Sexy Hot Photo Blogs

It’s one of those forwarded e-mails that propagates at the speed of gossip on crack: “You gotta see this.” “Impressive.” “What do you make of her?” The link takes you to the video of a woman saying things about Islam, on al Jazeera, as you’d never expect to hear them on the Qatar-based satellite channel.
Throwing Flames on the "Clash of Civilizations"
She speaks in a voice as impassioned and rhythmic as Malcolm X’s at his best: “The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras,” the woman says. “It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship....”
The woman is Wafa Sultan. Until her 15 minutes of flaming Islam on Feb. 21, she was an unheard-of psychiatrist living in a Los Angeles suburb, a 47-year-old Syrian expatriate who, as a medical student at a Syrian university in 1979, watched as Muslim Brotherhood gunmen barged into her classroom and shot her professor: “They shot hundreds of bullets into him shouting ‘God is Great,’” she told The New York Times. “At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god.”
Religion as Unreason
Some of us Catholics, as I’m sure some of us Protestants, Jews and Shintoists, have had the same reaction, with or without the unhappy benefit of watching fanaticism in action before our eyes. Baptism by blood or fire isn’t the only prerequisites for a conversion to reason. History’s morgues are rich enough to supply unending evidence that every religion at one point or another — the Torah’s many Koran-like commandments to commit unspeakable acts against one’s children or against women and children in enemy cities among them — has produced its armies of madmen scorching earth in gods’ names.
So Wafa Sultan wasn’t onto something original in her Feb. 21 segment on al-Jazeera. She was just applying it to Islam, which happens to be the religion currently boasting the greater proportion of theocrats, tyrants and armies-of-one bomb squads.
Wafa Sultan, American Idol
That didn’t stop her from becoming America’s idol, especially among conservatives and evangelicals looking to the West as good and Islam as evil. (Her al-Jazeera clip was downloaded 1 million times by March 2006.)
They quote Wafa Sultan’s attractive, if historically gimpy, phrases: “We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy.”
All Religions Have Their Terrorists
Not to start playing that silly game of comparative terrors, but Sultan must’ve not checked the latest State Department designations of terrorist organizations. It includes Israel’s Kahane Chai, whose members have murdered Arab civilians, including in mosques. Sultan must’ve also missed news of the ethnic war between the Buddhist-Sinhalese majority and the Hindi Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, where more than 60,000 people have been killed since the mid-1980s.
To put it more bluntly--as Martin Amis does in "The Second Plane" (Knopf, 2008)--"All religions, unsurprisingly, have their terrorists: Christian, Jewish, Hindu, even Buddhist. But we're not hearing from those religions. We are hearing from Islam."
"Islam's Ann Coulter"
The more serious problem with Sultan, however, is how she has taken her fame — based on some necessary observations about present-day Islam — and turned it into a sword that sees Islam and the Koran as exclusively evil, backward, repressive. “In a world far too often dominated by politicians imbued with religious fundamentalism of all flavors — Jewish, Christian, Muslim — we need the thoughtfulness, self-awareness and subtlety that comes from progressive religious expression,” Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein wrote in the Los Angeles Times after attending a fund-raiser for Israel and hearing Sultan, a guest speaker, score applause by bashing Islam as if she were Pat Robertson in drag (Robertson considers Islam “violent at its core.”
“We have that in Judaism, in Christianity — and in Islam, right in our backyard,” Stein wrote. “If only Sultan, applauded in many quarters yet miscast as a voice of reason and reform in Islam, were paying attention.” Stein’s piece was entitled “Islam’s Ann Coulter.”
That about sums up Wafa Sultan if she chooses to inflame the belligerence of America’s Islam-bashers rather than enlighten their glass houses’ dim blurbs — and her own.

