Peace-Forum: December 2015

Donald Trump

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American business magnate, television personality, and candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 presidential election. He is the chairman and president of The Trump Organization and the founder of Trump Entertainment Resorts. Trump's career, branding efforts, lifestyle, and outspoken manner helped make him a celebrity, a status amplified by the success of his NBC reality show.

Accused to be racist, Muslim hater could be next president of USA, the most powerful man. Some dismiss him just by saying; "Trump is a fool".... but he is getting popularity after declaring to Ban Muslims from entering USA.... let;s know who is Donald Trump?

Allegations of business with firms linked to organized crime
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Cay Johnston as well as investigative journalist Wayne Barrett, who wrote an unauthorized 1992 Trump biography, have alleged that Trump and his companies did business with New York and Philadelphia families linked to the Italian-American Mafia. They claim Trump purchased the future site of Atlantic City's Trump Plaza for twice its market value from the Philadelphia crime family member Salvatore Testa, and according to the State of New Jersey Commission of Investigation's 1986 report on organized crime, constructed the casino using two firms controlled by Nicodemo Scarfo.Although Trump was a federal target in a 1979 bribery investigation, and later questioned in a 1981 racketeering probe, neither investigation resulted in criminal charges. Trump was criticized for omitting mention of that investigation in his New Jersey casino license application, and Johnston alleged that he had persuaded state officials to limit his background investigation.[280] It was also reported by Johnston and other investigative reporters that Trump Tower, Trump Plaza, and other New York City properties were constructed with concrete purchased from S & A Concrete Co., a firm owned by Anthony Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family, and Paul Castellano, head of the Gambino crime family.

According to British investigative journalist John Sweeney, Trump walked out of an interview for the BBC's Panorama series with Sweeney after Trump was asked why he continued to do business with Felix Sater, an ex-convict who identified himself a "senior advisor to Donald Trump" (a claim disputed by Trump's representatives), after Sater's mafia and Russian criminal ties, as well as a 1998 racketeering conviction for a $40 million Mafia-linked stock fraud scheme, were publicly reported in 2007. Sater's fraud victims included Holocaust survivors Ernest and Judit Gottdiener, whose estate later sued Sater and a business partner for failing to pay $7 million in restitution.Sater moved into a Trump Tower office on the same floor as Trump's office in 2010, according to court records and Associated Press interview "Felix Sater, boy, I have to even think about it", Trump told the AP in December 2015. "I'm not that familiar with him."[283] When previously asked about Sater by The New York Times in December 2007, Trump said that he "didn’t really know him very well”.[285] Sater was born in Russia in 1966 and emigrated to the U.S. with his family at the age of 8, and later developed ties to members of the Bonanno and Genovese crime families.[288] He worked with Trump on at least four projects including Trump SoHo, Trump International Hotel and Residence Phoenix (which failed), Trump International Hotel and Residence Ft. Lauderdale (which collapsed amid allegations of fraud), and an unrealized skyscraper project in Denver which involved Sater traveling with Trump to the city and being interviewed together with Trump by The Rocky Mountain News in 2005. Alan Garten, senior attorney for Trump, said that Sater has "got a lot of contacts" and worked with Trump scouting high-end luxury real estate opportunities, but was never formally employed, and did not close any deals for Trump over the course of a six-month non-contractual working relationship in 2010. "If Mr. Sater was good enough for the government to work with", referring to the cooperation agreement which kept Sater's racketeering conviction sealed from public scrutiny for 14 years, "I see no reason why he wasn't good enough for Mr. Trump". [WIKIPEDIA]
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
Related:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

A Project of
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines, Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Defeating Terrorism & Radicalisation of Muslim youth

Improving interfaith dialogue and collaboration, curbing intolerance and addressing extremism are the needs of the hour and Maajid Nawaaz seems like a man who is well-placed to address these needs.

A one on one with an ex-member of Hizbut Tahrir who renounced his links and is now addressing the challenges of extremism in the UK
A British of Pakistani roots (his father hails from Gujrat), Nawaaz is an activist, author, columnist and politician. An ex-member of Hizbut Tahrir, he was arrested in Egypt in 2002 and after his release four years later, Nawaaz renounced his links and turned to working towards challenging extremism in the UK.

With Ed Husain, a former radical like himself, Nawaaz co-founded Quilliam, a globally active think tank “focusing on matters of integration, citizenship and identity, religious freedom, extremism and immigration.” He then went on to write his autobiography Radical, and his second book Islam and the Future of Tolerance, co-authored with American neuroscientist Sam Harris, was published this October.

Nawaaz stresses that to address growing radicalisation and extremism, there is a need for them to be talked about and understood first.

“Radicalisation happens due to a combination of factors. You have real and perceived grievances that people feel. I say real and perceived because it is a matter of perspectives. People feel grieved and angry, and this is the first stage of radicalisation,” Nawaaz explains his theory.

Elaborating further, he discloses, “This then leads to an identity crisis, the second stage of radicalisation. In Europe, the identity crisis in European Muslim comes out in the form that they don’t feel they are European or British or French. They say ‘I am not British, I am not French, I am a Muslim’.”

Taking his explanation further, Nawaaz comes to the third factor that leads to radicalisation, “With grievances and identity crisis, people start looking for an alternative sense of belonging because they don’t belong where they are from. That brings in the third factor, which is charismatic recruiters who are preaching to these people by providing that sense of belonging. It’s a bit like a gang membership.

“And the fourth factor that kicks in after that is ideology. It is often the most neglected because we are comfortable speaking about economic challenges and unemployment, but we are not comfortable speaking about ideology because it means having uncomfortable conversations about ideas.

“With grievances and identity crisis, people start looking for an alternative sense of belonging because they don’t belong where they are from. That brings in the third factor, which is charismatic recruiters who are preaching to these people by providing that sense of belonging. It’s a bit like a gang membership.
“Ideology, or what I call ‘Islamism’, is the desire to impose my version of the religion over everyone else. All these groups, whichever name you call them, Taliban, Al-Qaida or ISIS, they all share a similar goal — to enforce their own version of religion on society. So I call it ‘Islamism’ rather than the religion of Islam.”

He firmly believes that an understanding of these four factors can help in reversing them through policy responses. To address people’s grievances, the legitimate and perceived grievances need to be identified and, according to Nawaaz, “where they are real, the government needs to respond to them. And where they are perceived, the government needs to improve its communication strategy. I’d say in every conflict, there are probably some real grievances and some perceived ones.

“Identity crisis also needs a broader conversation about an identity in belonging in a globalised context that also provides a sense of patriotism and reduces a sense of nationalism. So that should mean patriotism to Pakistan and reducing the ethnic nationalism that is pulling the country apart.”

Coming to the third factor, of the charismatic recruiters, Nawaaz, having firsthand experience of their appeal, urges the need to undermine their appeal and expose them for who they really are.

“Most of them are frauds,” the activist stresses. “Most have dubious backgrounds, we need to be able to critique them. And we need to provide alternate leaders who are able to appeal to these young people instead.”

To address ideology, the final factor leading to radicalisation, Nawaaz opines offering counter narratives that challenge the ideology that is exploiting the religion of Islam for political purposes.

“And we need to not only have counter-narratives but also alternative narratives. That would be for me, I believe, a pluralistic, democratic, human rights grounded vision which people would be able to live by to be ambassadors for that vision,” he concludes.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1225628

ISIS ... Daesh Oil route

Inside Isis Inc: The journey of a barrel of oil
Isis controls most of Syria’s oil fields and crude is the militant group's biggest single source of revenue. Here we follow the progress of a barrel of oil from extraction to end user to see how the Isis production system works, who is making money from it, and why it is proving so challenging to disrupt, even with airstrikes.
By Erika Solomon, Robin Kwong and Steven Bernard
Source: http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/
Where the oil is extracted

Isis’s main oil producing region is in Syria’s eastern Deir Ezzor province, where production was somewhere between 34,000 to 40,000 barrels a day in October, according to locals. This has since fallen due to coalition and Russian airstrikes against oil facilities. Isis also controls the Qayyara field near Mosul in northern Iraq that produces about 8,000 barrels a day of heavier oil that is mostly used locally to make asphalt.

It is difficult to determine a definitive oil production figure for Isis-controlled areas. But it is clear production levels have dropped in the Syrian fields since they were taken over by the militants. Most oil fields in the area are aging and the group does not have the technology or equipment needed to maintain them.

A new air campaign on Isis oil by the US-led coalition started at the end of October and is now more effectively disrupting Isis's crude extraction. Production fell by 30 pct this month at al-Omar and al-Tanak, Isis's two top producing fields and the most targeted by the recent offensive. Up to now, however, it is still likely the most lucrative revenue stream for Isis's central leadership.

The price of the oil depends on its quality. Some fields charge about $25 a barrel. Others, like al-Omar field, one of Syria’s largest, charge $45 a barrel. Overall, Isis is estimated to earn about $1.1m a day.

