America's Kristallnacht - Ferguson:
Can deception sweep a nation of God fearing people? Can those who have taken fearless stands against the order of the day and the bastardization of the Christian faith be brought to a place of believing a lie? I would suggest that the answer is a resounding yes and not surprising at all. History shows that it has happened time and time again.
The titillation of the title of this piece should signal to you that I believe that there is a clear comparative between the orchestration of events on the infamous evening in Germany where thousands of Synagogues, places of business and homes of Jews were vandalized and the orchestrated events of Ferguson Missouri. The differences are minimal but the notion that the effective practices of one Joseph Goebbels and those of Valerie Jarrett are similar are more than just happenstance. The aims and objectives of both of these manipulators of the human drama are eerily the same. A false righteousness, created in the crucible of chaos, given a deceptive name (racism or civil unrest) and then being handled by the authoritative boot heel of government power to pave the way for dictatorial measures is classic.
The written narrative of the day and time of Goebbels and Kristallnacht as with the narrative of Ferguson ignores the major reality of the government funded thugs who rose to the occasion and did the bidding of the producer/director/casting director/funder of the initiatives. Goebbels and Hitler needed an excuse to grab total control of the nation and Kristallnacht and the burning of the Reichstag gave them what they needed. Obama and Jarrett needed what Cloward and Piven suggested more recently with "the creation of a crisis and the managing of the crisis". Both the scenarios of Kristallnacht and Ferguson gave opportunity for the mantra of government (racism or civil unrest) to be touted by a capitulating press and the loud cries for "intervention" by the government funded thugs posturing for the "protection of the innocent" - in order that safety be restored. We can harken to the prophetic voice of a Founding Father who suggested that if we were to give up freedoms for safety that we would have neither in the end. He was and is correct.
Hitler and Obama count on one major thing - the ignorance of the people to the truth. Both leaders counted on the elimination of the voices that speak truth. In both instances the capture of the media to the cause of government was absolutely necessary to the success of the dictator. By calling all dissent to be lies and therefore the need to silence the lies, the path is paved for the "bafflegab" of government and its singular voice of "truth". The press have shown themselves to be in bed with Obama (as with Hitler) and with the loss of that great conduit of free thought, the internet, only the voice of government-speak will be heard. As in days past we can look forward to guerrilla radio, television, press, and activities to spring up and bring back a new level of freedom of speech as a necessary response to the crushing of free speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. All of which will be lost in the near future. Mark my words.
- Dr. Jim Garrow -
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Texas Lawmakers Launch Attack on UN Agenda 21
Following in the footsteps of officials in other states, lawmakers in Texas introduced legislation that would prohibit some state and local government participation in the deeply controversial United Nations “sustainability” scheme known as Agenda 21. With bills targeting the UN program introduced in both houses of the legislature and outrage about Agenda 21 still growing across Texas and the nation, activists and lawmakers are hopeful that the state will succeed in protecting property rights, self-government, and economic freedom from the Obama administration-backed UN scheme. However, elements of the establishment media and UN-loving forces in Texas and beyond have already made clear that they intend to fight back.
The anti-Agenda 21 legislation, filed last week by Republican State Representative Molly White in the House and GOP State Senator Bob Hall in the Senate as S.B. 445, take aim at state and local government funding to UN-linked organizations involved in imposing the planetary scheme. “A governmental entity may not enter into an agreement or contract with, accept money from, or grant money or other financial aid to a nongovernmental or intergovernmental organization accredited by the United Nations to implement a policy that originated in the Agenda 21 plan adopted by members of the United Nations at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992,” the bill explains.
While the legislation is not nearly as strong as Alabama’s ban on Agenda 21, supporters of the measure in Texas say it is a good start at the very least. If signed into law by popular Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a strong proponent of sovereignty, the measure would, among other points, restrict state and local officials’ funding or implementation of the UN scheme in the state. Sen. Hall, who introduced the Senate bill, said it targets “city organizations and cities that are adapting the UN programs.” Rep. White, meanwhile, sponsor of the legislation in the House, was quoted as saying that the measure would protect Texas and Texans from the “global agenda” propagated by “a handful of unelected, unaccountable people.”
Indeed, the UN’s Agenda 21 does represent a global agenda, and it is being advanced mostly by unelected and unaccountable forces — primarily from the shadows under misleading names, for now. First adopted at a UN “sustainability” summit in Brazil more than 20 years ago, the far-reaching agenda was described on the dictator-dominated global body’s website as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts [sic] on the environment.” To understand the scope of such an agenda, consider that the UN considers carbon dioxide — a gas exhaled by human beings and required by plants — to be a “pollutant” in need of regulation and taxes because it allegedly harms the environment. Indeed, literally every human activity has some impact on the environment.
Signed by then-President George H.W. Bush for the United States, Agenda 21 has never been ratified by two thirds of the U.S. Senate as constitutionally required to be valid. Still, using executive orders, grants, councils, public-private partnerships, taxpayer-funded “non-governmental organizations,” federal bureaucracies, and more, elements of the global agenda are being implemented all across America and worldwide. Local governments, too — particularly those involved with the Agenda 21-promoting outfit ICLEI — are implementing the UN-backed schemes in communities nationwide. Several Texas cities have withdrawn from ICLEI, but many of the state’s largest cities remain members.
Despite the threat of the scheme being downplayed by ignorant or agenda-driven reporters and UN supporters, proponents of Agenda 21 readily admit the massive scope of the global agenda. “You’re talking about a document that covers everything from healthy living, preventing child abuse, promoting public transportation,” Chris Whatley, executive director of the United Nations Association of the United States of America, was quoted as saying this week by the Texas Tribune. “If you specifically write a really big bill that says the state of Texas can’t work with any of those organizations and it can’t work with anything that’s included in that document, that 350-page set of suggestions, it could lead you into territory you don’t anticipate.” It was not clear why Whatley thought the UN, dominated by ruthless autocrats, should be involved in policymaking in Texas.
Even supporters of the legislation to rein in the UN scheme in Texas have suggested that pro-Agenda 21 officials may be able to find loopholes in the language to continue attacking private property rights and self-government. Indeed, with so many names and outfits being used to conceal Agenda 21’s tentacles in America, the bill may leave numerous avenues for continuing implementation of Agenda 21-linked schemes. Still, numerous Texas activists and leaders who spoke with The New American said the measure was worth supporting for a variety of reasons.
