Loki, you are confusing "claims" they have the same prophets and same god as being the same as "actually" having the same message and god. I've already posted a link that thoroughly debunks the Muslims claim that they worship the God of Abraham - and this debunking is done using Muslims sources. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/god.htm

Let's do the math shall we? People from countries with proportional representation will understand how being the largest voting bloc can be powerful, even if not an absolute majority. Let's say that the UN General Assembly is voting on a resolution. The OIC can command 57 on any issue. That leaves 136 votes. To get a simple majority they need a total of 97 votes in favor. So that means that they have to get 40 votes (29%) out of 136 to get a simple majority. That's a pretty low bar, yeah? In any situation where the non-OIC UN is split 50-50 it means the OIC can always weigh in and tip the scales in their direction. No, the OIC does not always get its way (thank goodness), but on things they care about it does. The HRC is affected the same way by the same calculations. When people see that the HRC condemned some member state for this or that they never understand the political machinations behind it. In fact, the HRC was so discredited that the US refused to legitimize it by being a member. Only under the (pro-Islamist) Obama Administration has the US rejoined the HRC to give it some legitimacy.

I hope that little exposition clears up the maths for you. Does it make sense now? can you now see how "one country, one vote" has been used since 1975 to demonise the US and Israel (as the video I posted shows) achieve the Islamists aims? Can you see why I might like to alert Slashdotters to the issue (although clearly my bad for assuming everyone could do the simple calculations for voting).

I think you are thinking about "non-binding resolutions". Check out "substantive resolutions" that become International Law that UN member states are supposed to uphold.

Thanks for your analysis. However, the "human rights" that Major Stephen Coughlin (Pentagon analysis whose job was to analyse these for over a decade) is talking about is the (Sharia Compliant) Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, which is at opposition to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think you missed that distinction - which is why your analysis is all borked. When you think of "human rights" you are thinking of the UN ones, rather than the OIC's Sharia Cairo ones. That's why your analysis is a fail. Perhaps if you had managed to make it to the end of the video you might of learned more - instead of assuming you already had all the answers. Furthermore, Stephen Coughlin's method of operation is *only* to use sources that Muslims write for Muslims - as these are the only true documents. Documents written by Westerners apologising for Islam or documents written by Muslims for Western consumption are not reliable source documents. This is a lesson Coughlin learned when dealing with the Soviet Union - which he talks about in the video series. Too bad you stopped listening when the discussion contradicted your preconceptions. You would never make a good scientist or military intelligence analyst with such a poor methodology. I hope other Slashdotters watch (to the end!) and make up their own mind. But thanks for at least taking a look at the beginning.

Yawn. That's right, the fault always lies with Westerners and Israelis. The Palestinians could never, ever be responsible for their own mess in your own eyes. This is "soft bigotry" at its worst - and another analysis failing of yours. Quick question, in 1948 how many Arab armies attacked Israel simultaneously and what was their publicly stated goal (hint: it begins with 'g' and ends with 'enocide' - all in accordance with hadith Sahih Muslim 6985) ? Do you know any of the history at all?

Nice try aiming to distract the conversation about Israel. My claim is that the OIC not only exists but also also forms the largest single voting bloc in the UN. You have not addressed this. Probably because you can't. It is a fact. And because of this fact we have insane resolutions coming from the UN - like the anti-drone stuff being mulled (which is condemned, because it works too well at killing jihadis). Why did you not even address these points? they were the ones I was making.

False. I never said that. I said that failing to use drone attacks will result in conversion to Sharia.