Suggested Reading
Return of Repression in Afghanistan
The Verdict on Al Jazeera
The Muhammad Cartoons Controversy

Related Articles
Jihad in the West - Muslim Attitudes Toward Others
The Five Pillars of Islam - Shahada - Salat - Zakat - Sawm, or Fasting - Ha...
Islam's Holy Days: Muslim Holidays & Holy Days Define What's Im...
What is Islam? In Islam, Peace is Based on Submission & Surrender to God - ...
Religion in Bangladesh - Religion and Society

http://www.examiner.com/x-17009-Freethought-Examiner~y2009m11d2-Wafa-Sultans-message-to-America#

THANK YOU PIERRE.

Denmark is boosting cash incentives to entice immigrants to return to their homelands if they 'can't or won't' assimilate into society.
The offer now on the table is close to £12,000 for every person who takes up the offer to leave.
Critics of the measure say it sends the wrong message to foreigners but the centre-right government in Copenhagen is forging ahead with the plan.
The financial carrot is ten times more than that previously offered under a scheme which as been law since 1997.

'We thought it was important to substantially increase this aid so that immigrants who want to return home because they are not able to adapt to Danish society have a strong financial basis to start a new life,' said foreign affairs spokesman Soeren Espersen of the far-right Danish People's Party.
The offer is aimed at immigrants and refugees who 'cannot or do not want to integrate into Danish society,' said the head of the DPP's parliamentary group, Kristian Tuelesen Dahl.
The centre-right minority government reached an agreement on the financial incentive with the far-right DPP as part of its 2010 budget negotiations.
In addition, 20 million kroner will be set aside for city councils in charge of integrating immigrants to 'motivate' foreigners to return to their homelands.
Opposition parties are shocked by the news, and fear it sends the message 'that foreigners are not welcome in Denmark'.
Since 1997, around 2,524 immigrants have voluntarily repatriated to their home countries, according to Denmark's refugee, immigrant and integration ministry.
Most of them were from the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia and Turkey.
Immigrants account for about 7.3 per cent of Denmark's population of 5.5 million.

Something Rotten in Denmark?by Daniel Pipes and Lars HedegaardNew York PostAugust 27, 2002
A Muslim group in Denmark announced a few days ago that a $30,000 bounty would be paid for the murder of several prominent Danish Jews, a threat that garnered wide international notice. Less well known is that this is just one problem associated with Denmark's approximately 200,000 Muslim immigrants. The key issue is that many of them show little desire to fit into their adopted country.For years, Danes lauded multiculturalism and insisted they had no problem with the Muslim customs - until one day they found that they did. Some major issues:* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.Other Europeans (such as the late Pim Fortuyn in Holland) have also grown alarmed about these issues, but Danes were the first to make them the basis for a change in government.In a momentous election last November, a center-right coalition came to power that - for the first time since 1929 - excluded the socialists. The right broke its 72-year losing streak and won a solid parliamentary majority by promising to handle immigration issues, the electorate's first concern, differently from the socialists.The next nine months did witness some fine-tuning of procedures: Immigrants now must live seven years in Denmark (rather than three) to become permanent residents. Most non-refugees no longer can collect welfare checks immediately on entering the country. No one can bring into the country an intended spouse under the age of 24. And the state prosecutor is considering a ban on Hizb-ut-Tahrir for its death threats against Jews.These minor adjustments prompted howls internationally - with European and U.N. reports condemning Denmark for racism and "Islamophobia," the Washington Post reporting that Muslim immigrants "face habitual discrimination," and a London Guardian headline announcing that "Copenhagen Flirts with Fascism."In reality, however, the new government barely addressed the existing problems. Nor did it prevent new ones, such as the death threats against Jews or a recent Islamic edict calling on Muslims to drive Danes out of the Norrebro quarter of Copenhagen.The authorities remain indulgent. The military mulls permitting Muslim soldiers in Denmark's volunteer International Brigade to opt out of actions they don't agree with - a privilege granted to members of no other faith. Mohammed Omar Bakri, the self-proclaimed London-based "eyes, ears and mouth" of Osama bin Laden, won permission to set up a branch of his organization, Al-Muhajiroun.Contrary to media reports, the real news from Denmark is not flirting with fascism but getting mired in inertia. A government elected specifically to deal with a set of problems has made minimal headway. Its reluctance has potentially profound implications for the West as a whole.

