Who is the next president of the US of A?

[Hazam'sBro]

Sorry if i misunderstood...Back to the topic at hand, many of my friends have been discussing that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. What do you guys think? I would probably vote for Ralph Nader, but to think that I could be the cause of four more years of Bush is avoiding me from doing such a thing

[Dan]

Bimillah

As salam alaikum

Once again, I will not voice my opinion on the subject of suicide bombings because that it all it is. It is not backed with Qur'an and hadith to an extent that I feel comfortable expressing it. I fear Allah if I spread misinformation.

My point about Saddam was that innocent people were punished because of the actions of a few... just like Palestine.

As for the percentage of Palestinians who support suicide bombings, I do not know. You could find out as easily as I would, ie google search.

Back to the topic as you have kindly reminded us of:

I share similar apprehentions about voting for someone besides Kerry because I do not want Bush to remain in power. My brother and I talk about this constantly... well not constantly but several times. You get the idea. I am tired of the two party system. If enough people start just saying, "I am tired of the same two parties not really standing for anything but greed," then maybe a change will happen. I fully believe that Dem and Rep want citizens to think that they will be throwing their vote away if they vote for a third party. I have finally decided that I would rather vote for someone who I believe is most qualified than for the "lesser of two evils."

On the subject of wanting Bush out of office, one brother said some words that stuck with me. He said that if Kerry is the only answer to Bush then maybe the country has not had enough Bush yet. He is thinking about voting for Bush just to punish the country for not offering a better alternative. He cracks me up.

I would have to look into Nader more. Do you have a suggested website that could spell out plainly what issues he supports and what his policies are? I would appreciate it.

As salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu

[Hazam'sBro]

Ralph Nader Stands with the People

The Bush Administration and the Democratic Party, in varying extremes, are putting the interests of their corporate paymasters before the interests of the people. In the Nader Campaign the PEOPLE RULE. Mr. Nader takes seriously a government "of, by and for the people" within a deliberative democratic society.

Also, see Ralph Nader's correspondence with Senator Kerry and President Bush concerning important issues of the day

Below are initial summaries of many of Mr. Nader's positions, as you can see, unlike President Bush and the Democratic Party, Ralph Nader :

Wants Equal Rights for Women

Ralph Nader endorses the full eleven-point agenda for economic, social and political rights of women put forward by the National Organization for Women. The NOW platform is reprinted below. The Nader Campaign also announced that it would have a contingent . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Supports the Proposals of the Ad Hoc Coalition to Restore Retirement Security

In recent years, hundreds of large companies have broken long-standing pension and health insurance promises to their loyal, longtime employees and retirees. These unfair practices are accelerating, rather than diminishing, and are undercutting the retire . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to make health care universally available

We need to get the insurance companies out of administering health care, increase patient choice, expand coverage and save money. The United States spends far more on health care per capita than any other country in the world, but more than an 45 million Ame . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants electoral reform that creates a vibrant, active, participatory Democracy.

Our democracy is in a descending crisis. Voter turnout is among the lowest in the western world. Redistricting ensures very few incumbents are at risk in one-party districts. Barriers to full participation of candidates proliferate making it very obstru . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants a crackdown on corporate crime and abuse

The US needs to crack down on corporate crime, fraud and abuse that have just in the last four years looted and drained trillions of dollars from workers, investors, pension holders and consumers. Among the reforms needed are resources to prosecute and c . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants a fair tax where the wealthiest and corporations pay their fair share, tax wealth more than work, and tax activities we dislike more than necessities

The complexity and distortions of the federal tax code produces distributions of tax incidence and payroll tax burdens that are skewed in favor of the wealthy and the corporations further garnished by tax shelters, insufficient enforcement and other avoid . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Opposes media bias and media concentration

The mass media in the United States is extremely concentrated, and the messages that they send are too broadly uniform. Six global corporations control more than half of all mass media in our country: newspapers, magazines, books, radio and television. Ou . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

A family farm-consumer agriculture policy

American agriculture is being dominated by two contrary trends in the 21st Century. First, conventional family farm agricultural production is being destroyed by low prices and lack of market access due to mergers, acquisitions by big agribusinesses and . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to end poverty in the United States