Sharia is creeping in the West already as part of the 'cultural jihad'. Who is doing this? well, the UN for one, with the OIC setting the agenda in the HRC and other agencies. The Holy Land Foundation trial stated that the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood (who have influence in the OIC) is to sabotage the "miserable West by their own hand". And if you know what to look for they have been very successful so far. Do the research yourself and you will see. Sharia is already in the West. Instead of treating women and men equally the West now kowtows to Muslim demands for separate areas for men and women. Harvard gym excludes men at certain times so Muslim women can exercise. Newspapers now self-censor anything critical to Islam because the editors do not consider it worth their life to publish satirical cartoons. The whole of society is indoctrinated that to "cause offense" is a grave crime that should be a criminal offense - when in a multicultural society it is inevitable that some part of society will be offended by the views of some other part of society. After clear jihad attacks the President of the United States is afraid to use the words Islamic Terrorism and his government departments are *banned* from using that term and many others due to political correctness. In Britain jihadi protestors can threaten to behead westerners for telling the truth yet the police will arrest an 85 year old grandmother for cursing Islam. In at least 23 court cases in the US the Constitution has been pitted against Sharia and the Constitution has yielded thanks to activist judges. It has gotten so bad that Florida and Oklahoma had to pass the ALAC "American Laws for American Courts" bill to stamp the setting of precedents where Sharia trumped native law. Note also that the Obama Regime fought Oklahoma on this - which shows how subverted that Administration is. Sharia is already here, man. It is not total, but creeping. Slowly, slowly the world is being changed around you. You still think you have free speech? well if you are in Sweden or the US or Britain go to your town center and remonstrate against Islam. See how long it is until the police arrest you (hence unwittingly enforcing Sharia). Sharia is imposed in stages (doctrinally it is called the "Milestones " process). We've just got a little bit at the moment. Don't worry, the UN is slowly introducing more. As I attempted to explain for you (google the cases I presented, please).

I suggest you learn how the UN works. The US veto is for Security Council Resolutions. All sorts of madness passes in the General Assembly, and even more madness in the HRC (now infested by human-rights enemies like Saudi Arabia, Sudan, North Korea). Sorry dude, with your statement you show you have a terrible understanding of the UN and what is going on in the world. No wonder you don't like my post, you simply have too little information to understand what I'm trying to say. If you have an open mind and follow my posts it would be my pleasure to expand your understanding of the political ideology called Islam, and how the political body called the OIC is using the UN to bypass the democratic safeguards in Free societies.

It's called "Case Law". By setting a precedent that trumps the Constitution with a Sharia-compatible ruling. This has been used by activists and the US Government for a long time, which allows legal status to be set without having to get democratic representatives to debate bills to do it. This is not a theoretical thing, it has happened at least 23 times in the US. I understand this is all news to you, because the mainstream media will never tell you this (it turns out, the editors mostly agree with the Red-Green Alliance's deconstruction of traditional America). If you listen I will tell you things that will surprise you.

Finally, you like the principles of the US Constitution? well, so do I (despite being a non-US citizen). I like individual liberty and freedom of conscience and free speech and equal rights between men, women and ethnicities. I'm sure we mostly agree on these things. The reason I'm posting about the OIC on Slashdot is that most people don't understand how the OIC is using the UN to destroy these liberties by creating resolutions that are against every human right we hold dear. Yes, this is against the original purpose of the UN. Yes, this is a great shame. What matters is not what the UN *was* (which is how most people still see the UN) but how it is *now*. I'm trying to explain to you that the UN is now under "mob rule" and the biggest mob in the General Assembly and HRC does not share our love for individual liberty, equality of peoples and faiths, and the UN'S founding principles. If you are prepared to listen then my posts attempt to explain the global geopolitical system as best I can. At the moment the UN is "two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner". Note: free people are the "sheep". If we don't educate each other then our liberties will disappear - slowly, slowly so that if you aren't paying attention they'll be gone before you notice (too busy agonizing over the results of your local "X-Factor" competition, or indulging in flame wars over software products, etc). This Slashdot thread about the UN restricting drones is part of a larger picture, I'm trying to paint that picture for my fellow Slashdotters.

I was providing the reason *why* the UN raised this resolution. I was supporting my position with other things that the OIC has induced the UN to do. This is not a "rant". I wish the OIC and UN wasn't doing these things. They are, and it all fits with the OIC's published agenda. I hope some readers appreciate me weaving the related threads together for them. For those that don't like the facts and historical context I present then please skip my posts - but do not censor them (unless you are a hater of facts and Free Speech). Those with open minds will follow my references and decide for themselves whether my posts have factual merit or not.

The reason they are modded up is because I post citations. The citations happen to be links to statistics and facts. You may not like the statistics and facts but it turns out that the scientifically-minded Slashdotters do. I'm not sorry if statistics and facts upset your cosy (but incorrect) worldview. If you disagree with me, then all you have to do is present countering statistics and facts. I will listen, I promise. This is how the Scientific Method works.

