One of my favourite programme is seeing telentime contest be it singing or others. It is not like I love laughing at others but wishing or waiting for a birght star to emerge. I saw Susan Boyle and now I'm now a fan so here is the video for you to look and hear and be overwhelm like me



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1C82153AF4D62F3E&search_query=susan boyle

I wrote this comment in 1997 before the world economic crisis happen. Just read it and remember it was in 1997 when I commented

1. Wan Zaharizan Bin wan Zan Says:
   May 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm

   My friend provide me this link so I presume he wants me to comment, which I hate because my brain cells are not what it seems years back. Economy is the study of common sence that ’s what my lecturer Miss Peggy Ng told me. I concur. What’s made it difficult is we need perhaps a determination to arrest the problem facing the world namely US. At the height of the depression in the 1930’s Keynes came up with the theory of using fiscal policy to control the economy. That’s when the idea of pegging the money to gold were introduce. But in 1973 during the oil crisis they found out economies can be manipulated and those who can hold gold can control the world and oil was black gold.That’s where the monetarist came in. The idea is to control money supply, later on the idea is to merge this with the fiscal policy as a means of controlling economy. They decided to unpeg the money and use the idea of velocity or how much the monies move to reflect the worth of a nation. This idea is also flawed in the 1997 the Asean meltdown occurs because of rogue traders who buys and sells monies. For Asean it was a bitter pill to swallow but for countries like US this scenario is unlikely but can happen. For years now US has a deficit budget as it tries to remain competitive it spends more on protectionism and this negative budget has balloon to uncontrollable situation. Trouble with the western countries like US and England whose ideas is outdated remain competitiveness is an enigma. EU is a good idea if not because of politics it can even be better. People has time and again forgotten about labour, in any countries a labour which has mobility and willing to accept changes is an asset to countries. Thus tiny Singapore realises to remain competitive it needs to have an open migration policy although its policy is geared to attract the high end personnel's nevertheless it realise to adapt and change with time. US need to do the same, the economy needs to be open up and one upmanship is ridiculous. It is no use to control oil if the price of extracting it is expensive. US need to reinvent herself economically and the leaders must have the will to exact change how painful it is. Surplus budget or balance should be strive by the administration because if US economy collapse by her own debt it is tsunami that will effect 4/5 of the world economy for the time being the Chinese Tailor will still made her master suit but for how long?

Here is the boring article in question

Council on Foreign Relations on U.S. Dollar: “An Absurdity… Supported Only by Faith”

May 9th, 2007

The End of National Currency is the most astonishing thing that I have read since Zbigniew Brzezinski’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.

Foreign Affairs is the most important and influential journal of International Relations in the world. It is the mechanism by which the Council on Foreign Relations disseminates the game plan to people in polite circles. CFR’s positions on core issues represent the raw building blocks for most of the gibberish spewed by the corporate media and the maniac fascist policies of the “developed world.” Publications like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are dumbed down versions of Foreign Affairs that are published daily. Television news is the same thing, but dumbed down again. Foreign Affairs is also where politicians from several countries look to determine what’s safe to say, which policies are doable and what needs to be done. A degree in International Relations is largely a certification of a student’s ability to internalize CFR jargon and concepts.

Got the picture?

Now, what did the most important and influential journal of International Relations in the world just say about the U.S. Dollar and the global economy?

In summary: The U.S. dollar is an “absurdity” and the only way to stave off a global disaster is for most countries to join one of three global currencies, based loosely on: the dollar, the euro and a pan Asian currency.

I encourage everyone to read The End of National Currency in its entirety, but I’ll quote some of the more remarkable parts below:

The dollar’s privileged status as today’s global money is not heaven-bestowed. The dollar is ultimately just another money supported only by faith that others will willingly accept it in the future in return for the same sort of valuable things it bought in the past. This puts a great burden on the institutions of the U.S. government to validate that faith. And those institutions, unfortunately, are failing to shoulder that burden. Reckless U.S. fiscal policy is undermining the dollar’s position even as the currency’s role as a global money is expanding.

Four decades ago, the renowned French economist Jacques Rueff, writing just a few years before the collapse of the Bretton Woods dollar-based gold-exchange standard, argued that the system “attains such a degree of absurdity that no human brain having the power to reason can defend it.” The precariousness of the dollar’s position today is similar. The United States can run a chronic balance-of-payments deficit and never feel the effects. Dollars sent abroad immediately come home in the form of loans, as dollars are of no use abroad. “If I had an agreement with my tailor that whatever money I pay him he returns to me the very same day as a loan,” Rueff explained by way of analogy, “I would have no objection at all to ordering more suits from him.”