“I view this bill as another tool to help educate people on how the UN is exploiting environmentalism to gain control of communities,” said Frank Koch, the founder of Stop Agenda 21 Texas. “UN Agenda 21 is sold under such names as ‘smart growth’ or ‘sustainable development’ and offer benign suggestions like more bike paths and recycle programs to ‘save the earth,’ but the objective is to get UN tentacles and infrastructure in place for the future. As the tentacles become more powerful, the ideas morph into passing laws dealing with carbon taxes, limiting private property, and population control as a means to ‘save the earth.’ We Texans care about the environment, clean air, and using natural resources more efficiently, but we don't need the United Nations telling us what to do.”
Of course, notwithstanding the establishment media’s propaganda — some particularly deceptive UN supporters even dismiss the UN plan posted on its own website as a “conspiracy theory” — opposition to Agenda 21 is about as mainstream as can be. Consider that every state lawmaker in Alabama, including every Democrat, voted to ban the UN scheme across the state in 2012, and the governor signed the bill into law. Numerous other state legislatures and local governments have also passed bills and resolutions attacking the UN “sustainability” scheme as a dangerous anti-freedom program that must be opposed.
While many Democrats also oppose Agenda 21 — including the group Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 — opposition to the UN scheme is strongest among Republicans. The Republican National Committee, for example, adopted in 2012 its platform that specifically opposes Agenda 21 and a broad range of UN scheming. “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty,” the national GOP declared in its platform. The language echoed another national Republican Party resolution describing Agenda 21 as a scheme of “extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control” which would be “accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.”
The Texas Republican Party also officially opposes Agenda 21. In a 2012 resolution, the state party said Agenda 21 is “designed to destroy our fundamental rights and liberties as a people, hitherto enjoyed under our system of just government, in order to transform us from men made in the image of God to men re-made in the image of compelled beings, oppressed, having no acknowledged rights or liberties held inviolate; all designed by the enemies of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in order to reduce us to misery and bondage, without hope or God or natural moral absolutes.”
The people of Texas, the resolution observes, believe in “freedom and property and self-government under Nature and Nature’s God, and thoroughly reject the tyranny of globalism in the form of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development.” So, the party resolved to protect the God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution “in order that our fundamental rights and liberties shall be held inviolate forever, standing in opposition to all forms of religious, social, economic, and political globalism as set forth in the United Nations Agenda 21 Program.” All Texas Republicans are expected to follow the party’s lead. Countless states, counties, cities, and state Republican parties have also adopted resolutions with similar language.
Meanwhile, popular conservative U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has also been an outspoken opponent of Agenda 21. “Under the guise of world sustainability the plan establishes a regime of rules that attempt to bypass Congress and the American people, handing ... power over vast areas of the U.S. economy to unelected UN bureaucrats,” explained Cruz, widely viewed as a leading potential contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. “Agenda 21 is wrong, and it must be stopped.”
A separate Texas bill introduced by Republican State Sen. Donna Campbell takes aim at another UN scheme targeting the Lone Star State. Dubbed the “Protect the Alamo Act,” the legislation would protect the historic San Antonio mission turned fortress from the UN, which is considering the landmark for adoption as a so-called “UNESCO World Heritage Site.” Sen. Campbell was quoted by the Associated Press as warning that the UN scheming “could create a conflict regarding future management of the San Antonio landmark.”
Other states including Mississippi and Montana are also considering laws to protect citizens from Agenda 21 and its myriad tentacles. Alabama passed the toughest law yet against UN Agenda 21, the “Due Process for Property Rights Act,” that formally prohibits the adoption or implementation of any Agenda 21 schemes that infringe upon the right to private property. As outrage and awareness of the plan grow, analysts expect opposition to continue building.
Activists say numerous UN Agenda 21-linked plans, including what the UN calls a “bicycle sharing scheme” for “sustainable mobility,” have been and are being implemented in some areas of Texas. UN-inspired attacks on private property rights, water rights, rural land owners, and self-government under the guise of “sustainability” are unfolding nationwide. Whether Lone Star State lawmakers will take serious action to protect Texas and its citizens from the UN plan under all of its names, though, depends on how much Texans are willing to do to preserve their rights.
Following in the footsteps of officials in other states, lawmakers in Texas introduced legislation that would prohibit some state and local government participation in the deeply controversial United Nations “sustainability” scheme known as Agenda 21. With bills targeting the UN program introduced in both houses of the legislature and outrage about Agenda 21 still growing across Texas and the nation, activists and lawmakers are hopeful that the state will succeed in protecting property rights, self-government, and economic freedom from the Obama administration-backed UN scheme. However, elements of the establishment media and UN-loving forces in Texas and beyond have already made clear that they intend to fight back.
The anti-Agenda 21 legislation, filed last week by Republican State Representative Molly White in the House and GOP State Senator Bob Hall in the Senate as S.B. 445, take aim at state and local government funding to UN-linked organizations involved in imposing the planetary scheme. “A governmental entity may not enter into an agreement or contract with, accept money from, or grant money or other financial aid to a nongovernmental or intergovernmental organization accredited by the United Nations to implement a policy that originated in the Agenda 21 plan adopted by members of the United Nations at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992,” the bill explains.
While the legislation is not nearly as strong as Alabama’s ban on Agenda 21, supporters of the measure in Texas say it is a good start at the very least. If signed into law by popular Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a strong proponent of sovereignty, the measure would, among other points, restrict state and local officials’ funding or implementation of the UN scheme in the state. Sen. Hall, who introduced the Senate bill, said it targets “city organizations and cities that are adapting the UN programs.” Rep. White, meanwhile, sponsor of the legislation in the House, was quoted as saying that the measure would protect Texas and Texans from the “global agenda” propagated by “a handful of unelected, unaccountable people.”