Note, while you may consider my post to be "off topic" simply because you have different political views, my post was explaining *why* the UN raised this resolution about drones by providing background. I'm trying to fill in background for those who are interested in how multiple aspects of our modern world are related. Does this explain why the same stuff keeps coming up in my posts - because it *is* all related. The UN HRC 16/18 is related to the OIC is related to 9/11 is related to the Boston Bombing is related to Afghanistan is related to Osama is related to Syria today is related to Israel is related to the United Nations is related to the London murder of Lee Rigby is related to last week's six nights of burning Stockholm is related to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood is related to Iran is related to the political goals of the far Left is related to modern history. If this bores you then please simply ignore my posts. But allow the right of me to write facts as I know them and the *even more important* right of Slashdotters to read the citations and reference I provide (and paraphrase for their convenience). Views that are unpopular (like mine) are not necessary incorrect. Please respect that - it is how science gets done.

It's also "against the rules" to deliberately target civilians - yet who takes notice?

Whenever I hear "United Nations" these days I pretty much assume it is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that are driving the agenda. They have the largest (57-country) voting bloc, you see, so they can do things like:

• Take control of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC): this means barbaric Sharia can kill thousands each year and degrade women and homosexuals in ways against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (refer to: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). Slavery is going on *today* in Sudan. Not a peep is said. Yet, a member state is condemned by HRC Resolutions dozens of times for defending its own citizens against terror attacks involving rockets and suicide attacks.
• Take control of the UN Refugee Agency: this means that countries are forced to accept waves of Muslims that do not assimilate (this has happened in my country), yet Copts and Assyrians who are under daily attack rarely if ever get refugee status these days
• The HRC was able to pass a non-binding resolution (HRC 16/18) that wanted member states to make statements "offensive" to religions (where the religion decides what is "offensive" or not - truth is not protected and may be considered offensive too). This is a fundamental attack against Free Speech (which was why it was amazing that even the thoroughly incompetent Hilliary Clinton co-sponsored it, and as Secretary of State promised to prosecute/"name-and-shame" Americans practicing their First Amendment Free Speech Rights on US soil). Even worse, the HRC 16/18 was just the "thin end of the wedge" and not it has passed an even worse successor is planned.

The OIC realised it can't get its agenda through sovereign national parliaments - so what it is doing is manipulating the UN and then the resulting treaties will then be applied. Don't think it can happen? it already has. The Free World must dismantle supranational law-making bodies like the UN (and the EU - go UKIP!).

This move is clearly a move by the OIC to prevent Free People from defending themselves with drones against jihadis. The drones have been *very* successful at disrupting the networks so far, which is why the OIC is practicing "lawfare" to get them taken out of the sky. Yes, the drones do occasionally kill the wives and children of jihadis in their compounds. This is bad. However, for those that think the drones should be removed, just what do you propose to replace them with? or are you ok submitting to the Islamic political order under Sharia (which is the stated and published goal of the OIC, if you care to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc).

Drones are good for the defense of Free Peoples against jihadis. Just not in my backyard thanks :)

Here's a little video explaining how the OIC came to grab effective control of the UN with the help of the pro-Communist "Non-Aligned Movement", Yes, anti-Semites, it is produced in Jerusalem, - it just so happens that the Israelis are acutely aware of the UN bias against them (thanks to the OIC, which is faithfully following hadith Sahih Muslim 6985). I assure you this is historically factual, so put away your bias for the four minutes it takes to understand the point I'm trying to make about the United Nations. Thank you :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Mupoo1At8

Dudes, this stuff matters much much more than the Windows vs Linux or Java vs C# or Apple vs Android wars. To quote, "You may not be interested in the war, but the war is interested in you". There is a shadow war for freedom that is going on right now. If you don't stand up and argue for your liberties then the OIC (through the UN) *will* progressively take them away - it may take decades, but they are determined to reach their goal (Sharia) because it is a matter of faith for them. It is easier to stand up now for your rights and stop them, then delay until it is really really oppressive before doing anything. Peace.

It is Qatar that are paying Hamas to continue their jihad (since many former donors now realise Hamas' genocidal ambitions, a bit late considering it is all laid out in the Hamas' Charter, but better late than never. It is Hamas that is paying for much of the supplies of the Al Nusra Front in Syria (ya know, the local Al Qaeda branch). So I think you are again romantacising Qatar, looking only at what you would like to see rather than what it does. The side effect of a pharmaceutical can be more significant than its intended effect - don't ignore the downsides of drugs nor ideologies.