Why we all must continue to republish the Danish Cartoons with no apologies
Update by Lewis Loflin
Muslims are at it again in Denmark. "Danish newspapers republish Prophet cartoon" (Feb 13, 2008) according to Reuters. To quote, "The newspapers said they were republishing the drawing (above) in protest over a plot to murder the cartoonist." These pictures included the Prophet with a bomb in his turban -- drew attacks from Danish Islamists. "A Danish citizen of Moroccan descent and two Tunisians were arrested on Tuesday for planning to murder 73-year-old Kurt Westergaard, a cartoonist at Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that originally published the drawings in September 2005."
15 large and small Danish daily newspapers and a Swedish daily reprinted Westergaard's cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb in his turban in order to show freedom of speech is the law in the West, not evil Shari ah fascism. Muslims make up 3% of Denmark. Even the left-leaning Politiken reprinted the cartoon, and "called the murder plot an attack on Denmark's democratic culture." Perhaps the left is getting the message.
But Reuters continues, "Danish Muslim groups criticized the move as divisive, but said it regarded the issue as a local one on this occasion. "We believe this is very foolish and does not help building the bridges we need," said Mostafa Chendid, an imam at the Islamic Faith Community, a religious Muslim organization at the center of the first cartoon controversy. It will make our young people feel more isolated," he told Reuters. "The printing of the cartoon is an insult to our intellectual capacity."
This Islamist group in 2005 helped organize via Saudi Arabia the waves of rioting and murder over the cartoons. "It's the same picture, so it's ... just a republication of what was published before," Chendid said. "In the beginning it was pure provocation to Muslims. It's two different situations." In other words it backfired and they are backing off this time. To quote Reuters, "The group said it had no plans to travel or export this problem abroad." See what standing up to Islamists can accomplish?
The cartoons were also reprinted in French and German papers. This includes Franch Soir and they "said it had published the cartoons to show that "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society...Yes, we have the right to caricature God." They ran a front page cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud. And the paper said it had decided to republish them "because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society...(the cartoons)... has done nothing to maintain balance and mutual limits in democracy, respect of religious beliefs and freedom of expression." Die Welt and the Berliner Zeitung also reprinted some of the cartoons.
In summery we must reject all aspects of Muslim culture and Shari'ah Law that conflicts with individual liberty and western democracy. We must end this pandering to Islam and treat them as adults, holding them responsible for their actions. If Muslims want to live in the west and enjoy the prosperity and freedom that's impossible under their primitive and barbaric cultures, they will conform or get the hell out.
Something Rotten in Denmark
Salute the Danish Flag
Theo van Gogh and "Education By Murder" in Holland
Cartoons and Islamic Imperialism
The Clash to End All Clashes? Making sense of the cartoon jihad
Click here to download all 12 cartoons.
Denmark Is Unlikely Front in Islam-West Culture War
Dane Defends Press Freedom as Muslims Protest Cartoons
More European Papers Print Cartoons of Muhammad, Fueling Dispute With Muslims
PRINT FREE OR DIE
Submission is all in your dhimmitude

In 1978-9 I was living and studying in Denmark. But in 1978 - even in Copenhagen, one didn't see Muslim immigrants.The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism, one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 - a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time.The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior ed u cational system and a history of humanitarianism. Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies - it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets - all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite? By the 1990's the growing urban Muslim population was obvious - and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark's liberal way of life, the Danes - once so welcoming - began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported: 'Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.' 'Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes. ''Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.' 'Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem'. 'Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.' It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the US: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fe ar f or their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden - before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa - who, as a teenager, had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers - and I wonder what she would say today. In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years - one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal, unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. (Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of 'racism' by liberal media across Europe - even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark's history, culture and a Danish language test. You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate an intent to work and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age and you won't find it so easy any more to move your friends and family to Denmark with you. You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren't. In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying. The government's welfare committee had calculated that, if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. 'We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.'The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,' he said. A large thorn in the side of Denmark 's imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration. 'The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference' Hvilshoj says. 'There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.' And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, 'In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights and freedom of speech.'Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark , Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family's thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret lo cation and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time - in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce. Her government has slid to the right and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law. Meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. We, in America, look at the enclaves of Muslims and Illegal Hispanics amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language or appreciate our history. We would do well to look to Denmark and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