Indeed, the UN’s Agenda 21 does represent a global agenda, and it is being advanced mostly by unelected and unaccountable forces — primarily from the shadows under misleading names, for now. First adopted at a UN “sustainability” summit in Brazil more than 20 years ago, the far-reaching agenda was described on the dictator-dominated global body’s website as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts [sic] on the environment.” To understand the scope of such an agenda, consider that the UN considers carbon dioxide — a gas exhaled by human beings and required by plants — to be a “pollutant” in need of regulation and taxes because it allegedly harms the environment. Indeed, literally every human activity has some impact on the environment.
Signed by then-President George H.W. Bush for the United States, Agenda 21 has never been ratified by two thirds of the U.S. Senate as constitutionally required to be valid. Still, using executive orders, grants, councils, public-private partnerships, taxpayer-funded “non-governmental organizations,” federal bureaucracies, and more, elements of the global agenda are being implemented all across America and worldwide. Local governments, too — particularly those involved with the Agenda 21-promoting outfit ICLEI — are implementing the UN-backed schemes in communities nationwide. Several Texas cities have withdrawn from ICLEI, but many of the state’s largest cities remain members.
Despite the threat of the scheme being downplayed by ignorant or agenda-driven reporters and UN supporters, proponents of Agenda 21 readily admit the massive scope of the global agenda. “You’re talking about a document that covers everything from healthy living, preventing child abuse, promoting public transportation,” Chris Whatley, executive director of the United Nations Association of the United States of America, was quoted as saying this week by the Texas Tribune. “If you specifically write a really big bill that says the state of Texas can’t work with any of those organizations and it can’t work with anything that’s included in that document, that 350-page set of suggestions, it could lead you into territory you don’t anticipate.” It was not clear why Whatley thought the UN, dominated by ruthless autocrats, should be involved in policymaking in Texas.
Even supporters of the legislation to rein in the UN scheme in Texas have suggested that pro-Agenda 21 officials may be able to find loopholes in the language to continue attacking private property rights and self-government. Indeed, with so many names and outfits being used to conceal Agenda 21’s tentacles in America, the bill may leave numerous avenues for continuing implementation of Agenda 21-linked schemes. Still, numerous Texas activists and leaders who spoke with The New American said the measure was worth supporting for a variety of reasons.
“I view this bill as another tool to help educate people on how the UN is exploiting environmentalism to gain control of communities,” said Frank Koch, the founder of Stop Agenda 21 Texas. “UN Agenda 21 is sold under such names as ‘smart growth’ or ‘sustainable development’ and offer benign suggestions like more bike paths and recycle programs to ‘save the earth,’ but the objective is to get UN tentacles and infrastructure in place for the future. As the tentacles become more powerful, the ideas morph into passing laws dealing with carbon taxes, limiting private property, and population control as a means to ‘save the earth.’ We Texans care about the environment, clean air, and using natural resources more efficiently, but we don't need the United Nations telling us what to do.”
Of course, notwithstanding the establishment media’s propaganda — some particularly deceptive UN supporters even dismiss the UN plan posted on its own website as a “conspiracy theory” — opposition to Agenda 21 is about as mainstream as can be. Consider that every state lawmaker in Alabama, including every Democrat, voted to ban the UN scheme across the state in 2012, and the governor signed the bill into law. Numerous other state legislatures and local governments have also passed bills and resolutions attacking the UN “sustainability” scheme as a dangerous anti-freedom program that must be opposed.
While many Democrats also oppose Agenda 21 — including the group Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 — opposition to the UN scheme is strongest among Republicans. The Republican National Committee, for example, adopted in 2012 its platform that specifically opposes Agenda 21 and a broad range of UN scheming. “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty,” the national GOP declared in its platform. The language echoed another national Republican Party resolution describing Agenda 21 as a scheme of “extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control” which would be “accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.”
The Texas Republican Party also officially opposes Agenda 21. In a 2012 resolution, the state party said Agenda 21 is “designed to destroy our fundamental rights and liberties as a people, hitherto enjoyed under our system of just government, in order to transform us from men made in the image of God to men re-made in the image of compelled beings, oppressed, having no acknowledged rights or liberties held inviolate; all designed by the enemies of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in order to reduce us to misery and bondage, without hope or God or natural moral absolutes.”
The people of Texas, the resolution observes, believe in “freedom and property and self-government under Nature and Nature’s God, and thoroughly reject the tyranny of globalism in the form of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development.” So, the party resolved to protect the God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution “in order that our fundamental rights and liberties shall be held inviolate forever, standing in opposition to all forms of religious, social, economic, and political globalism as set forth in the United Nations Agenda 21 Program.” All Texas Republicans are expected to follow the party’s lead. Countless states, counties, cities, and state Republican parties have also adopted resolutions with similar language.
Meanwhile, popular conservative U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has also been an outspoken opponent of Agenda 21. “Under the guise of world sustainability the plan establishes a regime of rules that attempt to bypass Congress and the American people, handing ... power over vast areas of the U.S. economy to unelected UN bureaucrats,” explained Cruz, widely viewed as a leading potential contender for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. “Agenda 21 is wrong, and it must be stopped.”
A separate Texas bill introduced by Republican State Sen. Donna Campbell takes aim at another UN scheme targeting the Lone Star State. Dubbed the “Protect the Alamo Act,” the legislation would protect the historic San Antonio mission turned fortress from the UN, which is considering the landmark for adoption as a so-called “UNESCO World Heritage Site.” Sen. Campbell was quoted by the Associated Press as warning that the UN scheming “could create a conflict regarding future management of the San Antonio landmark.”
Other states including Mississippi and Montana are also considering laws to protect citizens from Agenda 21 and its myriad tentacles. Alabama passed the toughest law yet against UN Agenda 21, the “Due Process for Property Rights Act,” that formally prohibits the adoption or implementation of any Agenda 21 schemes that infringe upon the right to private property. As outrage and awareness of the plan grow, analysts expect opposition to continue building.
Activists say numerous UN Agenda 21-linked plans, including what the UN calls a “bicycle sharing scheme” for “sustainable mobility,” have been and are being implemented in some areas of Texas. UN-inspired attacks on private property rights, water rights, rural land owners, and self-government under the guise of “sustainability” are unfolding nationwide. Whether Lone Star State lawmakers will take serious action to protect Texas and its citizens from the UN plan under all of its names, though, depends on how much Texans are willing to do to preserve their rights.