In terms of supporting liberty the previous Administration had a spotty record, but was actually miles ahead of Obama if you do the research. In terms of geopolitics the Bush Administration was miles better. Bush defeated Saddam (who would have had nuclear weapons by now, and would have killed even more of his Shia and Kurdish minorities through violence or starvation - eg the draining of the southern marshes). It was Bush who destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and allow the use of waterboarding on (only!) three individuals that led to the elimination of Osama. It was Bush who liberated both Iraq and Afghanistan - but instead of cementing a hard won piece (as was done for Germany, Japan and Korea) Obama performed insanely hasty withdrawals simply for his own political benefit. Obama, like Bill Clinton, also used the power of the US to assist Islamicist takeovers (Libya, Egypt and now Syria; Bill C's was in Kosovo). Bush supported allies, while Obama sold them out (which is why Obama has *zero* credibility anymore with its allies). The damage Obama has done to geopolitica stability will take decades to repair. So I don't agree with your statement there. The worst crime Obama committed was siding with the Iranian theocracy in the Green Revolution. The World would be a much much better place today if he had stated the US promotes liberty for everyone everywhere - but he never ever stands up for Enlightenment values in actions (he just talks, his acts are usually supporting the Islamist and international Leftist agenda).

The Islamic world is indeed rotting within. However, there is enough force of will from the OIC to be a strategic civilizational-level threat. The country that your statement misses is Turkey. Turkey is getting stronger and with Erdogan at the helm is very very dangerous. Look at how they recently banned alcohol. They are regressing - just like second-generation Muslim immigrants are often more regressive and dangerous than the original immigrants (because the later ones never realise how horrible Islam is in practice when it controls society). Also in this paragraph you talk about the crimes of the European imperialists/Christianity. We agree. However you must realise that that was then. Making "moral equivalence" between acts of the past that Europe does not intend to repeat and the acts of Islam that are being repeated daily around the globe is bad - and provides cover for Islam to continue with its same bad actions. Please don't do it.

We agree. I think Infowars is junk and the signal-to-noise ratio is vastly lower than Breitbart/Newsmax (with the fantastic Thomas Sowell)/Frontpage. It is hard to discriminate whether Alex Jones' is simply a loon or it is a false flag disinformation programme, either way, infowars is not generally a good source.

Fair point. Academic sources are superior - but they have to be evaluated critically for contamination by Cultural Marxism (which is destroying free discourse globally in universities).

The philosopher I'm most familiar with is Al Ghazali - and as a (former) scientist I consider him to be one of the worst forces for ignorance, superstition and evil in the World. Since Al Ghazali invalidated most of the earlier Islamic philosophers I have a passing historical interest in the earlier guys - but to be truthful I'm more concerned with Islamic doctrine as is stands today (which is why I recommend Stephen Coughlin to you). Everything else is abstract.

I'm not really for freezing immigration. I don't see the fundamental problem with the Islamists per-se. I see the problem with the Cultural Marxists (academics and leftists politicians) that are using the Islamicists to change culture in a massive social experiment. I wouldn't even mind that if it was a force for good - but the reality is that the common totalitarian impulses of the Islamicists and Left are removing liberties (eg. it is clear the Obama regime simply sees the US Constitution as an outdated impediment to their 'progressive' goals - and are very happy to remove the protections it has for the US populace against tyranny - and if the US falls to tyranny it is bad for all of us [nb: I'm from New Zealand]).

I disagree. Our moral obligation as people who have done the research to to inform others. If we don't stand for Enligtenment values who will? It will not get easier as time goes on and the Muslim flood and high birthrate into Europe continues (and they do not need to be a majority to impose their values). I can understand why you try and balance the debate with your statements. That works for other people with similar knowledge. However, for those that know a little I think it is very dangerous - because it can easily be misused by those making apologetics. I believe that if we defend Enlightenment laws, principles and values with no compromise and no exceptions that Islam will implode - just as the Soviet Union did. However, for every inch that we concede it makes it a harder and longer struggle to prevail in the end. Education of Muslim women is part of the solution, but it is not enough. It has to be a combination of education, uncompromising defence of Universal Human Rights (not the awful Sharia-compliant Cario 'Human Rights' nonsense), and robust and unapologetic kinetic action where needed. Then we will win and everyone will benefit (the West will have peace, Muslims will be free to practice what is left of their superstition, Israel will get the security it craves, etc).