If anyone needed a huge postfight bonus at UFC 104, it was Pat Barry. The heavyweight out of New Orleans, scored Knockout of the Night and Fight of the Night for his victory over Antoni Hardonk. That was good enough for $120,000. Good thing, Barry needed the infusion of cash in the worst way. He confirmed to MMAScrapsRadio that he was completely down on his luck before the fight, agreeing that he had little to eat in Los Angeles the week of the fight.
"I still had my apartment but if something would've happened and the fight had been canceled, I would've been evicted six days later."
Barry, 30, said he didn't even tell his trainer Duke Roufus for fear that he would think the fighter had the wrong motivation going into the fight. Barry said he didn't ask anyone for money including his mother:
"I could ask someone but then at the same time, how hard are you going to work for something if everytime you get in trouble somebody catches you? I did something to put myself in this position I have to work my way out of it."
Barry got his $120,000 bonus check last Tuesday. He couldn't believe it. When he went to deposit the check, his truck wouldn't start. Barry got a jump and hit the bank sporting a black eye and pink striped shorts.
"I go to the bank, I'm sweaty, I've got the black eye, I haven't shaven in two days, I'm strung out because I haven't slept, I have green circles under my eyes so I'm like 'Can I have a deposit slip mam?'. She gives it to me, I fill it out hand it to her. She looks at the deposit slip, then the check, then looks at me and says 'Excuse me I'll be right back.' Then a manager comes out, a guy in a suit and says 'What seems to be the problem?' I was like 'Well I have a black eye, that's the only problem I know this looks really ridiculous.' So he asks me for my ID, I hand him my license an he's like 'Your license says Pat Barry, but this check was written to Patrick Barry.' So I decided to be funny and tell him Pat Barry is in my trunk right now. He didnt laugh. So I told him take your time man do whatever you need to do because I have no where to go and my truck probably wont start when I go outside so you can just do whatever you need to do. An hour later he came back and everything was fine, the check was in my bank account."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Barry_(martial_artist)

AN outspoken Kiwi politician has proposed a new solution to the country's child abuse problem - pay the "appalling underclass" not to breed.
Michael Laws - who stirred up controversy by calling the late Tongan King a "bloated brown slug'' - has again hit the headlines.
"That there is a group within our society who give their children no hope nor opportunity from the moment that they are born," the regional mayor wrote on the New Zealand radio website where he broadcasts as a talkback DJ.
"That these ‘parents’ are known to authorities ... and yet the authorities can only intervene after children have been harmed."
Mr Laws goes on to write: "it would be far better for this appalling underclass to be offered financial inducements not to have children, given the toxic environment that they would provide for any child in their care."

The mayor believes "the consequent financial and social savings to our community would be considerable.
"There are too many people who should not have children."
Mr Laws said a report in New Zealand's Dominion-Post newspaper yesterday had incorrectly attributed the view to him that all those who got welfare should be sterilised.
Mr Laws wrote on the website "that most welfare beneficiaries are good parents" but it was the problem ones who should be offered money not to breed.
Yesterday's Dominion-Post newspaper quotes him as saying: "If we gave $10,000 to certain people and said 'we'll voluntarily sterilise you' then all of society would be better off,'' he told the . "There'd be less dead children and less social problems.'' He was commenting on the latest death of a toddler, two-year-old Karl Perigo-Check, who was the son of a convicted murderer and gang member. New Zealand is placed third among OECD nations for child deaths due to maltreatment, four spots ahead of Australia, according to UNICEF. It is ranked fifth for both child beatings and sexual abuse, again several places ahead of its antipodean neighbour. Mr Laws argued that "liberal methods'' of beating the problem had failed. But his "solution'' has been branded "draconian'' and "totalitarian'' by the country's child health advocates who are calling for him to stand down as a city mayor. "I just find it such a disgraceful attitude,'' Child Poverty Action Group director Janfrie Wakim said. "It's hard to comprehend that an intelligent man who's leading a city is making such reprehensible suggestions.'' This is just the latest controversy for Mr Laws, who last month hit headlines for bullying primary school children. The indigenous children had written to the mayor to express annoyance that he refused to make a subtle spelling change to the name of the North Island town, Wanganui, to make it historically correct. But Laws, a fierce critic of the name change, took exception to the letters, replying: "There are so many deficiencies of both fact and logic in your letters that I barely know where to start''. He told them they should sack their teacher for suggesting they write to him.