As the wealthiest country in the world, with high productivity per capita, a country that produces an abundance of capital, credit, technology and food, we can end poverty. Yet, according to the Bureau of the Census poverty and hunger for children and ad . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to create jobs by investing in America's future, invest in Americans

Since January 2001, 2.7 million jobs have been lost and more than 75% of those jobs have been high wage, high productivity manufacturing jobs. Overall 5.6% of Americans are unemployed while 10.5% of African Americans are unemployed. Unemployment among La . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to expand worker's rights by developing an employee bill of rights

The rights of workers' have been on the decline. It is time to reverse that trend and begin to give worker's – the backbone of the US economy – the rights they deserve. Workers need a living wage – not a minimum wage; access to health care and no unila . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants fair trade that protects the environment, labor rights and consumer needs

NAFTA and the WTO makes commercial trade supreme over environmental, labor, and consumer standards and need to be replaced with open agreements that pull-up rather than pull down these standards. These forms of secret autocratic governance and their detai . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

A federal budget that puts human needs before corporate greed and corporate militarism

The United States needs a redirected federal budget that adequately funds the crucial priorities like infrastructure, transit and other public works, schools, clinics, libraries, forests, parks, sustainable energy and pollution controls. The budget shoul . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Corporations should not be given equal rights with humans

A national debate is needed regarding the necessity to reverse the dicta in the 1886 Supreme Court Case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad that first awarded the corporation constitutional status as a person and in subsequent decision. Cor . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Education for everyone

Education is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments. The federal government has a critical supporting role to play in ensuring that all children -- irrespective of the income of their parents, or their race -- are provided with rich l . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq

The quagmire of the Iraq war and occupation could have been averted and needs to be ended expeditiously, replacing US forces with a UN peacekeeping force, prompt supervised elections and humanitarian assistance before we sink deeper into this occupation, . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to restore and expand civil liberties and constitutional rights

Civil liberties and due process of law are eroding due to the “war on terrorism” and new technology that allows easy invasion of privacy. Americans of Arab descent and Muslim-Americans are feeling the brunt of these dragnet, arbitrary practices. Mr. Nade . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Supports Equal Rights for Gays and Lesbians

Ralph supports equal rights for gays and lesbians, including equal rights for same-sex couples. He opposes President Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages as adults should be treated equally under the law on this matter. Ral . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to reform the criminal injustice system

We need to get smart on preventing crime, invest in education, rehabilitation and restore safe neighborhoods and communities. The United States prison binge has resulted in over 2 million people being incarcerated – the US now holds one out of four of th . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to end the war on drugs

The drug war has failed – we spend nearly $50 billion annually on the drug war and problems related to drug abuse continue to worsen. We need to acknowledge that drug abuse is a health problem with social and economic consequences. Therefore, the solutio . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Environment

The epidemic of silent environmental violence continues. Whether it is the 65,000 Americans who die every year from air pollution, or the 80,000 estimated annual fatalities from hospital malpractice, or the 100,000 Americans whose demise comes from occupa . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Wants to create a new energy policy

We urge a new clean energy policy that no longer subsidizes entrenched oil, nuclear, electric and coal mining interests -- an energy policy that is efficient, sustainable and environmentally friendly. We need to invest in a diversified energy policy inclu . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Toward consumer justice

The enforcement of consumer protection laws, especially against the terrible abuses in low-income communities, needs to be given the leadership and resources required. Neither Party in control of our city or national government has concerned itself with s . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Toward saving lives by increasing motor vehicle safety

About 800 Americans die on the roads every week on the average or over 40,000 a year, plus hundreds of thousands of injuries and tens of billion in economic losses. Since 1966 the irregular implementation of the federal motor vehicle and safety laws have . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Toward a world of peace, justice, and fulfillment of human possibilities within a sustainable environment

Our foreign policy must redefine the elements of global security, peace, arms control, an end to nuclear weapons and expand the many assets of our country to launch, with other nations, major initiatives against global infections diseases (such as AIDS, m . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Favors Youth Voting: Lowering the Voting Age to 16