I too like the Economist. It is good, not perfect, but good. So much so that I carried a subscription for many years.

Al Jazeera are only good by the standards of the Middle East. When they report anything about the Qatari royals (with their Wahabbist leader) they are incredibly biased. The BBC are very left-biased. Their editors are so weak they are often fooled by 'stringers' without even basic fact-checks. This is no wonder given the Cultural Marxism permeating UK universities (I suggest you do your research on 'Cultural Marxism' as I suggested - the West won the political and economic war against Marxism but completely lost the cultural war [originally seeded and funded by the USSR]. This is why you *look* but you do not *see*). Here's an example describing how bad the BBC is: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/will-owen-jones-apologise/
On such a sensative matter the BBC printed speculation that matched their agenda, and did not do even rudimentary fact-checking. It is a shame you are oblivious to the political narrative being put forward by the BBC.

Just like Google, Breitbart is a news aggregator. It also highlights niche stories that the political elites and mainstream media suppress. Breitbart have highlighted the criminal actions of Obama over Benghazi, how Hiliary Clinton's State Department supplied Stinger missiles to Al Qaeda affiliates in Libya and then *lied* about the deaths of an Abassador and SEALs to cover their misdeeds. Since the CIA was against this they released the scandal about Petreus to neuter his opposition. They they knowlingly blamed it on a filmmaker who made an scripturally accurate (http://www.pi-news.org/2012/09/fact-check-the-innocence-of-the-muslims/) film about the evil warlord Mohammed, and threw him in jail despite the First Amendment - where he remains a political prisoner of the Obama regime. Breiutbart also highlighted the criminal actions of Eric Holder and the numerous deaths resulting frrom the Fast n Furious scandal. They also highlight the Muslim Brotherhood operative Huma Abedine's role in the State Department as Hiliary's aide. Breitbart also continue to report the Obama Administration's *tyrannical* use of the IRS and DoJ to target any grassroots political opposition - from convservatives to Jews to internet rights activists. All illegal stuff. Even Peirs Morgan was recently forced to conceed that those struggling to retain their Second Amendment rights actually had a point - because the US Government has become increasingly tyrranical. Breitbart continue to point this out. Do your news sources do this? I guess not. You are living in the Matrix and even someone like me trying to 'lead a horse to water' cannot undo the cultural conditioning you cling to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghx3d1GiAc0
So you *look* at Breitbart but do not *see* no idea at the significance of the scandals it is reporting. You have been well trained - without you even knowing it.

In clinical use the word Islamophobia is *wrong*. In colloquial use the term Islamophobia is still *wrong*. Unless you agree with the Islamic supremacist Sharia ideology of the OIC you are *wrong* to use the term. Please stop doing it - because by promoting its use you harm those who want to preserve Enlightenment liberties and Free Speech (which includes the right to offend as a necessary part - you don't need Free Speech protections for bland speech everyone agrees on). So stand up for liberty. Please.

Well, you may not understand Middle Eastern and Islamic history very well, but I do. I have been studying Islam a great deal recently. You are making apologetics for an evil ideology that is getting worse, not better. Thanks to Al Ghazali the "doors of ijtihad" and free enquiry closed *800 years ago*. They will not re-open our lifetime. So see Islam *as it is today* and not romantising about how it was nearly a millenia ago (still barbaric, just less barbaric than their European contempararies in some areas - but even then far more barbaric with regard to treatment of religious minorities and women). Please also note that you also buy into the whole false "noble savage" historical revisionism. The Crusades were a response to 400 years of attacks on pilgrims. Yes the Crusades were evil madness, but so was the jihad that countered it - and all that was normal by the standards of the day. The Crusades were a defence to 400 years if jihad (which has continued unabated for another thousand years after that).