Radical idea to stop people breeding gets us talking

A RADICAL idea to pay people not to have kids captured the interest of Australian readers this week, making it news.com.au's most popular story.
Michael Laws, a Kiwi politician, said governments should pay the “appalling underclass” not to breed because there were people “within our society who give their children no hope nor opportunity from the moment that they are born”. Just behind Mr Laws’ unorthodox call came the amazing story of an 11-year-old girl giving birth to a "new toy" on her wedding day. The Bulgarian girl, Kordeza Zhelyazkova, went into labour during her wedding to her teenage boyfriend. It was a big day for the young bride, who was still wearing her wedding dress and tiara when she was rushed to hospital, later giving birth to little Violeta. "I'm not going to play with toys any more - I have a new toy now," she said

SEE THIS!!!

CHILD KILLER'S £4K BRIBE TO LEAVE UK

FURY erupted yesterday after an immigrant baby killer was paid £4,500 to leave Britain.
Agnes Wong, 29, who swung the baby by his ankles and smashed his head was convicted of the manslaughter of 17-month-old Hugo Wang at Manchester Crown Court in January last year. She was jailed for five years but was freed in July after time spent in custody was taken into account.
Two weeks ago, Wong left the UK on a plane from London Heathrow and went back to Malaysia with a “voucher” worth £4,500.
Her victim died of a brain injury in January 2007 inflicted while Wong was looking after him. He also suffered bite marks, bruising and burns caused by a hairdryer.
Details of the payment emerged days after Gordon Brown acknowledged public fears about the cost of immigration. Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: “Only last week, Gordon Brown said he ‘gets it’ on immigration, but this is proof he doesn’t get it. For an immigrant who killed a child to get taxpayers’ money to help with her future life is nothing short of appalling.” Mr Green demanded to know why Wong had not been automatically deported without any public money.
And Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: “It is absolutely wrong in principle that criminals who thoroughly deserve to be deported should be paid for going.”
And a friend of Hugo’s parents said: “It is an absolute disgrace that she has got this money. It will go a long way in Malaysia.”
Wong was paid through the Government’s assistance scheme for reintegration, which is worth up to £5,000 for serving foreign criminals and £3,000 for time-served.
David Wood, the UK Border Agency’s director of criminality and detention, said: “Ms Wong was returned home under the Facilitated Returns Scheme. We don’t want foreign criminals in the UK.”