Ralph Nader favors lowering the voting age to 16 years old. He recognizes that 16 year olds work, pay taxes and more and more often are subjected to criminal laws passed that treat them like adults. In addition, democracy in the United States needs to b . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

Supports Civil Rights of Muslim and Arab Americans

According to a report released on March 3 by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2004," Muslims in the United States experienced more than 1,000 incidents of asserted harassment, violence and . . . [ Full Text >> ] | [ to Top ^ ]

[Dan]

Bismillah

As salam alaikum

Thanks for the information. Do you know what his opposers say about him? I like to have both sides. When a politician makes a claim, I listen to the opponent also even if I do not agree with them. I find that I am able to get a clearer picture of what is happening. Yet I do not want to stubble upon some nader bashing webcite that is uncontrollably biased.

Do you know of any other people seeking office?

As salam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barkatu

[Hazam'sBro]

Well, if life were perfect, i think most Americans would probably vote for Lyndon Larouche.

http://larouchein2004.net/

[Hazam'sBro]

On Oct. 6, 1986, a virtual army of more than 400 armed personnel descended upon the town of Leesburg, Virginia, for a raid on the offices of EIR and its associates, and also deployed for another, darker mission. The premises at which I was residing at that time were surrounded by an armed force, while aircraft, armored vehicles, and other personnel waited for the order to move in shooting. Fortunately, the killing did not happen, because someone with higher authority than the Justice Department Criminal Division head William Weld, ordered the attack on me called off. The forces readied to move in on me, my wife, and a number of my associates, were pulled back in the morning.

That was the second fully documented case of a U.S. Justice Department involvement in operations aimed at my personal elimination from politics. The first was documented in an FBI internal document dated late 1973. The first was an internal U.S. operation; the second, of Oct. 6-7, 1986, was international, including the involvement of the Soviet government of General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. To understand the higher level of command behind the way in which the Democratic National Committee bureaucrats have used the Party's nullification of the Voting Rights Act to attempt to exclude me from this election, we must point to the crucial features of the 1973 and 1986 attempts at my personal elimination.

This is not only my cause for complaint. <b>The great majority of Americans are as much the intended victim as I am.</b> They have a right to know what is being done to them in this connection. I explain.

Those events of Oct. 6-7, 1986 began in Sweden, when someone killed that nation's Prime Minister, Olof Palme, and immediately, fraudulently, assigned blame for the killing action to me. That libel was promptly adopted by my longstanding, usually lying enemies at the Washington Post, and copied by other well-known news-media cesspools. This killing occurred in the context of a massive outpouring of preparatory hate-propaganda against me, worldwide, from the government of Armand Hammer-associate Gorbachev. The issue behind the Soviet participation in the attack, was Soviet inside knowledge of my role in introducing what President Ronald Reagan had named publicly the “Strategic Defense Initiative” (SDI). Gorbachev, like his former sponsor, Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, hated me on account of my international, as well as U.S. role in the development of the SDI proposal.

It became clear in the course of that year, that the killing of expendable target Palme was used, and therefore probably intended, to set into motion an environment for what would later pass as a “justified, retaliatory” killing of me; no other plausible motive for the killing of Palme has been presented to the public, up to the present day. Tracing all the relevant developments, over both the interval from that shooting, to the Leesburg events of Oct. 6-7, later that same year, all of the relevant events in the pattern of action, including the preparatory steps taken by Boston's William Weld, represent a systemically functional connection between the killing of Palme and the referenced events of Oct. 6-7.

When those two Justice Department “elimination” operations against me are considered, the obvious question is: “Are the two actions, those of 1973 and 1986, related?” They are, in fact, closely related, and are key to understanding why the financial powers behind Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe's actions against me, have been so hysterically determined to exclude the one Democratic Presidential candidate who now represents, presently, officially, the broadest popular base of financial support of all current Democratic contenders. Why do the forces behind these actions fear me so much that they would take such extraordinarily high political risks in running these kinds of efforts to bring about my personal and political elimination?

In the second case, Oct. 6-7, 1986, the obvious motive for the projected official killing of me, my wife, and others on that occasion, was my role in the development of the SDI. Ironically, but not accidentally, this operation was unleashed at the time President Reagan was meeting Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, where the President, once again, firmly restated his commitment to SDI.

However, there is a direct connection to the earlier 1973 FBI operation. The 1973 campaign for my “elimination,” the near-slaughter of Oct. 6-7, 1986, and the stubborn effort to exclude me from the debates now, are each and all products of the same issue of my fight against the effort of certain liberal economists, and others, to put the world as a whole under the thumb of the policies of former Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht.

The ultimate origin of these and related actions is not the U.S. Department of Justice, but a much higher authority than the U.S. government, the same assortment of Venetian-style international financier-oligarchical interests, and their associated law firms, which unleashed the wave of fascist dictatorships in continental Europe over the interval 1922-45. The common feature of those international financier interests, then, back during 1922-45, and today, is their present commitment to imposing Schachtian economics upon both the U.S.A. itself, and also on the world at large, as the presently ongoing looting of Argentina typifies such fascist practices in action.

The intention of those financiers behind the demand for my exclusion from the Democratic Party proceedings, is to attempt to ensure that the next President of the U.S.A. is nothing but a pro-fascist bankers' office boy in matters of national economic and social policy. A notable number of these pro-Schachtian financier interests are the proverbial “big bucks” behind the Democratic Party.

Three Linked Issues

Behind all of the operations against me, from 1973 through the present day, is a reflection of the common characteristic of three tightly linked issues. The first, my pro-FDR opposition to Schachtian economics. The second, my opposition to the so-called “utopian” military doctrines currently associated with “beast-man” Dick Cheney. Third, my intention to reverse the folly of the past 40 years' downward drift of the U.S.A., from the world's leading producer nation, to today's predatory mess of Roman Empire-style “post-industrial” bread and circuses.

Go back to the late summer and fall of 1971. When the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system was ordered by President Richard Nixon, on Aug. 15-16, 1971, I responded, denouncing the incompetence of those leading economists who had insisted that such an event could never happen under the so-called “built-in stabilizers.” Since the mid-1960s, I had warned repeatedly, publicly, against such a highly probable trend, of a series of international monetary crises leading toward the consequent breakdown of the present world monetary system. It had happened. Once again, I had been proven right as a long-range economic forecaster; virtually every university economics textbook, virtually every professor or similar type had been proven totally wrong on this issue.

Therefore, my associates and I launched a campaign against “Quackademic” economics professors. The turmoil this campaign produced on the campuses, and elsewhere, impelled the pained economists and their owners to select a champion of their cause, to defeat me in open debate. What soon proved to be the luckless Professor Abba Lerner, reputedly the leading resident Keynesian economist in the U.S.A., was selected for the contest.

We faced off on the premises of New York's Queens College campus. Professors and comparable notables chiefly gathered in the front rows, and students and others chiefly behind them. My challenge to Lerner was that his current proposals for Brazil were an echo of the doctrines of Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht. I warned that his policy toward Brazil was typical of the kinds of fascist-like austerity policies which would be pushed under the new conditions created by Nixon's action. For the alloted time, and more, Lerner squirmed and wriggled, seeking to change the subject from the concrete issue I had posed as the test question of the time: Brazil policy. Then, the debate closed when Lerner whimpered, “But if Germany had accepted Schacht's policies, Hitler would not have been necessary.” The assembled body reacted to this whimpered utterance as if stunned. Lerner was, figuratively, carried, hors de combat, from that day's field of battle.

Since that occasion, no leading economist in any part of the world has found the courage to challenge me in a debate on these crucial issues of Schachtian economic policy being pushed by the U.S. since that time. As Lerner's friend Professor Sidney Hook stated the point: “LaRouche won the debate, but”--he will lose much more as a result of that. It was his way of saying that the “establishment” would unite against me; it did.

There was no coincidence in any of this. The shift of the U.S. and British economies away from the U.S.'s leading role as the world's greatest producer nation, toward a pro-Schachtian, “post-industrial” utopianism, was the hallmark of the 1966-68 Nixon campaign for the Presidency. The follies of this “post-industrial” shift into wild-eyed monetarism, led the U.S. government to the point, that it must abandon its foolish post-Kennedy economic and cultural policies, or make exactly the choice I had warned that I feared they would make. Nixon's decision of Aug. 15, 1971 made the march in the direction of ruin and fascist-like dictatorship inevitable. Nixon's mid-August decision thus made the issue of the 1971 LaRouche-Lerner debate the inevitable continuing, leading issue of U.S. economic policy, from that date to the present neo-Schachtian days of Lazard Frères-associated Felix Rohatyn.

Nixon's decision put the leading institutions and voters of the U.S. into a virtual ideological-economic fishbowl. That is to say: The poor fish might think he can rule the universe by choosing that part of the interior of the fishbowl to which he might wish to swim, but the bowl itself was being moved without his consciousness of the direction into which the bowl was being carried. Such are the sometimes tragic, utopian delusions of Cartesian and other true believers in what they define as “self-evident” definitions, axioms, and postulates. The universe in which they believe, is only a fishbowl filled with those fools who believe that their own free choice, according to such beliefs, controls their destiny.

Most ordinary people today have little appreciation of the fierceness with which pro-Schachtian liberal financiers hate the memory of President Franklin Roosevelt. Most corporate and kindred Baby Boomers, such as my rivals for the Presidency, do not even know what a Schachtian tactic is. Nonetheless, the defeat, chiefly by Roosevelt's U.S.A., of those pro-Synarchist, pro-Schachtian financiers' effort to create a fascist internationalism during the post-Versailles decades, has prompted the financiers of today to seek every possible means to uproot and destroy the kind of agro-industrial constitutional republic which Roosevelt's victory over Hitler et al. represented. So, in August 1944, as soon as the U.S.-led breakthrough in Normandy had sealed the early doom of Hitler, those financier circles which had temporarily supported Roosevelt's war-effort, launched the right turn represented by Bertrand Russell's leading role in putting forward a utopian strategic doctrine of imperial world government through preventive nuclear war.

During his two terms in office, military traditionalist President Dwight Eisenhower defended our constitutional order from the rampaging utopians he labelled a “military-industrial complex.” President John F. Kennedy's assassination broke the back of the resistance to those utopians; the U.S. official plunge into the quicksands of asymmetric warfare in Indo-China, and the parallel, mid-1960s “post-industrial” shift, were the concomitant of that victory of the utopians. The murders of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, were crucial elements of the march toward ruin of our economic culture, and worse, beyond.

The mid-1960s' cultural-paradigm down-shift, merely typified by the dionysiac rock-drug-sex counterculture, was the destruction of the mind and gut of what had been the world's greatest economy, the U.S. economy. The purpose of that induced cultural-paradigm shift was to uproot everything about the U.S. which was reflected in FDR's achievements as President.

My proposal for what President Reagan was later to name his “Strategic Defense Initiative” was prompted by a recognition of the growing actual risk of general thermonuclear war, in the doctrines of James R. Schlesinger's cabal, around the theme of the “present danger.” I reacted out of my conviction that the nuclear madness of Trilateral Brzezinski's cronies, Schlesinger et al., showed that the U.S. must find ways to engage the Soviet Union in a long-term alternative to the thermonuclear war implicit in a continuation of the Russell-like, so-called “detente” policies of the 1970s. Thus, when the Reagan National Security Council entertained my back-channel discussions with the Soviet government, to explore what I proposed as the relevant alternative, I became a grave danger to the policies of the utopians inside and outside our defense establishment. At the close of the President's televised address of March 23, 1983, they decided I was too capable a political force of opposition to their schemes to be allowed to live. It is the same issue I represent against Cheney and his pack of neo-conservative lunatics today. That was the principal motive behind the indicated events of 1986.

In this way, the issue of my opposition to Schachtian economics, to utopian military madness, and to the past four decades' cultural-paradigm down-shift of the economy, mind, and morals of our nation, are three aspects of the same issue. For that, they wished me “eliminated” in 1973, sought to eliminate me by shameless open actions in 1986, and wish to eliminate all traces of my international influence today.

'Prison, Anyone?'

The abortion of the shooting assault intended for Oct. 6-7, 1986, led to a subsequent, high-level, intense debate in relevant circles. “Shall we kill him, or imprison him?” was the tenor of that debate. The threat from the utopian faction was, “If you allow him to beat the legal frame-up we are conducting, you will not stop us from killing him this time!”

That decision was in debate from no later than the evening of President Reagan's televised address of March 23, 1983. After a few days, the utopians had regrouped their forces around circles including the right-wing utopian, and fervent SDI (and LaRouche and Edward Teller) opponents Daniel P. Graham and the utopians of the Heritage Foundation. So, the name of SDI was continued, but, under the influence of circles backing Graham, the content was changed radically to emphasize obsolete, chiefly “off-the-shelf” technologies of no use for the indicated type of mission-assignment.

On Oct. 12, 1988, I delivered a memorable address in Berlin, which was taped there for later broadcast, that same month, on a nationwide TV campaign feature. I forecast the imminent collapse of the Soviet alliance, beginning probably soon in Poland, and spreading into other parts of Eastern Europe and the Soviet economy itself. I proposed a course of U.S. action to deal, through affirmative economic action, with the opportunity to uproot the embedded institutions of major military conflict throughout the world.

I was soon hustled off to the hoosegow by the fastest, if perhaps the most crooked railroad in the U.S.A., the Alexandria Federal Courthouse in the Eastern District of Virginia. So, in effect, the newly sworn President George Bush put me into prison, and, a little more than five years later, Bill Clinton pulled me out. Now, the world makes a new turn around the circle of crisis. This time, those bankers who wish to put a Democrat who would be a virtual office boy for their Schachtian policies into the White House, are at it again. They are terrified at the thought that I, no office boy in these matters, would come even close to the White House.

Some leaders of nations are elected, others are either killed, or sent to prison to be defamed. So, powerful financier cabals have often ordered the fate of nations and the people, if the people let that happen. Thus, in today's world, the ultimate feat of importance for a republic, is to get competent leaders elected, and keep them from being killed at a sign from the hand of a pro-Synarchist financier mafioso.

[Muslimah]

as salam alykom

As an Egyptian living in the middle east, what difference does it make, all of them adopt almost the same position towards the Middle East crisis with varying degrees. Regardless the fact that they have an apparent zionist inclination.

U know what? I never blame any of them for trying to impose US impact or secure a unilateral power. Also we can not expect to gain victory through them, Allah say:"And there is no victory except from Allâh. Verily, Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise" (Quran 8:10)

Did I go much off topic:rolleyes:

[SisterJennifer]

Asalaamu alikum,

I have not read this whole thread but I agree with you sister. I don't think it matters much at all who is the next president of the USA. Certainly we cannot expect them to change the condition of the Muslims, this must be done by the Muslims themselves. And the best place to start is with our ownselves, and insha Allah reaching out at a local level showing our neighbors truly who we are and what Islam teaches us, let them learn about us, and see that we are descent people so they don't rely on American media to tell them who the Muslims really are. Maybe if we open our doors to our neighbors, and are true to our beliefs people might begin to take a more serious look at what Islam is rather than just believing the streotypes. It's just my opinion, and I am sorry I have not read the whole thread.

May Allah shower His mercy and blessings onto all Muslims everywhere, Ameen.

~Jennifer

[naseeha]

ok we are talking soo much about this 2 party thing....

in my country there are 2 major parties... one of these two always win elections...

i just stopped votting

anyone care to advise me on this decision

[phatmonky]

I'm disgusted by much of what I see going on in this thread. There is an open racism being exerted by many.

I don't wish to even go further than this right now - I'm not sure what to make of how much of this conflicts with islamic teachings.

By the way, whose bright idea was it to add a smilie with holding two Ar15's to something that is supposed to be a peaceful religious board???