More wolly-headed romanticism. There has already been a reformation in Islam. It resulted in Wahabbism, if you took the time to notice. Perhaps in five hundred years Islam will reform although I doubt it - since the core doctrine considers it apostasy (punishable by death, of course) to try and alter Islam. The following site deals with the true nature of Islam, http://frontpagemag.com/ (and their leftist allies). The following article talks about the reformation of Islam in the 'golden age' you talk about, and how the reformist "Mu’tazalites" were brutally stamped out, never to return: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/david-solway/reflections-on-my-ex-muslim-friends/

I too wish Islam was a religion of peace. Just imagine what the world would look like today if it actually was. But unfortunately we have a historical body count of 270 million innocent victims and climbing *daily* around the World: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Here's a link to Stephen Coughlin (since you appear unable/unwilling to look him up yourself - I hope that is *not* because you don't wish to learn the Truth about the core nature of Islam *from Islamic sources*):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs0xw5hPWVQ
If you have retired from the medical profession then you have the time to find out about the Truth - the one the politicians and the complicit media are trying to hide from you.

It would be nice if we had the time. With Iran soon to get nuclear weapons the Saudis, Egyptians and Turks will feel they also need them to defend against the Shia heretics. There will be massive WMD proliferation in the Middle East with jihadi regimes which 'MAD' is not a deterrent., it is an incentive (read the hadith Sahih Muslim 6985 - it is certainly what drives the Iranians who say they want to bring the Medhi, which they believe they can do using nuclear weapons). Again you are romantising the situation - we simply don't have the time anymore to wait for Islam to reform. I'm not suggesting a pogram or any violence (in case you misread by sentiment) - simply we have to defend our laws and national soverignty (against the Islamist OIC dominated UN) and refuse Sharia. We should also be careful about immigration - importing jihadis does not positively contribute to the welbeing of a democratic society. If we fail to do this, to defend Enlightenment liberty, not only will our descendents hate us but we are opening the door for evil right wing parties to gain a hold, since civilized men have taken no action to defend our civilization (look at Obama and Prime Minister Cameron, they have already capitulated to the extent they outright lie to defend the evil totalitarian, theocratic political system called Islam).

It would be nice if Islam was peaceful as its apologists and the taqiyya-practicing Islamic supremacists say. But it is simply not true. Don't fall for the taqiyya being used on you:
http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html
I also suggest you look at what Muslims are saying for consumption by other Muslims:
http://www.memri.org/
Also look at the statistics of how many Muslims around the globe agree with jihad and want you to submit to Sharia
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/pew-report-on-muslim-world-paints-a-distressing-picture/
Then ask yourself, "are my current news sources providing me with an accurate picture of the situation?" (and from the sources you mention, the objective answer must be, "hell no!").

Please note, every statement I make is backed up with facts and references. I don't oppose Islam because I don't understand it. I understand it very very well. Therefore I oppose Islam because all the information shows that the political ideology called *Islam* is *evil* (once you get past the disguises and taqiyya lies) and against every human right that Enlightenment civilization cherishes. I hope you also learn about Islam from the factual sources I have provided, and also join the "counter jihad" fight to stop the 1400 war that Islam is waging to destroy our civilization (just as it destroyed the Byzantine, Persian, Afghan Buddhist and various other civilizations throughout history - Islam's goal is not to co-exist with modernity, it's goal is to subjugate and eradicate it - just like all those it has stuffed out in the past and little trace remains).

I agree with you that Breitbart is as right biased as Huffington is left. All sources have bias. The tricks is to identify which ones and look for sources with opposite bias so that the truth can be found in the middle. Why I suggested you make Breitbart part of your daily staple is because it will often report facts that are suppressed by US mainstream media (and *especially* by Huffington) and most foreign media too (Al Jazeera, BBC etc). Note, I'm not from the US either - I'm from a minority in the Pacific Rim and my background is a PhD in Astrophysics. I'm not being a 'blowhard', but just as you presented your credentials to show you are reasonable - and I accept them, so I hope you can see why I try and use the Scientific Method when I evaluate Breitbart etc. While Breitbart is definitely biased, and makes many statements I disagree with, it is generally a better source of high-level facts that most of the alternatives. Hence, my recommendation that it should be *among* your (hopefully diverse) sources of information.

I'm curious as to what this wonderful source is? Please enlighten me. if you say "Al Jazeera" then I'll die laughing.