Britain Funding Separateness, Not Integration
Small Heath School, which has a majority of Muslim pupils, is one of a number of Birmingham schools censured by Ofsted after investigations found a "narrowing of the curriculum."
The journalist Andrew Gilligan suggests that concerns over Small Heath School have sparked fears of a "resurgence of the 'Trojan Horse' plot," a concerted attempt by Islamist groups to infiltrate and Islamize British schools. The plot was first uncovered in 2013. A government report into the accusations, published in 2014, concluded that there had been a "co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamist ethos into some schools in the city."
Shanaz Khan, the head teacher of Small Heath School, was previously the deputy head teacher in Cardiff of Cathays High School, which was attended by two British jihadists before they headed off to Syria to fight with ISIS.
At the Cardiff school, Islamic preachers taught children that music and contact between boys and girls were "not permitted in Islam." According to Gilligan,
Would anyone have predicted, before the Trojan Horse plot was revealed in 2013, that a conspiracy to impose hard-line Islamic beliefs could possibly exist within the British education system?
Well, yes. The influence of extremist Islam within some British schools was hardly a secret. As far back as 1996, The Independent reported that British schools with large numbers of Muslim pupils were already providing for hard-line Islamic practises. The article reveals, in fact, that at the very same Small Heath School,
As early as 2002, a spokesperson for a community group of South Asian women in London stated: "We believe that single faith schools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and our communities as a whole."
In 2004, the British Muslim writer and activist, Manzoor Moghal, warned that by providing taxpayer funding for segregated Islamic schools, and by accommodating the demands of Islamic lobby groups for "substantial changes in the culture, teaching methods, and even the curriculum of mainstream state schools," Britain risked encouraging "ignorance, hatred and violent conflict."
After the bombings of the London underground in 2005, the media's attention focused quickly on the problem of extremism in schools and universities. Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary at that time, declared that Islamic schools that encouraged "isolationism" and extremism would be shut down. A number of documentaries produced secretly-recorded footage of teachers at British Islamic schools "teaching pupils as young as 11 years of age contempt for other religions and wider society." In 2006, The Times reported that students at an Iranian regime-linked Islamic school in London were being taught to regard non-Muslims as "filth," and Jews and Christians likened to pigs and dogs.
In 2009, David Cameron, then the leader of the opposition, asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown why schools run by Hizb ut-Tahrir -- an Islamist organization that promotes violence against Jews and the West -- had received £113,000 of government money.
Also in 2009, the author and academic Dr. Denis MacEoin wrote a report on Britain's Islamic schools. It found evidence that a number of Muslim schools were linked to extreme Islamist networks and employed teachers who promoted, in addition to anti-Semitism, hatred towards women and the West.
In 2010, the Secretary of Education, Michael Gove, stated, "in both Surrey and Birmingham there were genuine dangers due to extremist influence in state schools."
In 2012, the Daily Telegraph reported that a "secret memo" published by the Department for Education warned that officials were "struggling to tackle extremism in state and private schools."
The Telegraph further revealed that the government was unable to cope because officials and ministers did not have "detailed information about the religious orientation of the groups and movements behind all independent faith schools."
Warnings of Islamic extremism, a pervasive threat in Britain, were ignored until the problem became widespread.
Although, for instance, the government and the Charity Commission have finally started to investigate the large number of British charities running aid convoys to Syria, Gatestone Institute revealed two years ago that these charities were linked to extremist groups and glorifying Islamist terrorists such as Anwar Al-Awlaki.
Similarly, in 2014, although the Home Secretary Theresa May announced that the government was working to stop extremist broadcasts on Islamic television stations, her announcement came more than five years after the Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim think-tank, issued warnings about the problem.
Moreover, although Prime Minister David Cameron announced in 2011 that the government would no longer give counter-extremism funds to hard-line Islamic groups, other politicians and commentators had repeatedly warned about this problem years earlier.
Why, then, do these corrosive influences remain ignored for so long?
Even though not directly connected to Islamic extremism, in the case of Rotherham, a small town in England, an independent inquiry which examined the sexual abuse of children by gangs of Pakistani men, concluded that the problem was ignored for years because local government officials were "lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion."
The same pattern of misconduct is possibly even more true when it comes to the problem of Islamic extremism. With schools, it seems, successive governments, out of fear of being accused of insulting Britain's Muslim community, have largely ignored the problem of Muslim schools indoctrinating young children with extremist views.
In 2001, in Birmingham, an elected councillor, James Hutchings, said that state-funded Islamic schools would only encourage segregation. He argued that, "[school] inspections might not be as vigorous as they should be due to pressure from race relations interests."
The authorities' fears have been played on by a number of Islamist-run Muslim community groups. Among these was the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which insisted in a 2007 report that Islamic faith schools were, in fact, a bulwark against "Islamophobia."
This Muslim Council of Britain report turns out to have been written by Tahir Alam, since identified as the ringleader of the "Trojan Horse" plot.
In 2004, a similar report, produced by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, stated that a failure to show "greater sensitivity to the concerns and needs of Muslims," especially in the education sector, would lead to increased levels of "Islamophobia" and greater hostility towards Muslims.
Manzoor Moghal again points to the government's policies of multiculturalism to explain the authorities' failure to challenge the growth of Islamist extremism in schools: "Instead of greater integration, this political creed has promoted separatism by emphasising differences and encouraging minority ethnic groups to cling to the customs of their homeland. In Birmingham, this has resulted in the rejection of western values by the governing bodies of too many Muslim-dominated schools."
Britain's multiculturalism doctrine was introduced with good intentions. Its failures, however, have outweighed its benefits. Increasingly, segregated religious communities receive state funds in order to remain separate. That extremists would gain a foothold seems inevitable.
It seems high time for the British government to re-think its financial support for religious communities, before extremist networks become more deeply embedded in other public institutions.
Some commentators have made the reasonable argument that the government should leave religion out of the state-school system entirely. It is clear that a public education system that fails to maintain the separation of church and state offers little, but risks a lot.
The Church of England and the Jewish community, however, would vigorously protest such a proposal. One third of state-funded schools in England, in fact "are legally designated with a religious character."
The most immediate solution, perhaps, is reform to school governance. The Trojan Horse plot demonstrated that extremist groups face few obstacles when appointing school governors, employing teachers with extremist links, or enforcing and teaching hard-line Islamic values.
