blind_html Re: Traped

  • From: Nimer <nimerjaber1@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:13:12 -0600

I can unsub you, and would have if you had asked me to.

nimer J

Betteye wrote:
I continue to get your posts. I find it difficult to believe that you can not unsubscribe me manually from your list.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nimer Jaber" <nimerjaber1@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:27 PM
Subject: blind_html Re: Traped

First, i am not a lady. I repeat, I am not a lady. Second, you can
unsub. I repeat, you _can unsubscribe. Did you send your
unsubscription to the right address? Did you put unsubscribe in the
subject line? If you have done so, I would be interested in knowing
this, as this would mean that there is a major bug with freelists and
should be reported to the managers of freelists. Also, if you haven't
read my recent posts, I am pondering a switch over to google groups.
Possibly, if we make the switch over to google groups, we would not
have these issues?

nimer J

On 8/13/09, Betteye <the_boldens@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This lady is crazy. She has the nerve to call her list blind html. To make maters worse you can't unsub from her list. I've tried to unsub but continue to get her crazy posts. I wish she would allow me to use the name of blind html? I would really post about html allow person to unsub from the list. I
want off the list.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Nimer Jaber
  To: blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:48 PM
Subject: blind_html [Nimer's Political Blog] [Fwd: Understanding Islam's
Threat to U.S. Vital]

Here's another idiot that knows nothing about religion trying to tell us
  who Islam is at war with. Beautiful!!
  -------- Original Message --------
  Subject: Understanding Islam's Threat to U.S. Vital
  Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:33:55 -0500
  From: Travis <baconlard@xxxxxxxxx>
  Reply-To: politics-current-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  To: baconlard@xxxxxxxxx
  References: <018801ca1a80$7f1db5b0$7d592110$@com>


  *Understanding Islams Threat to U.S. Vital*

  Monday, August 10, 2009 1:29 PM

  *By:* Frank Gaffney Jr.

John Brennan, the assistant to the president for homeland security and
  counterterrorism, last week approvingly recalled a key point in the
  speech Barack Obama delivered in Cairo in June: "America is not and
never will be at war with Islam." Unfortunately, that statement ignores
  the fact that the decision as to whether the United States is at war
  with anybody is not entirely up to our leadership or people. The real
  question is: Is Islam' at war with us?

It is certainly true that hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over are not seeking to wage war against the U.S. or other non-Muslim states.
  America has, as Brennan noted in his remarks before the Center for
  Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Aug. 6, a powerful
  interest in not making all those who practice Islam into our enemies.

  Yet, it would be a grave mistake to construe the problem we face as
  Brennan proceeded to do in his speech at CSIS: "We are at war with
  al-Qaida which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at
  war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida's
  murderous agenda." He described that agenda as seeking "to replace
  sovereign nations with a global caliphate."

Unfortunately, that is the stated goal of all those who adhere to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah a number that includes many millions
  of people the world over. Brennan's speech made no reference to this
  wellspring of jihadism.

Of course, not all those who embrace Shariah are prepared to use terror
  against us. Shariah requires though that if its adherents do not
actually engage in violent jihad, they must support it through financial or other means. After all, according to Shariah, the purpose of jihad is
  to bring about the triumph of Islam over the entire world. Shariah
commands that the faithful must use violence where possible to advance
  that objective, and non-violent means where not.

By failing to recognize this justification and catalyst for the threat
  we face, Obama and his administration effectively foreclose the
  possibility of countering it effectively. Worse yet, in their
  understandable desire not to give gratuitous offense to Muslims, the
U.S. government has repeatedly deferred to those who are most easily and
  most vocally offended.

  Specifically, the latter notably, the putatively non-violent, but
  virulently Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and its myriad front
organizations have come to dictate what our officials can and cannot say about the danger posed not just by al-Qaida and its "violent extremist
  allies," but by all those who embrace the teachings, traditions,
  institutions, and dictates of what authoritative Islam defines as
  "mainstream": Shariah.

  This practice effectively disenfranchises American Muslims who reject
this Shariah program precisely the sorts of people we should most want
  to empower. Last week, I discussed this problem on our talk radio
  program with someone who is trying to do something about it: Rep. Sue
  Myrick of North Carolina.

*To hear Gaffneys interviews with Myrick and Sen. John Cornyn **go here
  now* <>*.*

  As it happens, Myrick's district is not far from where Daniel Patrick
  Boyd and other alleged "homegrown" jihadists were reportedly plotting
attacks abroad, and possibly here. What is more, the financial sector so
  prominent in the Charlotte community she represents is also a prime
target of one of the most insidious forms of what author Robert Spencer
  calls "stealth" jihad: Shariah-compliant finance.

Myrick, a co-founder of the House anti-terror caucus, recently convened a meeting to afford "moderate" Muslims an opportunity to interact with
  representatives of various federal law enforcement and other agencies
responsible for securing this country. According to Myrick, some of the
  officials seemed to be discovering for the first time that there are
  practitioners of Islam who do not embrace the seditious tenets of
Shariah and who were extremely concerned about the government's almost
  exclusive reliance on those who do.

Fortunately, decisions in federal court in recent weeks may produce some urgently needed policy course-corrections. Judge Laurence Zatkoff in the
  Eastern District of Michigan recently cleared the way for accelerated
  and wide-ranging discovery in connection with a suit brought by a
Michigan Iraq war veteran, Kevin Murray, against the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. Murray is challenging on constitutional separation
  of church-and-state grounds the practice of a U.S. government-owned
  company, the insurance conglomerate AIG, promoting Shariah-compliant

It seems likely that the depositions that will now be taken by Murray's legal team securities litigator and Shariah expert David Yerushalmi and
  attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center, led by its director Richard
  Thompson will shed important light on the federal government's
  understanding of authoritative Islam's seditious program. It may also
  reveal the extent to which U.S. officials have, with their failure to
  comprehend the true nature of the threat we face, acted, either
  wittingly or unwittingly, in ways that have enabled it to metastasize

Whether through the revelations of this law suit or through the work of influential legislators like Myrick, the time has come to recognize that even if we insist we are not at war with Islam, the authorities of Islam /are/ at war with us. Only by so doing can we connect with and empower
  our natural allies in this war Muslims who want to enjoy liberty in a
  Shariah-free America. And only by so doing, do we have a chance of

*Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a
  columnist for the Washington Times, and the host of the nationally
  syndicated Secure Freedom Radio.*


  *Copyright 2009 ** All Rights Reserved*


  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
  Groups "Politics & Current Events" group.
  To post to this group, send email to
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  For more options, visit this group at

Posted By Nimer Jaber to Nimer's Political Blog at 8/12/2009 02:48:00 PM

To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
with unsubscribe in the subject line.
To access the archives, please visit:


To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
with unsubscribe in the subject line.
To access the archives, please visit:

To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to
with unsubscribe in the subject line.
To access the archives, please visit:


Other related posts: