I really appreciated your effort on trying to clarify your opinion regarding the islamic insurance model (Takaful). However, I think I need to add some comments regarding your article:

1. you mentioned that: “Sharia is a legal codification of the political ideology of Islamic supremacism. This Sharia legal codification is intended to enforce discriminatory and segregationist practices against women and non-Muslims and to suppress the liberties of those living in Islamic theocracies”

Comments: I think you have wrong ideas about Shariah especially in Insurance. The Takaful model does not have anything to do with islamic supremacism or discriminatory and segregationist practices against women and non-Muslims. It is just alternative or one of the avilable model that have been applied worldwide. for more information regarding Takaful model, go to IAIS-International Association of Insurance Supervisors website: http://www.iaisweb.org/

tou will find many articles and papers on the Takaful models which show you more details about this subject.

2. you claimed that “the European Court of Human Rights determined that Sharia law was incompatible with democracy and human rights. The President of the European Court of Human Rights stated that “the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention… Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia…”. Even British courts have ruled that Sharia is “discriminatory.”

Comment: I think this is not true because most of the well known insurance and reinsurance companies in Europe are offering islamic finance and mainly Takaful. HSBC, Hanover re,….etc name any well known company and you will find that they are offering or planning to offer islamic insurance products.

Finally, I really think there are many points that you already mentioned are not true at all. However, I think the islamophobia is the main issue here. I think you need to go back to the model and look from an objective angle and then you will see the difference. Also, the islamic products is an optional and AIG is targeting specifc clients and AIG takes it as away of diversfication. Anyway, I wish you the best.

Regards,

EFFECTIVELY SECURE OUR BORDERS, NOW!

When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama, not being an Article II “natural born citizen”, fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.

The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, should seem obvious.

If you are offended by a picture…then have a good look at these fine examples of teachers.

It’s time to Lock ‘N Load!!!!!!

Happy New Year America.

I’m moving to Amsterdam.

From: pubrec@u.washington.edu [mailto:pubrec@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Stanley “Ann” Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registration

Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham (BHO II’s mom) was enrolled at the University of Washington for:

Autumn 1961
Winter 1962
Spring 1962

The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.

Madolyne Lawson
Office of Public Records
206-543-9180

From: Stuart Lau [mailto:stuartl@hawaii.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008
Subject: Re: Inquiry

The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
Dates of attendance:
Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963 - Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Summer 1976
Spring 1978
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992

Degrees awarded:
BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)

Sincerely, Stuart Lau
****************************************
Stuart Lau
University Registrar
Office of Admissions and Records
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Ph: (808) 956-8010
****************************************

Commentary on University Emails:

For the BHO II Hawaiian Aug 4 1961 COLB to be accurate the following improbable events needed to occur:

1 month after starting classes, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mom, at age 17, got pregnant by the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.
2 months after getting pregnant, she drops out of college.
3 months after getting pregnant, she marries BHO Sr.
10 months after her first day at the U of HI, she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.
Stanley Ann Dunham does not return to Hawaii until AFTER BHO Sr left the islands for Harvard.

This is an implausible series of events made even more nefarious because Obama II in his 2 bio books never mentions his mom left Hawaii when she was married to BHO Sr, nor does he mention she was in Washington State during this time.

Barack’s sister was born in Indonesia, and has a COLB from Hawaii like Obama II. She is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the USA as required by the Constitution to become president…and Obama probably isn’t either.

SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.

The problem with Shariah is that there is not a law book, it’ more interpretation. Here are some examples
Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped, Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives, Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye, Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off, Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed(damn what about man love Thursday?), Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death, Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

Islamic Finance not promoting terrorism or inequality of human right as you mention.

Islamic Finance is a way of doing business (banking & financing services) with a high gratitude & norm based on Shariah (Islamic Law)

Fyi, Islamic Finance has been accepted in major advance countries without prejudice and spurs parallel with conventional side.

Islamic Finance is difference from your capitalism banking system at the law and ethic which govern both system.

I hope you will take some time to learn the Islamic Banking & Finance to brace an up-front knowledge and use it with responsibility.

Regard.

I can’t disagree that this seems extremely heavy handed considering it appears to be a simple licensing complaint.

Notice it says “Propose Amendments,” not rewrite the U.S. Constitution.

Article Five of the United States Constitution provides an option to assemble a national Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution as an alternative to the process of securing two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress.

Congress’ approval rating stands at an all-time low of 9%; it’s a group of Old Cronies no longer doing the will of “We The People…”.

The history of the Convention as a means of altering the fundamental law of a nation is documented in “Prelude to the Grand Convention,” the first chapter of a book published in 1988 by Oxford University Press. The author, Russell Caplin, notes that the prototype for a constitutional convention was the convocation at Runnymede in 1215, which created the Magna Carta.