This word is an instant give-away that a person does not know what is going on in the World or what they are talking about. The word "Islamophobia" was invented by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Conference) after seeing the success of the word "homophobia". The word was invented so that Islamic supremacists and their apologists could quickly and conveniently demonize opponents before facts and true debate could emerge. Only the ignorant use or take notice of this word. Unfortunately, the ignorance about the doctrines of Islam and its political machinations is staggering, even by most Muslims. If you want to learn more about the subject I suggest you use YouTube to look for Stephen Coughlin - who was a major in the Pentagon who examined the Islamic scriptures for a decade. They started with open minds and looked for evidence that Osama bin Laden was somehow an extremist and had perverted the teachings of Islam. To their great surprise they found that Osama was more consistent with the core doctrines of Islam than most Muslims. If your news sources are not telling you this then perhaps you ought to think about how good your sources are, yes? Anyway, don't use the word "Islamophobia" - it is a political construct that makes no sense in a free society (and as a medical professional I'm sure you understand that "phobia" has a precise meaning, which 'Islamophobia' simply doesn't fit, and that using the word is nonsense).

Dude, consider that this guy has been described by Alan Dershowitz as "Off the charts smart" in comparison to his other Havard peers. Since Cruz is so smart, then how come he makes statements you find that make him sound like a "whack job"? think about it for a bit, please. It turns out that Cruz is telling the truth but the disinformation from the mainstream media is so pervasive that a normal individual like yourself is convinced that those who tell verifiable truth are insane. Rather than suck up more Cultural Marxism (look on YouTube for this term) from the mainstream media perhaps you could instead look at alternative sources like http://frontpagemag.com/ and http://www.breitbart.com/. Please read the articles there every day for a week (at first you'll think its all whacko, but after a few days you will see that they report the truth, admittedly with some right bias, but are far more truthful than the mainstream media). Then you will understand that Cruz is a truth-teller, it is just that you happen to be the Cultural Marxist "Matrix" - so can see the transparent prison walls that are caging your mind. Good luck finding the truth and dispensing with the lies that the Obama Regime and the complicit media are deceiving you with.

Don't pretend you know anything about me. Now the reason I sound like "pro-lifers" is because the Scientific Method requires me to listen to countering points of view and see if they have merit. The pro life position has some merit, as does the pro choice one. In the end I come down on the side of the mother while acknowledging that late stage abortions do murder living organisms that are completely defenseless. You probably only get your news from the (left-leaning) mainstream media, but if you ever peruse Breitbart online you will see that some of the later-term aborted babies are able to survive on their own, and must be killed by the abortion doctor otherwise they would probably live. Once you understand this it becomes clear that sanctioning abortion is in some cases sanctioning the murder of completely defenseless humans.

Furthermore, consider the need for the US to import immigrants on a massive scale to keep its aging population in the life style to which they have become accustomed. It turns out that since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation now controls the UN Refugee Agency (and the HRC, and is the largest voting bloc in the General Assembly, and ...) that many of the immigrants the US now gets as "refugees" are actually jihadis - meanwhile persecuted Assyrians and Copts are ignored by the UN/OIC. Now, if the US prevented abortion and instead gave money to support these native born Americans instead of using it to fund the lifestyles of the jihadis it is now importing then perhaps America would be on far less of a decline than it is now (although again, if you only listen to mainstream media you would not know any of this - and hence you will disagree).

You are 100% correct. To a Leftist the value of an individual life is less important than the benefit to the Collective Good (whatever their elites designate that to be). However, they have been told that they are struggling for individual freedom all the while accepting laws and governments that push the power of the state over the individual. They are too indoctrinated by Cultural Marxism to see how they support the very ideas and institutions that are against true liberty for the individual.

Well, the rest of it is crap, as is giving you half the bonus, but the taxes are just reality and it's hard to see why the company would intentionally misdirect the cash to your 401K. It's not like they get any benefit from doing that.

My experience at IBM was that I got paid promptly and in full -- though taxes took a big bite, much of which I got back on my tax return. I expect the same would be true of my current employer (Google), but I haven't yet managed to get a referral hired.

Well said. Your debating opponent clearly has the totalitarian streak that infects the Left. I admire your stance on the death penalty. In my case, I'm pro-choice on abortions, but I do not demonize those who are pro-life: I believe they also have a good moral case to make. Demonizing one's opponent just to avoid listening is the *worst* crime (demonizing while also listening; well, that's just sport :) ).