powers, with their decisions enforceable through the county courts or high courts.

However, concerns have been raised about the establishment of a “dual legal system”.

Women’s domestic violence groups have also voiced fears, saying traditional sharia law arbitration is “dangerous and inappropriate” in cases of abuse.

Last night Bill Aitken, the Scottish Tory justice spokesman, said: “Informal private arrangements between individual members of the Muslim community are one thing, but in criminal matters Scottish courts must have total jurisdiction. “Matters of divorce and domestic violence require to be determined by conventional courts. We cannot have private arrangements when human rights are an issue.”

The move to establish sharia courts has sharply divided opinion among Scotland’s Muslims.

Some defend the right of the Muslim community to rule on its own affairs. But others say MAT has not consulted them and there is no demand for sharia courts.

Aamer Anwar, a Glasgow-based civil rights lawyer, said: “Those using sharia law are fully entitled to religious freedom as long as it doesn’t conflict with criminal law. Because it happens to be Islamic , people jump to the conclusion it is barbaric.

“It is down to the community to decide for itself.”

Commenting on criticisms over domestic violence, he said: “The woman has full entitlement to go before any court or to the police. With sharia law, when domestic violence is raised it always runs into a fanfare of hysteria.”

Noman Tahir, of the Scottish-Islamic Foundation, said there was no groundswell of support for sharia courts in Scotland.

“Currently, Scottish Muslims resolve civil matters through the courts or voluntary third-party arbitration with Islamic scholars and imams,” he said. “This has worked well for many years and we are not aware of any unhappiness with these arrangements or calls for change.”

A spokeswoman for Shakti Women’s Aid, which supports black minority ethnic women, said it was not in favour of the courts in Scotland.

“Cases of domestic abuse and divorce should be heard within the Scottish judicial system,” she said. “We fear that many female victims of domestic abuse may be pressurised by their families and partners to accept the rulings of the sharia court as final and prevent them from seeking legal assistance from the Scottish court system, which might force them to continue living within abusive relationships.”

John Scott, a human rights lawyer, said: “There is a place for sharia law, but we need to be careful those aspects unfavourable to women are not allowed to dominate.

“I have less concern about fears over a dual legal system than aspects which are inconsistent in practice with equality issues. But such courts cannot be set up unsupervised and they would need to be monitored.”

In February the Archbishop of Canterbury caused a furore when he commented that it “seems unavoidable” that parts of Islamic sharia law would be adopted in the UK if social cohesion was to be maintained.

Panels of scholars with power to settle disputes

What is sharia?

Sharia law is Islam’s legal system, derived from the Koran and from fatwas – the rulings of Islamic scholars. It covers every aspect of a Muslim’s life and day-to-day conduct.

What do sharia courts deal with?

A range of issues including marriage, divorce, family and financial disputes.

Where and when do they meet?

They have been set up in mosques, Islamic centres and converted premises such as shops. Most meet weekly. Advice on some issues can also be obtained online.

How are decisions made?

Around three to six scholars and imams collectively make decisions.

Islamic jurists issue guidance and rulings. Guidance which is considered a formal legal ruling is called a fatwa.

How much does it cost a complainant?

Costs range from £150-£250

Is there a right of appeal?

Yes – you can appeal to another sharia court or apply for a special hearing.

Why do some women have concerns about these courts?

Some Muslim women say they are concerned about the interpretation of disputes because of the patriarchal nature of their culture.

Have sharia courts been established in other western countries?

Attempts to set up sharia courts in Canada in 2005 were abandoned after protests.

Robert Spencer
Human Events
10/08/2008

Last week the Governor of Missouri, Matt Blunt, issued a statement on the Obama campaign’s “abusive use of Missouri law enforcement.” What was striking about the allegations Blunt made was the eerie parallel between the Obama camp’s activity and the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s efforts to stifle all criticism of Islam and destroy the freedom of speech — also by means of legal intimidation — at the UN and elsewhere. Blunt charged that four Missouri state officials along with the leader of Obama’s campaign in Missouri “have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.” In declaring an intent to prosecute those who spread what they considered to be falsehoods about Obama, they were, said Blunt, “abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”

Such behavior, said Blunt, was “scandalous beyond words.” Obama and his supporters, he said, were trying to “frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.”

“Barack Obama,” he declared, “needs to grow up.”

Maybe he does, but what is most disturbing about this Missouri incident is that it takes place just as defenders of free speech are fighting a United Nations resolution called “Combating the Defamation of Religion.” The non-binding resolution, introduced by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, “notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001” and “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”

The U.S. government opposes the resolution, pointing out that “defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights.”

But how long will this American opposition last? If Barack Obama values free speech so little, as this Missouri episode suggests, it is not at all beyond the realm of possibility that if he becomes president, he will acquiesce to the OIC’s attempts to criminalize criticism of Islam, and pressure the Supreme Court (to which he will probably appoint several key members) to declare a “hate speech” exemption to First Amendment protections.

And what about the liberals’ favorite anti-free speech tool, the Fairness Doctrine? Nancy Pelosi has said she’d like to re-impose the Orwellian-named “doctrine” to make sure that conservative talk radio will be “balanced” — hour by hour, minute by minute — by liberal talk radio. Can anyone doubt that a President Obama would sign legislation reviving the Fairness Doctrine?

Obama’s campaign has said he doesn’t support return of the Fairness Doctrine because it’s supposedly a distraction. Last February Obama’s press secretary, Michael Ortiz, said, “He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

OK: so Obama doesn’t support the 1934 version of the Fairness Doctrine and wants to modernize it to suit modern liberal interests.

Will the modernized Obama Fairness Doctrine happen? I hope not. I pray not. But can it happen? After reading this story out of Missouri, I am beginning to wonder if maybe it can in an Obama Presidency. An attorney has recently assured me that precedents protecting free speech in American law are very thick on the ground and will be hard to overturn. In fact, he maintained that they would be impossible to overturn. Still — is this speculation, and that is certainly all that it is, really that far beyond reasonable possibility? Already those who discuss the jihad threat in its full dimensions honestly and openly are ostracized, marginalized and vilified.

If candidate Obama is willing to have people arrested when they say things about him that he doesn’t like, will President Obama have the vision or courage or understanding to stand up against the OIC when it demands restrictions on freedom of speech at precisely the same time that he wants to build bridges to the Islamic world and demonstrate his power to restore hope and bring change to old stalemated conflicts?

So maybe Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and a few miserable “Islamophobes” get silenced, fined, arrested, imprisoned, whatever. What’s the big deal? Peace will then march on unimpeded. At least just as it did before 1776.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”, “The Truth About Muhammad” and the forthcoming”Stealth Jihad” (all from Regnery — a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

Jihad Watch
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023025.php

Last night Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, debated — and bested — Suhail Khan, Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation for Policy, on the question of “Is Islam A Religion of Peace?” You can listen to the debate here. Although Khan was debating Gaffney, he seems to have been under the impression that he was debating not Frank Gaffney but me. During his opening remarks he mentioned me four or five times, much more often than he mentioned anyone else. He even said something about having circulated one of my articles, although I don’t know which one, and couldn’t tell which one from his highly distorted description of what I had written in it.

Yet despite a manifest carelessness (at best) with the facts, Suhail Khan came out of the gate complaining, “I was disappointed that so many were unwilling to participate in an honest debate,” and added: “Robert Spencer, who has written hate-filled screed after screed on Islam and Muslims, after initially agreeing to debate, soon backed out.”

The part about my writing hate-filled screeds is defamatory, but it is no surprise — it is a common feature of the playbook that jihadists, their allies, and their dupes are using in the U.S. today: rather than respond to the arguments of those who are trying to resist jihad and Islamic supremacism, simply smear them as “bigots” and “racists.” It’s an effective tactic, to be sure, as it makes many uninformed people of good will turn away without examining the issues. But at the end of the day it leaves the case made by the anti-jihadists unanswered, and exposes Mr. Khan and his friends as base mudslingers whose unhesitating use of slander, defamation, and other smear tactics belie their soothing words about wanting to establish dialogue and foster harmony.

The part about my agreeing and then declining to debate Mr. Khan is true. I was indeed invited to debate Mr. Khan. I agreed to do so on August 14 and then had to decline on August 15. One would think that in the seven weeks since then Mr. Khan would have had time to revise his remarks so as to make them a bit less Spencer-centric, but the life of an Assistant to the Secretary of Transportation for Policy is no doubt hectic with weighty national responsibilities, and maybe he just didn’t have time.

Anyway, I did not ultimately pass up the chance to debate Suhail Khan because I was not interested in honest debate, and certainly not because I would hesitate to debate him for even a second. I passed it up because I had eleven talks all over the country scheduled for this month, which is a punishing enough schedule as it is, and because the sponsors were unable to compensate me at all for my time. They were willing to pay for my travel expenses, and nothing more, an offer I intend to make to the electrician the next time the blinking neon Jihad Watch sign that hangs outside this office needs repair.