Against oppressive government of any kind, the authors of the United States Constitution sought to establish institutional checks and balances. In framing the Constitution as the fundamental embodiment of such safeguards, the “Grand Convention” (assembled in Philadelphia, 1787) anticipated that, at some point, amending the basic law of the land might become necessary and yet be squelched by an unresponsive Congress. Foreseeing a day when the long-term health of the nation could depend upon a process that empowered states to secure amendments over the opposition of the national government, the delegates to the grand convention made provision for a future convention.

…an Article V Convention

When two-thirds of the state legislatures shall apply - in the same procedure as they would follow for passing a law - then Article V of the Constitution requires the Congress to “call a convention for proposing amendments.” In the Federalist Papers Alexander Hamilton notes that applications by two-thirds of the states would be “peremptory,” and in the particular of whether Congress issues such a call, “nothing is left to the discretion of that body.” In 1789 James Madison affirmed Hamilton’s point that a refusal by Congress to call the convention would be unconstitutional.

The states have requested Congress to call a convention over 600 times; their refusal to do so is in direct violation to the U.S. Constitution itself.

The convention to propose amendments (not an amendment) carries no ratification powers. Article V authorizes the convention only to draft and propose amendments, which must then be ratified by either the state legislatures or unicameral ratifying conventions conducted within the individual states. The Framers built considerable complexity into the national legislature, whereas the convention was left unstructured, with its procedures permitted to be relatively simple and facile. The convention would consist of a single assembly of delegates (not two chambers as in Congress); and under Jefferson’s lex majoris partis a simple majority of members present and voting would suffice to submit a proposed amendment to the states.

Visit: http://www.article-v-convention.com

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

The right to hold a convention is…. A RIGHT. Just like all the other rights Anti-Conventionist knuckleheads profess to revere.

The Framers placed the convention clause into our high law for a reason: so that when the federal legislature becomes so corrupt it stops working in the interests of citizens, the states can step in, hold a convention of delegates, and BUILD CONSENSUS how best to purge the corruption.

Let’s walk through this, let’s suppose the Congress issues the call for America’s first Article V Convention on the authority of our supreme law. A date is set to convene (likely six months to a year from the call itself).

Next we will begin to get news reports of who these delegates are and what they campaigned to propose once they get to the convention.

Next the delegates convene. Since they can only “PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION,” that’s exactly what they’ll do–the good, bad, and ugly. When all proposals are on the table, the delegates then go home and the convention ends. That’s it folks, that’s all a convention is.

Yet look at what that process–simply as a civic ceremony–would do to professional politicians. It would make them talk about things they’re paid not to today. The RATIFICATION PROCESS sparked by the Article V Convention will more likely lead to the reforms needed now, instead of us all standing around watching the Constitution be ignored. In fact American generations of the past have coerced Congress to act by threatening and beating the drums for a national convention. The politicians and special interests DO NOT want a convention.

It is the job of politicians to keep us divided, our U.S. Constitution allows us to come together.

For those of you who fear special interests taking over a convention, what can they take over? Think about it. It’s an open discussion and the delegates will all have their say (or they’ll caucus for one issue or another). But whatever is proposed it’s hot air unless ratified. So where is the danger in that?

The reason the Framers set ratification at 3/4 is because whatever the amendment proposal is–conservative or liberal–it must garner the approval of all of one group, plus at least half the other. Ratification santifies the popular will. It’s true we do not need a new constitution, we simply need a few amendment proposals with a chance of being ratified. To get 38 states to agree to any one idea is so difficult, that it must be a “no-brainer.”

To those who fear the special intersts and corporate media, ask yourself why so many people are misinformed about this subject. If the special interests and corporate media would gain from a national convention, then why haven’t we already had one? Why have we been taught to fear one of the rights in our Constitution? We haven’t had one because it’s the last thing special intersts want–a national discussion which questions their power over legislation and federal decision-making.

Please view this wiki page with history and information about the most profound aspect of our Constitution, the Article V Convention: http://wiki.lessig.org/Article_V_Convention

Next check out this national group Friends of the Article V Convention: http://www.foavc.org

We have been taught to fear a convention as if it might limit or do away with the rights our Constitution provides. Why would the Framers place a self-destruct button in their work? They didn’t, the convention clause is how we can return to first principles, to throw off a long train of abuse, and secure Freedom once more and anew.

We are all taught the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution are our two most important founding documents, what we are not taught is that the former was written into the latter–the Article V Convention.

rickhoncho@gmail.com

Rick