By diluting the absolute power of school governors, local authorities and parents could serve to temper any hard-line ambitions. In addition, the Education Secretary could be given the discretionary power to veto particular school policies or preclude certain applicants from becoming governors or teachers. Organizations with extremist links could be barred from establishing schools or being involved in their management.
There may be no simple solutions, but Britain's multiculturalism trap is not a simple problem. Ultimately, there needs to be change.
Increasingly, segregated religious communities receive state funds in order to remain separate. That extremists would gain a foothold seems inevitable.The Daily Telegraph reports that the British education watchdog, Ofsted, has placed yet another British school "in special measures... with its head and governors likely to be removed."
"We believe that single faith schools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and our communities as a whole." — Spokesperson for South Asian Women in London, 2002.
"Instead of greater integration, this political creed [multiculturalism] has promoted separatism by emphasising differences and encouraging minority ethnic groups to cling to the customs of their homeland. In Birmingham, this has resulted in the rejection of western values by the governing bodies of too many Muslim-dominated schools." — Manzoor Moghal, British Muslim writer and activist.
Britain's multicultural doctrine was introduced with good intentions. Its failures, however, have outweighed its benefits.
Small Heath School, which has a majority of Muslim pupils, is one of a number of Birmingham schools censured by Ofsted after investigations found a "narrowing of the curriculum."
The journalist Andrew Gilligan suggests that concerns over Small Heath School have sparked fears of a "resurgence of the 'Trojan Horse' plot," a concerted attempt by Islamist groups to infiltrate and Islamize British schools. The plot was first uncovered in 2013. A government report into the accusations, published in 2014, concluded that there had been a "co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamist ethos into some schools in the city."
Shanaz Khan, the head teacher of Small Heath School, was previously the deputy head teacher in Cardiff of Cathays High School, which was attended by two British jihadists before they headed off to Syria to fight with ISIS.
At the Cardiff school, Islamic preachers taught children that music and contact between boys and girls were "not permitted in Islam." According to Gilligan,
"Shanaz Khan, the new head teacher, who started in September, was heavily backed by several of the key plotters in Trojan Horse, which drove out non-Muslim head teachers and imposed hard-line Islamic practices at a number of state schools in Birmingham."
Small Heath School and its head teacher, Shanaz Khan.
|
Would anyone have predicted, before the Trojan Horse plot was revealed in 2013, that a conspiracy to impose hard-line Islamic beliefs could possibly exist within the British education system?
Well, yes. The influence of extremist Islam within some British schools was hardly a secret. As far back as 1996, The Independent reported that British schools with large numbers of Muslim pupils were already providing for hard-line Islamic practises. The article reveals, in fact, that at the very same Small Heath School,
"Muslim governors are increasingly making demands. For example, Islamic law forbids drawing the human form... Some parents also object to the use of musical instruments in music lessons, fearing their connection with pop music and Western youth culture, which they see as riddled with sex and drugs. There have even been requests for separate play areas and separate classes for boys and girls."It turns out, in fact, that the topic of Islamic extremism in British schools has been known about and discussed for decades. In 1993, a teacher at Park View School in Birmingham told the local authorities that the school's board of governors was "taken over by a Muslim sect." In 2013, Park View School was named as one of the schools that fell victim to the Trojan Horse plot.
As early as 2002, a spokesperson for a community group of South Asian women in London stated: "We believe that single faith schools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and our communities as a whole."
In 2004, the British Muslim writer and activist, Manzoor Moghal, warned that by providing taxpayer funding for segregated Islamic schools, and by accommodating the demands of Islamic lobby groups for "substantial changes in the culture, teaching methods, and even the curriculum of mainstream state schools," Britain risked encouraging "ignorance, hatred and violent conflict."
After the bombings of the London underground in 2005, the media's attention focused quickly on the problem of extremism in schools and universities. Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary at that time, declared that Islamic schools that encouraged "isolationism" and extremism would be shut down. A number of documentaries produced secretly-recorded footage of teachers at British Islamic schools "teaching pupils as young as 11 years of age contempt for other religions and wider society." In 2006, The Times reported that students at an Iranian regime-linked Islamic school in London were being taught to regard non-Muslims as "filth," and Jews and Christians likened to pigs and dogs.
In 2009, David Cameron, then the leader of the opposition, asked Prime Minister Gordon Brown why schools run by Hizb ut-Tahrir -- an Islamist organization that promotes violence against Jews and the West -- had received £113,000 of government money.
Also in 2009, the author and academic Dr. Denis MacEoin wrote a report on Britain's Islamic schools. It found evidence that a number of Muslim schools were linked to extreme Islamist networks and employed teachers who promoted, in addition to anti-Semitism, hatred towards women and the West.
In 2010, the Secretary of Education, Michael Gove, stated, "in both Surrey and Birmingham there were genuine dangers due to extremist influence in state schools."
In 2012, the Daily Telegraph reported that a "secret memo" published by the Department for Education warned that officials were "struggling to tackle extremism in state and private schools."
The Telegraph further revealed that the government was unable to cope because officials and ministers did not have "detailed information about the religious orientation of the groups and movements behind all independent faith schools."
Warnings of Islamic extremism, a pervasive threat in Britain, were ignored until the problem became widespread.
Although, for instance, the government and the Charity Commission have finally started to investigate the large number of British charities running aid convoys to Syria, Gatestone Institute revealed two years ago that these charities were linked to extremist groups and glorifying Islamist terrorists such as Anwar Al-Awlaki.
Similarly, in 2014, although the Home Secretary Theresa May announced that the government was working to stop extremist broadcasts on Islamic television stations, her announcement came more than five years after the Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim think-tank, issued warnings about the problem.
Moreover, although Prime Minister David Cameron announced in 2011 that the government would no longer give counter-extremism funds to hard-line Islamic groups, other politicians and commentators had repeatedly warned about this problem years earlier.
Why, then, do these corrosive influences remain ignored for so long?
Even though not directly connected to Islamic extremism, in the case of Rotherham, a small town in England, an independent inquiry which examined the sexual abuse of children by gangs of Pakistani men, concluded that the problem was ignored for years because local government officials were "lacking the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or upsetting community cohesion."