President Barack Obama has repeatedly vowed to cut wasteful government spending, and his 2010 budged released earlier this month specifically cuts $17 billion from more than 120 programs. One item included in the 2010 budget is $1.250 billion in settlement funds to bring to a closure the long-standing black farmers' lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.The black farmers' case began in December 1996, when President Clinton, after observing a handful of black farmers demonstrating in the park across from the White House, told his Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, to "keep those people out of my back yard." The following month, Glickman announced, without any evidence to back up his charges, that racial discrimination was "rampant" in the USDA.This "admission" of racism prompted the class action black farmers' lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman (a.k.a. the Pigford case), which the USDA decided to settle rather than fight. As part of the settlement, the government would pay $50,000 to any African-American who "farmed, or attempted to farm" and who alleged discrimination.No documentation or proof of discrimination was required of claimants, and the judge acknowledged that most claimants "would have recovered nothing if they were required to prove their cases by the traditional preponderance of evidence standard." The settlement was an open invitation to fraud.Indeed, numerous fraud rings were organized all over the country. It's said that most of the residents of one New York City housing project submitted claims. And in one confirmed case, the perpetrators of a fraud ring in Mississippi murdered a woman who was planning to testify against them.The USDA spent $450,000 publicizing the settlement. Advertisements were placed in 100 black-oriented papers, and 44 commercials were run on BET. The advertisements generated 139,000 inquiries, and 111,000 people requested the forms necessary to file a claim.90,000 people eventually filed claims. Since the USDA counts only 18,500 black farmers in the US, the number of people who attempted to collect was more than five times the number of black farmers in the entire country.To date, 13,000 claimants have been paid roughly $1 billion. Over 70,000 of the claims received haven't been paid because they were filed after the deadline. In a vdare essay, March explains why so many of the claimants delayed submitting their claims:
Many of these tardy filers were afraid to file because they feared the whole process was a government "trap" to jail them for fraud. Only after they saw friends and neighbors actually receiving the $50,000 for claims they knew to be phony did their greed overcome their fear—butby then the deadline had passed.President Obama has long championed these cautious swindlers.In 2007, then-Senator Obama charged that "thousands of black farmers who had valid claims were denied relief, mostly because they missed the cut-off date for claims."Now that Obama has allocated $1.25bn in the 2010 budget to settle their claims, many of these 70,000 swindlers will receive their $50,000 windfall.Most of the information in this article comes from Louis T. March's book "Harvest of Lies: The Black Farmer Lawsuit Against the U.S. Department of Agriculture." The book can be purchased from The Occidental Press.

Q. How many minority farmers are there?
A. Minority farm operators, however defined, make up a small share of all U.S. farmers. Most minority farmers operate small farms, although most small farms are not operated by minorities. Census of agriculture data are often used to examine the characteristics of minority operators. Although other sources of data provide information on minority farmers, census data extend further into the past and provide reliable statistics for very small minorities, particularly at the State level.
Obtaining a count of minority farmers is difficult because some of the groups overlap. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, 47,700 farm operators, or 2.5 percent of all U.S. farm operators, were nonwhite. These included 18,500 Blacks, 10,600 American Indians, 8,700 Asians or Pacific Islanders, and 9,800 “others.” About 27,700 Hispanics also farmed. Approximately 9,000 of the Hispanic operators, however, are also included in the nonwhite count, since Hispanics may be of any race.
Although women are a majority in the U.S. population, they are a minority among farm operators. Only 165,100 farm operators, or 8.6 percent of the U.S. total, were women in 1997, but their numbers are increasing. Of these, 5,100 were included in the nonwhite count and 2,500 were Hispanic. The Census Bureau counts only one primary operator per farm; it does not classify women who farm alongside their husbands as operators, unless they are the primary operators.

Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA"), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers US$50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed. To date, almost US$1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement's consent decree.
Contents[hide]
1 Case history
2 Payouts
3 Subsequent events
4 See also
5 References
//
[edit] Case history
The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, "farm ownership" loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]
After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.
The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a "virtually automatic" US$50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets, if they could present substantial evidence that they had been discriminated against on the basis of race. To do so, they needed to show that they had applied to the USDA for farm credit or benefits, had to have made a complaint before 1997, and had to show that the USDA had treated them less favorably than the USDA had treated similarly-situated white farmers. This process was called "Track A".[2]
Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.
[edit] Payouts
Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.
Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. US$995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009[update], including US$760 million disbursed as US$50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.
Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers' attorneys for "the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement". A provision in the 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits.
[edit] Subsequent events
In 2004, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association filed a US$20.5 billion class action lawsuit against the USDA for the same practices, alleging racially discriminatory practices between 1997 and 2004. The lawsuit was dismissed when the BFAA failed to show it had standing to bring the suit.
[edit] See also
List of class action lawsuits
[edit] References
^ Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge.
^ "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [1].
^ "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", p. 5. Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [2].
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman"