thank you Ethan for handling this. I was not asked to have this user removed. It hink this user was just trying to stiru p trouble3.
Thanks Nimer J Ethan wrote:
For those that are trying to unsubscribe: blind_html To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe in the subject line. Thanks Blind_HTML Moderator ----- Original Message ----- From: "Betteye" <the_boldens@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 11:18 AM Subject: blind_html Re: TrapedI 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: TrapedHello, 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? thanks 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. Iwant off the list. ----- Original Message ----- From: Nimer Jaber To: blind_html@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:48 PMSubject: blind_html [Nimer's Political Blog] [Fwd: Understanding Islam'sThreat to U.S. Vital]Here's another idiot that knows nothing about religion trying to tell uswho 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> <aef954850908111248x507d900dk6b17f5ad93e614e4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> *Newsmax.com*http://www.newsmax.com/frank_gaffney/islam_obama_shariah/2009/08/10/246009.html*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 andcounterterrorism, last week approvingly recalled a key point in the speech Barack Obama delivered in Cairo in June: "America is not andnever will be at war with Islam." Unfortunately, that statement ignoresthe fact that the decision as to whether the United States is at warwith anybody is not entirely up to our leadership or people. The realquestion 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 powerfulinterest 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 withal-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'smurderous 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 millionsof 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 terroragainst us. Shariah requires though that if its adherents do notactually engage in violent jihad, they must support it through financial or other means. After all, according to Shariah, the purpose of jihad isto bring about the triumph of Islam over the entire world. Shariahcommands that the faithful must use violence where possible to advancethat objective, and non-violent means where not.By failing to recognize this justification and catalyst for the threatwe 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, theU.S. government has repeatedly deferred to those who are most easily andmost vocally offended. Specifically, the latter notably, the putatively non-violent, but virulently Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and its myriad frontorganizations have come to dictate what our officials can and cannot say about the danger posed not just by al-Qaida and its "violent extremistallies," 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 wantto empower. Last week, I discussed this problem on our talk radioprogram with someone who is trying to do something about it: Rep. SueMyrick of North Carolina.*To hear Gaffneys interviews with Myrick and Sen. John Cornyn **go hereprominent in the Charlotte community she represents is also a primetarget of one of the most insidious forms of what author Robert Spencercalls "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 theofficials seemed to be discovering for the first time that there are practitioners of Islam who do not embrace the seditious tenets ofShariah and who were extremely concerned about the government's almostexclusive 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 acceleratedand wide-ranging discovery in connection with a suit brought by aMichigan Iraq war veteran, Kevin Murray, against the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. Murray is challenging on constitutional separationof church-and-state grounds the practice of a U.S. government-owned company, the insurance conglomerate AIG, promoting Shariah-compliant products.It seems likely that the depositions that will now be taken by Murray's legal team securities litigator and Shariah expert David Yerushalmi andattorneys at the Thomas More Law Center, led by its director Richard Thompson will shed important light on the federal government'sunderstanding of authoritative Islam's seditious program. It may also reveal the extent to which U.S. officials have, with their failure tocomprehend the true nature of the threat we face, acted, eitherwittingly or unwittingly, in ways that have enabled it to metastasizefurther.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 aShariah-free America. And only by so doing, do we have a chance of prevailing.*Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, acolumnist for the Washington Times, and the host of the nationally syndicated Secure Freedom Radio.* *2009* *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 politics-current-events@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe from this group, send email to politics-current-events+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/politics-current-events?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- --Posted By Nimer Jaber to Nimer's Political Blog at 8/12/2009 02:48:00 PMblind_html To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe in the subject line. To access the archives, please visit: http://www.freelists.org/archive/blind_html Thanksblind_html To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe in the subject line. To access the archives, please visit: http://www.freelists.org/archive/blind_htmlThanksblind_html To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe in the subject line. To access the archives, please visit: http://www.freelists.org/archive/blind_html Thanks
blind_html To unsubscribe, please send a blank email to blind_html-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with unsubscribe in the subject line. To access the archives, please visit: http://www.freelists.org/archive/blind_html Thanks