In this I do not mean to criticize the debate sponsors in any way — if they didn’t have the resources, they didn’t have the resources — and I am very glad that Frank Gaffney was able to take on the debate and to present the truth so eloquently and forcefully. But that’s why I couldn’t make it. Although I would love to be able to donate my time to debating the delightful Mr. Khan, unfortunately the power company still expects to be paid in American currency. While the Espositos and Aslans and Abou El Fadls of this world can command huge sums to spin fantasy Islams for bemused multiculturalists, anti-jihad activity is not quite so financially rewarding, and so doesn’t leave much margin for services to be rendered gratis. I do donate my expertise to government and law enforcement agencies whenever they call upon me, but I can no more speak anywhere and everywhere without compensation than a doctor can treat anyone and everyone for illness without expectation of payment. (Indeed, if I honored all the requests that I receive to donate my knowledge of Islamic jihad and supremacism, I would have this week scheduled an appearance at the first-ever Anti-Jihad Swingers Get-Together, but for a variety of reasons extending far beyond the financial I decided that this was another invitation I was going to have to pass up.)

Anyway, the core fact remains: I would be happy to debate Suhail Khan or any other Islamic apologist, as well as Dinesh D’Souza, John Esposito, Khaleel Mohammed, Grover Norquist — any of them or any other serious (yes, Nadir, that excludes you) individual who can come up with a sponsor and a venue. I don’t have a direct email address for Suhail Khan (if anyone does, please send it to me), but I am going to make every effort to get this to him, so that we can find a sponsor and a venue and get our debate scheduled soon.

I’m looking forward to it.

Robert Spencer

It’s party time tonight in the Jihad Watch offices here in Secure Undisclosed Locationville: the far Left organization known as Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting has issued a list of twelve “America’s Leading Islamophobes” (whom they term, with numbing predictability, “Islamophobia’s Dirty Dozen”). The list includes David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Steyn, Steve Emerson, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Debbie Schlussel — and me. If you move your cursor over my picture at their site, you’ll see this quote:

Unfortunately, however, jihad as warfare against non-believers in order to institute “Sharia” worldwide is not propaganda or ignorance, or a heretical doctrine held by a tiny minority of extremists. Instead, it is a constant element of mainstream Islamic theology.

Horror of horrors! A true statement! How hateful! How racist! How quintessentially Islamophobic!

Their full report section on me is even better. It cites such paragons of truthfulness and honest dealing as Robert Crane, Louay Safi (of the unindicted co-conspirator ISNA), and Khaleel (not “Khalil,” fellows — remember, accuracy in reporting and all that) Mohammed to establish my wickedness, along with those unimpeachable authorities on Islam Dinesh D’Souza and Stephen Suleyman Schwartz.

Aside from the manifest dishonesty and/or inaccuracy of what they say about Islam, jihad, and my work (click on the links for details), these men are not impartial observers. With the exception of Louay Safi, I’ve had public disputes with all of them, sometimes in high profile public venues. To cite them as authorities on the question of the accuracy of my work is like asking Aaron Burr to write a biography of Alexander Hamilton.

Anyway, the main rap is that I am “selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries.” Of course no examples are produced, and none can be. I’ve asked at this site many, many times in the past for anyone to send me evidence of a mainstream Islamic jurisprudential tradition that did not ever or at very least does not now teach — to refer again to the pull quote above — jihad as warfare (be it hot war or warfare by other means) against non-believers in order to institute Sharia worldwide. I’m right here, at director@jihadwatch.org. Although I will spend much of tomorrow hurtling through the air in a sardine can, I will check my email as frequently as I can, and I invite especially Crane, Louay Safi, Khaleel Mohammed, D’Souza or Schwartz to send me the names of those texts and commentaries that I am supposedly ignoring. Specific citations would be good, too. But they would be well advised to take a good long look at my Jihad Watch Blogging the Qur’an series first — for after doing so, it will be very hard for any honest observer to claim that I am ignoring any Qur’anic text, or any of the commentaries that Muslims consider authoritative.

The only question is whether we are dealing here with any actual honest observers.

Victor Davis Hanson
Thursday, October 09, 2008

Until the past few weeks, the financial panic was still mostly far away on Wall Street. But not now.

Car loans, mortgages and college financing are suddenly harder to come by. Millions are stuck in houses not worth what is owed on them. Cash-strapped consumers are cutting back. The economy is slowing. Jobs are disappearing. Who wants to open quarterly 401(k) statements only to learn that everything they put away in retirement accounts the past two or three years is gone? There is plenty of blame to go around. Greedy Wall Street speculators took mega-bonuses even when they knew their leveraged companies were tottering — and someone else would pick up the tab. Crooked or stupid politicians allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to squander billions, as they raked in campaign donations and crowed about their politically correct support for millions of shaky — and now mostly defaulting — buyers.

The new national gospel became charge now/pay later and speculate, rather than put something away in case of a downturn. To provide more goodies that we hadn’t earned, politicians ignored soaring annual budget deficits and staggering national debt and kept spending.

But amid the gloom, there are some valuable lessons that we can take away from the Wall-Street panic.

First, cash really is king. For all the talk of a trillion here or billions there, when the crunch came many of these investment houses and their once-strutting managers found themselves with a minus net worth. They were desperate to find liquidity — any money anywhere they could find it. Pedestrian passbook savings accounts proved wiser investments than all the clever hedge funds, derivatives and sub-prime schemes put together.

Second, wisdom and blue-chip college educations are not quite the same thing. The fools in Washington and New York who blew up Wall Street had degrees from our finest professional schools.

The most chilling example, at the very beginning of this ongoing mess, came in 2003 during the House Financial Services Committee’s hearing on Fannie and Freddie. At one point, Harvard Law School graduate Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., asked Fannie Mae CEO and fellow Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Rains — who took millions in bonuses even as he helped bankrupt the once-hallowed institution — whether he felt the mortgage giant had been “under-regulated.” Raines answered him under oath, “No, sir.” Then overseer Frank announced, “OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here.”

If these guys are our best and brightest, then it is about time we rethink what constitutes wisdom, since an Ivy League law degree certainly seemed no proof of either intelligence or ethics.

Third, we as a nation need to relearn the old notion of shame — as in “shame on you!” Firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were once responsible Wall Street institutions, built up over decades by sober men. But their far-lesser successors in just a few months have bankrupted these venerable brokerage houses — with seemingly no shame at what they have done to the image of Wall Street.

Americans used to pay their debts. Somewhere in all the blame-gaming about the crooks and liars in New York and Washington, we never hear that real people borrowed real money that they should not have. And they then defaulted on what they owed to others. Walking away from debts may have been understandable, but it was also a violation of trust — and wrong.

Finally, what one makes is no proof of his worth. Almost every head of a Wall Street firm took tens of millions of dollars in bonuses these past few years, as they posted phony profits by borrowing ever more with ever fewer assets. But if financing facilitates the American economy, we should remember that less exotic and remunerative construction — such as farming, manufacturing and mining — is what really powers America.

Recently, Americans built a new bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis to replace the older one on I-35 that collapsed last year. It was finished three months ahead of schedule, and the industrious construction team that worked 24/7 to make thousands of commuters safer is now eligible for up to $27 million in well-earned incentives. Meanwhile, Franklin Rains at Fannie Mae made nearly twice that sum in bonuses — leaving behind nothing much at all other than billions in other peoples’ debts.

How odd that all those boring lessons from our grandparents turn out to be true in the globalized, hip 21st century: Save your money. Don’t borrow what you can’t pay back. Look first at a man’s character, not his degrees. And if a promised return on an investment seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Larry Elder
Thursday, October 09, 2008

So, what do “the rich” pay in federal income taxes? Nothing, right? That, at least, is what most people think. And Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal rate for “the rich” — known in some quarters as “job creators.”

A recent poll commissioned by Investor’s Business Daily asked, in effect, “What share do you think the rich pay?” Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay. First, the data. The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542 — the group whose taxes Obama seeks to raise) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year), according to the IRS, pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent’s taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government’s revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

Now, what do people think the rich pay? The IBD/TIPP poll found that 36 percent of those polled thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich’s share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less — far less — than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

Let’s try this another way. A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, “What should ‘the rich’ pay in income taxes?” Half the respondents said “25 percent”; 25 percent said “20 percent”; 12 percent said “30 percent”; and another 12 percent said “35 percent.” The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now — both by share of taxes and by tax rate!

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing — zero, zip, nada — in federal income taxes. And, not too surprisingly, compared with taxpaying voters, they are more likely to support spending that benefits them. The majority of the 30 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes agree with Obama’s $65 billion plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage. But the majority of the 70 percent who pay federal income taxes are opposed to Obama’s health care plan.