OilfieldEst. production (bpd)Price ($/barrel)

Oilfield	Est. production (bpd)	Price ($/barrel)
al-Tanak	11,000-12,000	$40
al-Omar	6,000-9,000	$45
al-Jabseh	2,500-3,000	$30
al-Tabqa	1,500-1,800	$20
al-Kharata	1,000	$30
al-Shoula	650-800	$30
Deiro	600-1,000	$30
al-Taim	400-600	$40
al-Rashid	200-300	$25

Selling crude oil
Though many believe that Isis relies on exports for its oil revenue, it profits from its captive markets closer to home in the rebel-held territories of northern Syria and in its self-proclaimed “caliphate”, which straddles the border between Syria and Iraq.

The group sells most of its crude directly to independent traders at the oil fields. In a highly organised system, Syrian and Iraqi buyers go directly to the oil fields with their trucks to buy crude. This used to result in them waiting for weeks in traffic jams that sprawled for miles outside of oilfields. But since airstrikes against oil vehicles intensified, Isis revamped its collection system. Now, when truckers register outside the field and pick up their number in line, they say they are told exactly what time they can return to fill up to avoid a pile-up of vehicles and make a more obvious target for strikes.

Oil refineries
Traders have several options after they pick up their cargo:

Take the oil to nearby refineries, unload it and return to queue at the field—usually done by traders under contract to refineries.
Sell their oil on to traders with smaller vehicles, who then send it to rebel-held northern Syria, or east towards Iraq.
Try their luck selling to a refinery or sell it at a local oil market. The biggest are near al-Qaim on the Syrian-Iraqi border.
Most traders prefer to sell the oil on immediately and pick up a fresh number at the fields. They can expect to make a profit of at least SL3,000 (about $10) per barrel.

Traders in Syria's eastern Deir Ezzor province say coalition airstrikes have not targeted their trucks by as much the coalition claims, and say Russia has targeted them more aggressively. Instead the attacks focused on disrupting the extraction process - hitting around the wells or facilities at the oil fields, as well as Isis vehicles. The goal does not appear to be to hit the actual wells but impede efforts to extract from them.

The bulk of oil refineries are in Isis-controlled Syria. The few in rebel-held territories have a reputation for lower quality output than the refineries in the east.

The refineries produce petrol and mazout, a heavy form of diesel used in generators – a necessity as many areas have little or no electricity. Because the quality of the petrol can be inconsistent and is more expensive, mazout is in greater demand.

Refining is done by local residents who constructed their rudimentary refineries after Isis's prefabricated "mobile" facilities were destroyed by coalition airstrikes. The owners make purchase agreements with the militants for their products.

There are also signs that in recent months Isis may have returned to refining. In interviews with traders, the FT discovered the group had bought five refineries since mid-2015.

At Isis refineries, the former owner stays on as a "front" man. The group supplies the oil; in return it takes all mazout production and splits the profits on petrol production with the original owner.
Traders say Isis has its own tankers that supply crude to its refineries from oil fields regularly. The group also appears to retain many of its earlier contracts with unaffiliated gas stations and other refineries.

Fuel to market
Once the oil is refined, it is bought by traders or taken by dealers to markets across Syria and Iraq. At this point, Isis is almost completely disengaged from the trade. About half the oil goes to Iraq, while the other half is consumed in Syria, both in Isis territories and rebel-held areas in the north.

There are fuel markets throughout Isis-controlled areas and rebel-held Syria, often located close to refineries. Most towns have a small fuel market where locals buy and sell oil. But traders supplying these smaller markets often buy their oil in bulk from larger hubs.

Isis markets
There are larger Isis-controlled markets in towns like Manbij or al-Bab in Aleppo’s eastern countryside. Traders here must present a document proving they have paid zakat, a tithe, to buy oil without tax. Traders from rebel-held Syria who have not paid the tithe, must pay a tax of SL200 per barrel, or about $0.67.
Some privately-owned markets also levy taxes. Al-Qaim market, one of the largest in the region, charges buyers and sellers about SL100 ($0.30) per barrel of crude purchased.

Mosul
In Isis-controlled Iraqi cities like Mosul, the fuel is sold at mini “petrol stations” with two pumps. They are ubiquitous on Mosul street corners and locals usually name the oil according to the part of Syria it came from. This helps buyers determine the quality of the oil and compare prices.

Rebel markets
Two types of fuel are sold in rebel-held Syria: pricier fuel refined in Isis areas, and cheaper locally refined fuel. Residents typically buy a mix of both, and use the cheaper variety for generators and keep better quality variety for their vehicles.
Since the airstrikes began, prices of mazout and diesel in rebel-held areas have doubled. Prices of food are higher as well because transport costs are rising.
Fuel smuggling
With Isis only concerned with making its profits ‘at the pump’, smuggling fuel into neighbouring countries can be good business for entrepreneurial Syrians and Iraqis. Syrian smugglers say it has been declining in recent months, not because of tighter border controls but because the sharp fall in international oil prices make it unprofitable. But some determined smugglers continue their trade.