The same pattern of misconduct is possibly even more true when it comes to the problem of Islamic extremism. With schools, it seems, successive governments, out of fear of being accused of insulting Britain's Muslim community, have largely ignored the problem of Muslim schools indoctrinating young children with extremist views.
In 2001, in Birmingham, an elected councillor, James Hutchings, said that state-funded Islamic schools would only encourage segregation. He argued that, "[school] inspections might not be as vigorous as they should be due to pressure from race relations interests."
The authorities' fears have been played on by a number of Islamist-run Muslim community groups. Among these was the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which insisted in a 2007 report that Islamic faith schools were, in fact, a bulwark against "Islamophobia."
This Muslim Council of Britain report turns out to have been written by Tahir Alam, since identified as the ringleader of the "Trojan Horse" plot.
In 2004, a similar report, produced by the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, stated that a failure to show "greater sensitivity to the concerns and needs of Muslims," especially in the education sector, would lead to increased levels of "Islamophobia" and greater hostility towards Muslims.
Manzoor Moghal again points to the government's policies of multiculturalism to explain the authorities' failure to challenge the growth of Islamist extremism in schools: "Instead of greater integration, this political creed has promoted separatism by emphasising differences and encouraging minority ethnic groups to cling to the customs of their homeland. In Birmingham, this has resulted in the rejection of western values by the governing bodies of too many Muslim-dominated schools."
Britain's multiculturalism doctrine was introduced with good intentions. Its failures, however, have outweighed its benefits. Increasingly, segregated religious communities receive state funds in order to remain separate. That extremists would gain a foothold seems inevitable.
It seems high time for the British government to re-think its financial support for religious communities, before extremist networks become more deeply embedded in other public institutions.
Some commentators have made the reasonable argument that the government should leave religion out of the state-school system entirely. It is clear that a public education system that fails to maintain the separation of church and state offers little, but risks a lot.
The Church of England and the Jewish community, however, would vigorously protest such a proposal. One third of state-funded schools in England, in fact "are legally designated with a religious character."
The most immediate solution, perhaps, is reform to school governance. The Trojan Horse plot demonstrated that extremist groups face few obstacles when appointing school governors, employing teachers with extremist links, or enforcing and teaching hard-line Islamic values.
By diluting the absolute power of school governors, local authorities and parents could serve to temper any hard-line ambitions. In addition, the Education Secretary could be given the discretionary power to veto particular school policies or preclude certain applicants from becoming governors or teachers. Organizations with extremist links could be barred from establishing schools or being involved in their management.
There may be no simple solutions, but Britain's multiculturalism trap is not a simple problem. Ultimately, there needs to be change.
Hate Crimes: US Lynches the Facts
Since the beginning of this year, we have had, alongside the usual violence aimed at the Jewish state, the targeting of Jews in Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen. In all instances, the sites were targeted because they were likely to have Jews.
Unfortunately, the leader of the free world, U.S. President Barack Obama, among others, seems loath to acknowledge this fact. Just recently, he described the Paris terrorists as "a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." There are not many ways in which it is possible to see the targeting of a kosher store in Paris as "random." But with U.S. administration spokesmen trying to pretend that the victims in that shop were not likely to be Jews, it would be surprising if they simply lacked the information. It was, in fact, a heroic Muslim worker, Lassana Bathily, who risked his life to save the lives of several Jews by hiding them in the basement freezer, which he shut off before going back upstairs.
It is probably not out of ignorance that the administration tries not to focus on the religious dimension of the recent terrorist attacks -- which also include members of ISIS in Libya slitting the throats of 21 Egyptian Christians because, the ISIS members said, the kidnapped men were Christians -- but rather for fear of what the general public might do with this information.
Because if you view your public as a lynch-mob-in-waiting, as so many Western leaders seem to do, then you assume you must do everything you can to restrain them from perpetrating constant acts of violence against Muslims.
If that is your view of your public, then talking about "random" folks being shot is the sort of circumlocution you will select.
Should you wish to address the problem, you might call together a summit aimed at tackling "violent extremism." But the whole exercise must continuously be directed away from identifying the problem. The Jews cannot have been targeted because they were Jews, because if they were, then you may find yourself having to explain the ideology that propels the killers.
However, in this era of motive-avoiding, sometimes a terrible crime is committed that the selfsame people who duck naming one set of victims and perpetrators seem eager -- even determined -- to identify a different set of victims and perpetrators. Take the brutal murder of three young Americans last month in Chapel Hill. To date, it appears that the neighbor who killed them, crazy though he must be, did this terrible deed because of a parking dispute. That is the basis on which the police were working, and it appears to be the view of those who were close to the perpetrator.
However, after the Chapel Hill shootings quite a different story arose -- similar to what happened after the shooting of Trayvon Martin by a "white hispanic," and the shooting of a back young man in Ferguson by a white policeman, both of which cases triggered their own potential lynch-mobs.
It is important to stress that the Chapel Hill case has not been concluded yet. But it is equally important to stress that, because the three victims were Muslim, within seconds of news of the shooting, social media erupted with claims that this was a "hate crime," and hashtags such as, "#MuslimLivesMatter" started to trend on Twitter.
The father of one of the victims said that the police, who claimed the shooting was over a parking spot, were wrong, and that this was a hate-crime perpetrated solely because the victims were Muslim. The perpetrator's apparent atheism, stated on his Facebook page, was used immediately to not only explain the crime, but as a stick to hit anyone who shares the perpetrator's atheism. Crowds, which gathered for rallies in Chapel Hill and later at the funeral of the victims, insisted that the police must treat these crimes as hate crimes motivated by religious hatred. The police are now under serious pressure to attribute the crime to causes other than those they may actually think to be the case.
And just to help pile on that pressure, and lead the mob spirit, the White House helpfully released a statement from the President saying:
Here is the problem: There are many difficulties with "hate-crimes" legislation. But one of the worst is that it turns the law from being blind into being a tool that can be used not only to drive home a political vision, but one that be used to ignore and even lobby to change facts. Instead of being the instrument that upholds justice on behalf of all of us, the law becomes an instrument for special-interest groups to pursue each other -- and anybody else -- to see not just events, but crimes, in whatever light they wish.
This is the disturbing trend that seems to have fed into these moments of Presidential blindness.
The facts on Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen are largely in. The facts on Chapel Hill are not. While many people seem not to want to recognize when Jews are killed for being Jews, the truth is that a very great number of people appear to want Muslims or Blacks, when they are killed, to have been murdered because they were Muslims or Blacks.
If you cannot work out why that might be, then you cannot possibly crack why we are currently failing the ideological challenge of our time
The police are now under serious pressure -- as they were in the cases of Trayvon Martin and "Ferguson" -- to attribute the crime to causes other than those they may actually think to be the case.Which racial or religious "hate crimes" do you choose to identify? And which do you not? That is a question with which the U.S. government and wider society seem to be struggling. In the process, they are revealing far more about their own worldview than they can possibly intend.
There are many difficulties with "hate crimes" legislation. But one of the worst is that it turns the law from being blind into being a tool that can be used not only to drive home a political vision, but one that can be used to ignore and even lobby to change facts.
While a lot of people seem not to want to recognize when Jews are killed as Jews, the truth is that a very great number of people appear to want Muslims or Blacks, when they are killed, to have been murdered because they were Muslims or Blacks.
This is the disturbing trend that seems to have fed into these moments of Presidential blindness.
Since the beginning of this year, we have had, alongside the usual violence aimed at the Jewish state, the targeting of Jews in Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen. In all instances, the sites were targeted because they were likely to have Jews.
Unfortunately, the leader of the free world, U.S. President Barack Obama, among others, seems loath to acknowledge this fact. Just recently, he described the Paris terrorists as "a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris." There are not many ways in which it is possible to see the targeting of a kosher store in Paris as "random." But with U.S. administration spokesmen trying to pretend that the victims in that shop were not likely to be Jews, it would be surprising if they simply lacked the information. It was, in fact, a heroic Muslim worker, Lassana Bathily, who risked his life to save the lives of several Jews by hiding them in the basement freezer, which he shut off before going back upstairs.
It is probably not out of ignorance that the administration tries not to focus on the religious dimension of the recent terrorist attacks -- which also include members of ISIS in Libya slitting the throats of 21 Egyptian Christians because, the ISIS members said, the kidnapped men were Christians -- but rather for fear of what the general public might do with this information.
Because if you view your public as a lynch-mob-in-waiting, as so many Western leaders seem to do, then you assume you must do everything you can to restrain them from perpetrating constant acts of violence against Muslims.
If that is your view of your public, then talking about "random" folks being shot is the sort of circumlocution you will select.
Should you wish to address the problem, you might call together a summit aimed at tackling "violent extremism." But the whole exercise must continuously be directed away from identifying the problem. The Jews cannot have been targeted because they were Jews, because if they were, then you may find yourself having to explain the ideology that propels the killers.
However, in this era of motive-avoiding, sometimes a terrible crime is committed that the selfsame people who duck naming one set of victims and perpetrators seem eager -- even determined -- to identify a different set of victims and perpetrators. Take the brutal murder of three young Americans last month in Chapel Hill. To date, it appears that the neighbor who killed them, crazy though he must be, did this terrible deed because of a parking dispute. That is the basis on which the police were working, and it appears to be the view of those who were close to the perpetrator.
However, after the Chapel Hill shootings quite a different story arose -- similar to what happened after the shooting of Trayvon Martin by a "white hispanic," and the shooting of a back young man in Ferguson by a white policeman, both of which cases triggered their own potential lynch-mobs.
It is important to stress that the Chapel Hill case has not been concluded yet. But it is equally important to stress that, because the three victims were Muslim, within seconds of news of the shooting, social media erupted with claims that this was a "hate crime," and hashtags such as, "#MuslimLivesMatter" started to trend on Twitter.
The father of one of the victims said that the police, who claimed the shooting was over a parking spot, were wrong, and that this was a hate-crime perpetrated solely because the victims were Muslim. The perpetrator's apparent atheism, stated on his Facebook page, was used immediately to not only explain the crime, but as a stick to hit anyone who shares the perpetrator's atheism. Crowds, which gathered for rallies in Chapel Hill and later at the funeral of the victims, insisted that the police must treat these crimes as hate crimes motivated by religious hatred. The police are now under serious pressure to attribute the crime to causes other than those they may actually think to be the case.
And just to help pile on that pressure, and lead the mob spirit, the White House helpfully released a statement from the President saying:
"Yesterday, the FBI opened an inquiry into the brutal and outrageous murders of Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, Deah Shaddy Barakat, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. In addition to the ongoing investigation by local authorities, the FBI is taking steps to determine whether federal laws were violated. No one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are, what they look like, or how they worship."Indeed. Nor should anyone be killed because of how or where they park their car.
Here is the problem: There are many difficulties with "hate-crimes" legislation. But one of the worst is that it turns the law from being blind into being a tool that can be used not only to drive home a political vision, but one that be used to ignore and even lobby to change facts. Instead of being the instrument that upholds justice on behalf of all of us, the law becomes an instrument for special-interest groups to pursue each other -- and anybody else -- to see not just events, but crimes, in whatever light they wish.
Which is a hate crime, and which is "random folks"? Left: Survivors of the terrorist attack on the kosher Hyper Cacher supermarket in Paris flee the store, as police move in. Right: The three victims who were murdered by their neighbor in Chapel Hill.
|
This is the disturbing trend that seems to have fed into these moments of Presidential blindness.
The facts on Brussels, Paris and Copenhagen are largely in. The facts on Chapel Hill are not. While many people seem not to want to recognize when Jews are killed for being Jews, the truth is that a very great number of people appear to want Muslims or Blacks, when they are killed, to have been murdered because they were Muslims or Blacks.
If you cannot work out why that might be, then you cannot possibly crack why we are currently failing the ideological challenge of our time
World history
of Abolitionism
Today Feb 27, 2015 Thursday at 11:00am PST call-in
at (347) 826-7353
When thinking about the history of slavery one tends to
think about the abolitionist movement. Generally speaking when we thing about
this movement we tend to think about the Quakers and their impact in the USA and perhaps
beyond and rightly so.
While it’s true the Quakers did much toward ending slavery I
content the abolitionist movement started about the time Jesus of Nazareth
ascended into Heaven. Paul’s Epistle to Timothy clearly illustrates the picture
of a disdain for owning a human being.
Paul explains whey we have the law;
“the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers
and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for murderers,
for the sexually immoral, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for
whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel. (I
paraphrase).
This then becomes a clarion call to the world actually that
slavery was an abomination to God. That as Christians we can not abide by a
person owning another person. This of course was taken seriously by both
believers and non believers alike. To the non believer who owned slaves he saw
an enemy of his enterprises. To the believer they came to truly understand what
Paul meant when he said;
In speaking to the
Athenians, Paul stated that God "has made from one blood every nation of
men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their
preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings" (Acts 17:26). We
are all descendants of Adam. While we are divided between different nations and
languages, we are all the same -- human beings created by the hand of God.
Or when Christians thought about the letter to the Galatians
stating in Galatians 3:28; There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and
female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Or the reason we find in Genesis 1:21; So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created
them. So here in the very beginning of the Bible we see that God said he
created man in his own image. Can you imagine this image in the form of a
slave? Then Jesus said something just as important; All people can enter the
kingdom of heaven that believe on him as the “Son of God – all people.
I must point out that for the sake of this discussion the
fact that you believe or do not believe is a moot point. What is not a moot point is this; people all
over the world came to believe in Christ and the bible. As a result they knew
that if we were all the same to God no person could own such a person. This
they knew and they kicked against the idea of slavery from that day on.
Let’s take a look at Europe just a few short years before
our Revolutionary war and look at some Christian thinkers and their views on
slavery. A good place to start would be the Parliament in England and one
William Wilberforce.
Early Christian on Abolitionism
William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was an
English politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the
slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political
career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for
Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became
an evangelical Christian, which resulted in major changes to his lifestyle and
a lifelong concern for reform.
In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a
group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and
Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of
abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He
headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for
twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807.
We’ll then return to our own country beginning with the
Declaration of Independence founding fathers and on we’ll go until slavery was
finally ended in the USA. It is worth pointing out that at no point was slavery
ended in certain Middle Eastern countries to this day. I maintain that in parts
of the continent of Africa it remains a problem to this day. Why then do we
hear so much about the fact that there were I repeat were slaves in the USA but
no one ever talks about the countries that have slavery to this day. That
question needs an answer and soon!
WHERE ARE THE TRUE CHRISTIANS : are we fighting or are we sleeping?
Sunday march 1, 2015 at 12:00noontime PST if, YOU are a Christian stand- up today, stand- up
for OUR LORD... we must help our brothers and sisters...Here is number to
call-in at (347) 826-7353
Muslims Go On Christian-Killing Spree ... Christians wind up
being killed. ... As we remain completely silent while genocide of Christians
is going on...
President Barack Obama is itching to go to war in Syria over
the deaths of Muslim "rebels," many of whom are members of al-Qaida
and their supporters.
Yet, there is a virtual genocide going on in Syria and other
parts of the Muslim world against Christians, with churches targeted by bombs
and missiles or simply burnt to the ground.
Christians have been beaten, raped and murdered in the most
gruesome ways, including the dismembering of a young girl while she was still
alive.
Christians are dying at the hands of Muslims wherever Islam
has the upper hand, and the last two administrations have done nothing but
aggravate the situation. Consider, also,
while Obama brings into this (once) Christian nation as many Islamists as he
can, Christians are being slaughtered under the noses of U.N. “Peace Keepers”
in many places in Africa and in every country affected by the Muslim Spring
where U.S. policy has been to back the Islamists over dictators who were much
more friendly to Christian citizens.
Message from Christian’s youth to his #Eminence Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah
His Eminence Sayyed,
we are a group of Christians youth... we are fed up seeing our people, our
religion are being killed, our archbishops being kidnapped, our girls being
raped and the Cross instilled in their mouths by the hands of these barbarians,
the #Salafis and #Takfiris
who are not related to Islam in anything. The smell of death is smelting from
everywhere. They are bringing destruction to our Middle East and all this is
happening under the eyes of United Nations and the Christian of Europe
America: Cockroaches, Fleas and
Leeches
march 3, 2015 at
5:00PM PST if, you are not happy with your government then call-in at in at
(347) 826-7353
Cockroaches is the Government
Cockroaches are insects of which about 30 species out of
4,600l are associated with human habitats. About four species are well known as
pests.
Among the best-known pest species are the American cockroach,
the German cockroach, the Asian cockroach, Tropical cockroaches
Cockroaches live in a wide range of environments around the
world. Pest species adapt readily to a variety of environments, but prefer warm
conditions found within buildings. Many tropical species prefer even warmer
environments and do not fare well in the average household.
Cockroaches are mainly nocturnal[10] and will run away when
exposed to light. A peculiar exception is the Asian cockroach, which is
attracted to light.
Fleas are the programs
They are wingless, with mouthparts adapted for piercing skin
and sucking blood. Fleas are external parasites, living by hematophagy off the
blood..
Going through the four life cycle stages of egg, larva,
pupa, and imago (adult). Adult fleas must feed on blood before they can become
capable of reproduction
Leeches are
bankers
leeches are small parasitic, Not all leeches are
bloodsuckers. Many are predators which eat earthworms,
The Amazon leech uses a different method of sucking blood.
It inserts a long proboscis into the victim, as opposed to biting.
8. The bite of a leech is painless, due to
its own anaesthetic.
9. The Hirudo leech injects an
anti-coagulant serum into the victim to prevent the blood clotting.
10. The leech will gorge itself until it has
had its fill and then just fall off.
11. The leech will gorge itself up to five
times its body weight.
12. The first leech was used in medicine about
1000 B.C., probably in ancient India.
13. In the past, people would stand in the
lakes and pools dotted around the country and when the leeches attached to
their legs they would put them in baskets and sell them. Today the Hirudo leech
is an endangered species.
14. The original surgeons were barbers and they
used leeches to cure anything from headaches to gout!
15. The nervous system of the leech is very
similar to the human nervous system and is an enormous benefit to researchers
in their quest for the answers to human problems.
16. The nearest relatives of leeches are
earthworms.
17. Leeches can bite through a hippo's hide!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)