With the U.S. current account deficit running at an enormous 6.6 percent of GDP (about $2 billion a day must be imported to sustain it), the United States is in the fortunate position of the suit buyer with a Chinese tailor who instantaneously returns his payments in the form of loans — generally, in the U.S. case, as purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. The current account deficit is partially fueled by the budget deficit (a dollar more of the latter yields about 20-50 cents more of the former), which will soar in the next decade in the absence of reforms to curtail federal “entitlement” spending on medical care and retirement benefits for a longer-living population. The United States — and, indeed, its Chinese tailor — must therefore be concerned with the sustainability of what Rueff called an “absurdity.” In the absence of long-term fiscal prudence, the United States risks undermining the faith foreigners have placed in its management of the dollar — that is, their belief that the U.S. government can continue to sustain low inflation without having to resort to growth-crushing interest-rate hikes as a means of ensuring continued high capital inflows

…

At the turn of the twentieth century — the height of the gold standard — Simmel commented, “Although money with no intrinsic value would be the best means of exchange in an ideal social order, until that point is reached the most satisfactory form of money may be that which is bound to a material substance.” Today, with money no longer bound to any material substance, it is worth asking whether the world even approximates the “ideal social order” that could sustain a fiat dollar as the foundation of the global financial system. There is no way effectively to insure against the unwinding of global imbalances should China, with over a trillion dollars of reserves, and other countries with dollar-rich central banks come to fear the unbearable lightness of their holdings.

Ordo ab chao.

The CFR created this mess to begin with. Its fingerprints are on every policy, politician and corporation involved with the funneling of wealth up to the top of the pyramid.

Now what?

What do we do now, as we find ourselves gazing into oblivion, into the chaos that They created?

Seek order with fewer national currencies, my son. Trust us. We’ve gotten you this far. We have almost reached the promised land of a global federal government, with a single currency, with no dissent, no war, no crime, no hunger and no disease and…

But before we can move to the single currency, we need to move to three:

A future pan-Asian currency, managed according to the same principle of targeting low and stable inflation, would represent the most promising way for China to fully liberalize its financial and capital markets without fear of damaging renminbi speculation (the Chinese economy is only the size of California’s and Florida’s combined). Most of the world’s smaller and poorer countries would clearly be best off unilaterally adopting the dollar or the euro, which would enable their safe and rapid integration into global financial markets. Latin American countries should dollarize; eastern European countries and Turkey, euroize. Broadly speaking, this prescription follows from relative trade flows, but there are exceptions; Argentina, for example, does more eurozone than U.S. trade, but Argentines think and save in dollars.

But wait, there’s one more thing:

Gold.

This following paragraph is so weird, I had to read it several times. I still don’t know what to make of it:

So what about gold? A revived gold standard is out of the question. In the nineteenth century, governments spent less than ten percent of national income in a given year. Today, they routinely spend half or more, and so they would never subordinate spending to the stringent requirements of sustaining a commodity-based monetary system. But private gold banks already exist, allowing account holders to make international payments in the form of shares in actual gold bars. Although clearly a niche business at present, gold banking has grown dramatically in recent years, in tandem with the dollar’s decline. A new gold-based international monetary system surely sounds far-fetched. But so, in 1900, did a monetary system without gold. Modern technology makes a revival of gold money, through private gold banks, possible even without government support.

Woh. Hold on a second.

On the one hand, “A revived gold standard is out of the question,” but on the other hand, “private gold banks already exist, allowing account holders to make international payments in the form of shares in actual gold bars. Although clearly a niche business at present, gold banking has grown dramatically in recent years, in tandem with the dollar’s decline. A new gold-based international monetary system surely sounds far-fetched. But so, in 1900, did a monetary system without gold. Modern technology makes a revival of gold money, through private gold banks, possible even without government support.”

So, we’re going to have a few “absurd” fiat currencies and private gold banks that will be used to make international payments in the form of shares of actual gold bars? Did the CFR just transmit a veiled and obscure tipoff to the wealthy people who read their rag?

Or is it something else…

I don’t know what to make of it. That paragraph is such a non sequitur in the article that it practically slaps you right out of your chair as you read the thing. Steil points out that rape and plunder (Globalization) can’t happen with currencies that are tied to things. So… Why mention private gold banks that can facilitate international payments?

It gets weirder. This article was published within days of the U.S. Government’s shut down of eGold, the oldest private electronic gold bank. On the same day that the indictments came out against eGold, Brinks, a U.S. firm that provides bullion vaulting services, dropped BullionVault as a client. BullionVault allows individuals to easily and efficiently move their fiat currencies into physical gold, but it does not allow payments to other parties. [I am a satisfied client of BullionVault, by the way.]