Non-taxpayers support Obama’s plans for increased tax deductions for lower-income Americans, along with higher overall tax rates levied against middle- and upper-income households. The majority of non-taxpayers (57 percent) also favor raising the individual income-tax rate for those in the highest bracket from 35 percent to 54 percent. And the majority (59 percent) favors raising Social Security taxes by 4 percent for any individual or business that makes at least $250,000.

Obama calls increasing taxes and giving them to the needy a matter of “neighborliness.” Vice presidential running mate Joe Biden calls it a matter of “patriotism.”

Yet when it comes to charitable giving, neither Obama (until recently) nor Biden feels sufficiently neighborly or patriotic to donate as much as does the average American household: 2 percent of their adjusted gross income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals — especially secular liberals.

In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807. They paid $221,635 in taxes, and donated $165,660 to charity — or 18 percent of their income. Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million. And they paid $602,651 in taxes, and donated $166,547 to charity — or 5.5 percent of their income.

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.

Joe and Jill Biden, by contrast, made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity — or 0.1 percent of their income.

So let’s sum up. The “compassionate” liberals — at least based on charitable giving — show less compassion than “hardhearted” conservatives. The rich pay more in income taxes than people think. Voters, clueless about the facts, want the rich to pay still more.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Thomas Sowell
Thursday, October 09, 2008

What about those “real issues” that Barack Obama’s supporters in the media say we should get back to, whenever some new unsavory fact about his past comes out?

Surely education is a real issue, with American school children consistently scoring below those in other countries, and children in minority communities faring worst of all. What about Senator Obama’s position on this real issue? As with other issues, he has talked one way and acted the opposite way.

The education situation in Obama’s home base of Chicago is one of the worst in the nation for the children– and one of the best for the unionized teachers.

Fewer than one-third of Chicago’s high-school juniors meet the statewide standards on tests. Only 6 percent of the youngsters who enter Chicago high schools become college graduates by the time they are 25 years old.

The problem is not money: Chicago spends more than $10,000 per student.

Chicago teachers are doing well. A beginning teacher, fresh out of college, earns more than the city’s median income and that can rise to more than $100,000 over the years.

That’s for teaching 6 hours a day, 9 months of the year. Moreover, a teacher’s income is dependent on seniority and other such factors– and in no way dependent on whether their students are actually learning anything.

Obama has said eloquent and lofty words about education, as he has about other things– for example, how it is “unacceptable in a country as wealthy as ours” that some children “are not getting a decent shot at life” because of the failing schools.

In a predominantly black suburb of Chicago, where the average teacher’s salary is $83,000 and one-fourth of the teachers make more than $100,000, Barack Obama noted that the school day ends at 1:30 PM.

In his book “Dreams from My Father,” Obama said candidly that black teachers and administrators “defend the status quo with the same skill and vigor as their white counterparts of two decades before.”

It is not a question of Obama’s not knowing. He has demonstrated conclusively that he knows what is going on.

But, for all his eloquent words, he has voted consistently for the teachers’ unions and the status quo.

“I owe those unions,” he has said frankly. “When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t consider this corrupting in any way.”

Only other politicians’ special interests are called “special interests” by Barack Obama, whose world-class ability to rationalize is his most frightening skill.

Even when he verbally endorses the reform idea of merit pay for teachers, he cleverly re-defines merit so that it will be measured by teachers themselves, rather than by “arbitrary tests.” In other words, Obama placates critics of the educational status quo by being for merit pay in words, while making those words meaningless, so as not to offend the teachers’ unions.

The failings of teachers are only part of the disaster of inner city public schools. Disruptive and violent students can make it impossible for even the best teachers to educate students.

Administrators are reluctant to impose any serious punishment on those students who make it impossible for other students to learn. Partly this is because liberal judges can make it literally a federal case if more minority students are punished than others.

In other words, if black males are punished more often than Asian American females, that can be enough to get the administrators drawn into a legal labyrinth, costing money and time, even if the punishment is eventually upheld.

When a bill was introduced into the Illinois state legislature that would put more teeth into suspensions of misbehaving students, Barack Obama voted against that bill.

A real reformer would want to crack down on both unruly students and unaccountable teachers. A clever politician would speak eloquently, demand “change”– and then vote for the status quo. Obama talks a great game.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Google has taken the rare step of asserting a position for an issue not overtly relevant to the internet giant, but an important matter none the less. California’s controversial Proposition 8 on the November ballot seeks to amend the state’s constitution and undo the California Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage, leading co-founder Sergey Brin to release a statement on behalf of Google. “It is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8,” commented Brin, “While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote ‘no’ on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.”