Are factions of the Elite in open conflict? Do some of them want access to these gold services, while others, mainly U.S. dollar interested parties inside the U.S., view those same services as a threat? Is Steil warning governments to shut down these services, lest individuals abandon their “absurd” fiat currencies?

I don’t know what’s going on here, but I’d really like to find out.

This article was written at the end of January in Malaysia Insider. I suppose to republish it here but never got to it. It suppose to fill this article here in March but now it is April. Better late than Never! My comment receive the highest so far as I know and it shook the hell out of me. It must have touch the right nerve so do read please. By the way I wrote it in response to many negative statement againts the writer. I do not agreed with the writer but I emphatise with his views and do not read his comment as a slight but need for the muslim to enlighten him and engage in a clear and crispy rebuttal and not get emotional about it.

Why should I respect these oppressive religions? — Johann Hari
JAN 29 — The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism — giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds — are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten — to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind — and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it — but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided — so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it is precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists.
Incredibly, they are succeeding. The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech — including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed — so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN — and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" — and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest — but the shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.
To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's — or their oppressors'?
As the secular campaigner Austin Darcy puts it: "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom."
Those of us who passionately support the UN should be the most outraged by this.
Underpinning these "reforms" is a notion seeping even into democratic societies — that atheism and doubt are akin to racism. Today, whenever a religious belief is criticised, its adherents immediately claim they are the victims of "prejudice" — and their outrage is increasingly being backed by laws.
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has "faith" that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It's easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs — but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Yet this idea — at the heart of the Universal Declaration — is being lost. To the right, it thwacks into apologists for religious censorship; to the left, it dissolves in multiculturalism. The hijacking of the UN Special Rapporteur by religious fanatics should jolt us into rescuing the simple, battered idea disintegrating in the middle: the equal, indivisible human right to speak freely. — The Independent

My Comment

what xewnophobic about that!
written by wan zaharizan, January 29, 2009

MZH I am a Muslim like you. I admit the writer is bias, we all are like you too,upset but angry I am not. But the Muslim themselves are to be blame for this predicament, why that we whose adherents is one third of the world population and who presides on the wealth of the world beneath our feet yet the Muslim Ummah are among the poorest people in the world and still receive handout form those xenophobic western world like saorang peminta sedekah(beggers).
Why do we support laws that denied one's faith and why do we hide under shariah and say it is god's law but it is just an inspired law from people who got inspiration from the book. Tell me where in the Quran is death is proscribe for apostasy. Yet we dare not question it.
Why do we grapple with the garb that you wear instead the heart that you got. Why do we easily condemn others as apostate be it he is a syiah a muktazillah or a sunni. Why do we need to accentuate that differences but not celebrate the things that made us Muslim and human.
Why must they follow us and not let them be and they let us be. Why do they need to bend backwards for our sake but we do not yield a bit but yet we beg them for monies, we ran to their country to seek refuge yet refuse to blend in their midst. We mix culture with religion and insist that ours are Islamic while theirs are not. We treat women like slave but god command us to respect them but yet we don't. Time and again I heard Mullah decrying the position of woman as second to man yet in the Quran it never say that. What is said is that Woman complement man and they are created for task suitable for them but definitely not second to Man.
By the way Our Prophet marries Aishah at age 9(Muslim Calender) and consumate the marriage when she was 12. So accordingly she was consummated when she was 11 years old according to the Gregorian Calender. Was this evil? Not at that time but now it would be considered evil. Again concept of what is right and wrong are also define by culture and the time of event. I agreed that Universal Declaration of Human Rights must take this into account. Because one's man culture can be poison to others.

• 
• +24( I receive +24 hmmm must have done something right!)
  
• 
• 

This is MZH article which receive a lowly rating for which my comment above was directed

Writer is deeply prejudiced towards Islam
written by MZH, January 29, 2009

Hey AMOKER, give me concrete evidence that the Prophet have sex with a 9 year old. Do you know about the divine resources of Islam? How would you define a Muslim to be liberal or conservative? Why do we have to submit ourselves to categorizations of moderate and extreme Muslims to the interpretations of others? Do you dare to question yourselves of why you haven't bother to read the commentaries on Prophetic traditions by respective scholars before making quick mockery of the 'thin-skinned' Muslims who want everything to be censured so that your deep assumptions of 'Islamic uncivilizedness' are well justified?

I have no respect for Muslim countries on how they interpret our divine laws and claim it as Islamic, the same way I have disrespect for people to take blind stance on accusing Muslims who choose to be governed by set of principles that they choose (aka collective freedom of expression and belief) and associating that set of principles (or Way of Life) to all sorts of bad things that Muslims do (everything Islamic, Islamic terrorism, Islamic extremism bla bla bla... when is the last time you hear people talk about Judaistic terror, Christianic extremism, Hinduistic fundamentalism... NO! you blame on the people, not the religion, but with bad things did by Muslims you choose the word Islam. How nice).

In EGYPT, why highlight the case of a single blogger being detained on 'shariah issues, when thousands of Muslim activists from the Islamic movement Ikhwanul Muslimin have been incarcerated without trial and tortured to death, and unfortunate for the movement for being labeled as Islamist, therefore can't afford a single worthy attention from the countries which are signatories of UNDHR themselves. ASK why the US and Israel are the only 2 countries in the world that abstained from being signatories to the International Criminal Court (ICC)... if any fundamental secularist-humanist such as the author wishes to blame the current negative human rights milieu worldwide solely on oppressive religion(s).

That selective prejudice alone is an utter double standard in white-washing human rights issues in Muslim countries, and afford me enough reason to abandon the whole article as an entirely farcical piece of xenophobic journalism..

The writer of the article definitely has a secret agenda in his hatred towards Islamic definitions of politics and governance.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Another post I need to share. The words are a bit rough but nevertheless the view of the writer is clear.

MAHATHIR OR MAHATHIRISM AS I SEE IT

Mahathir claimed that the malays are under threat. Under threat from
whom? Can the malays be under threat:-

Impossible! No way,.... since the Malays totally controlled the whole country.


•From a minority 35% of the population over the majority 65% which are
made up of malays?

•From a less than 10% minority in the Police, Army, Judiciary, Attorney
General Office and MACC which are predominantly filled by malays?

•From a minority of the Members of Parliament where malays make up more
than 60% the majority?

•From a group who doesn’t control the air, sea and land? These are
controlled by UMNO and its cronies such as MAS, AirAsia, MISC, Toll
Concessionaires, NAZA, Proton and Perodua.

•From a group who doesn’t control the supply of basic necessities such
as food, water and utilities? These are monopolised by UMNO cronies
such as Bernas (rice and flour), Water Concessionaires (SPAN, SYABAS,
etc), Telekom (telephone), Tenaga (electricity), etc

•From a group who doesn’t control the main stream media. The mass media
are wholly controlled by UMNO and its cronies such as Utusan Melayu,
Berita Harian, New Straits Times, The Star, The Sun, Media Prima (TV1,
TV2, TV3, TV, TV8, TV9 and all the Radio Stations), ASTRO, etc? Lately
even Harakah and Suara Keadilan have been banned!

•From a group whose mother tongue and religion aren’t enshrined in the
Federal Constitution where malay is the official language and Islam is
the official religion? Other groups can’t even hold any interfaith
dialogues and use of the word of Allah without being severely
intimidated by protests, storming of conferences and warnings from
UMNO!

•From a group who can’t be appointed the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime
Minister and Mentri Besars and a host of high positions in the malay
states as enshrined in the state constitution or decree by the Sultans
where only malays from UMNO can be appointed?

•From a group who are ever subjected to intimidation of arrest under
the flimsiest excuse using the ISA, the Police, MACC, etc and a myriad
of repressive laws such as the Sedition Act, Multimedia Act and treason
against the Sultans, etc? Of course UMNO are spared from such actions
and above such laws.

It is a blatant lie that the non-malays can ever threaten the malays.
Who is actually threatening the malays? From the look of things, UMNO
finger prints are everywhere - UMNO malays are actually the ones
threatening and stealing from the ordinary malays and non-malays.
Someone has to be the punching bag and scapegoat for UMNO’s cling to
power and thievery – hence putting the blame on non-malays!

UMNO is a racist party and it is very clear that they are separating
the Sultans from their subjects and the Malays from the non-malays for
their own selfish ends without a thought of the consequences and our
economy!

The sooner the mamak conked, the better for the country. His role now
has turned into a shit stirrer.
_________________

I have not been writing for such a long time nor have I posted here anything relevant. Here is a piece I receive by email which will never get printed or see the light of day here in my country. So please do read for I do share some of the misgivings

A German's View on Islam

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read... The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well known and well respected psychiatrist.

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish The spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march.
It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.
It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the "silent majority," is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered it's way Across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our posers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts - the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, World wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before it's too late!

Emanuel Tanay, M.D.