Most of the smuggling from the Syrian side has gone through opposition areas in the northwest. Locals buy fuel at the market, pour it into jerry cans and carry it over the border on foot or, in mountainous areas, by donkey or on horseback.

In Iraq, the bulk of smuggling through the northern Kurdistan region has been blocked, so locals say the route now goes south through Anbar province towards Jordan.

Boat
BoatWhen oil prices were high, smugglers loaded larger jerry cans (50-60 litres) of oil into metal tubs or small row boats and, using ropes attached to each river bank, pulled their cargo across the river and into Turkey. On the other bank, tractors picked up the supply and took it to a local informal market, where it was picked up by large trucks, which sold it on.

Pumps
PumpSome Syrian and Turkish border towns have co-operated by burying small rubber tubes under the border, such as at Besaslan. In recent months, Turkey has stepped up border patrols and are constantly digging out the makeshift pipelines.

On foot
FootA popular crossing point for smugglers carrying jerry cans of fuel on their backs has been from Kharbet al-Jawz in rebel-held Syria to Guvecci in Turkey. This has been largely shut down by Turkish forces, but the remote terrain makes it impossible to stop.

Horseback
DonkeyIn places like al-Sarmada and al-Rai, smugglers have crossed the border by mule, donkey or horses that can carry four to eight jerry cans at a time.

Airstrikes
At the end of October, the US-led coalition launched a fresh assault on Isis oil infrastructure. These airstrikes were followed by Russian attacks, and intensified in mid-November.

The coalition airstrikes against Isis oil operations have mainly targeted the oil extraction process, rather than refineries or oil markets. Bombs have hit Isis vehicles operating at the oil fields, and facilities for pumping or moving oil.

For example, the biggest single blow to Isis oil extraction, locals say, was a strike that took out the machinery that allowed oil workers to centrally control the wells at al-Omar field, Isis's single biggest oil source.

This had been critical because wells there can be 30km away from each other, and the machinery allowed workers to close down a well that was struck and avoid a fire spreading. Now, each well must be operated manually, which dramatically slows down the process of running the entire field.

Strikes on Syria from Nov 20

Kurds
Sources: Institute for the Study of War, US Central Command,
US Department of Defense, FT research
These efforts to stop Isis earning money from oil is starting to have an effect. Production fell by 30 per cent in December at al-Omar and al-Tanak.

But it comes at a human cost. Civilian traders have been hit by an increasing number of strikes. Local civilians are angry about the new campaign and they fear for their own economic survival, which is now entangled with that of Isis's finances.

"This is considered our infrastructure, and destroying it like this...shows that the objective is to kill the Syrian people," says Omar al-Shimali, who lives in the rebel-held Aleppo province to the northwest.

Where Isis buys its bullets

Fighting can consume tens of thousands of bullets in a single day. Securing this ammunition requires a complex logistical operation

Original source:
http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/isis-oil/

Canadian children performed the same song for refugees that was sung to Mohamed when he sought refuge:

Canadian children performed the same song for refugees that was sung to Prophet Muhamad (pbuh) when he sought refuge

The first plane of Syrian refugees landed in Toronto late on Thursday, and Canada has wasted no time in welcoming them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was at the airport to personally welcome the 163 new arrivals from Beirut, helping distribute warm winter coats.

On Friday, a video of a children's choir singing a beautiful song in Arabic to their new neighbours surfaced.

The traditional song 'Tala' al-Badru 'Alayna' is one of the oldest in Islam. It was sung by the Ansar (Helpers) to the Prophet Mohamed when he sought refuge in their city of Medina and its message is one of welcome and hope.

Several commenters on social media said the gesture made them cry.

The lyrics are:

Oh the white moon rose over us
From the valley of Wada'
And we owe it to show gratefulness
Where the call is to Allah

Oh you, who were raised among us
Coming with a word to be obeyed
You have brought to this city nobleness,
Welcome best caller to God's way

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/canadian-children-performed-the-same-song-for-refugees-that-was-sung-to-mohamed-when-he-sought-refuge--bkgmHgATicl

Don’t ban Donald Trump. Just keep on laughing at him

Figure of fun: a rally in New York last week against Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the US.

How should we respond to would-be President Trump’s latest outrage? Point a figure and shout Eeeeuuuurrrggghhh!

I have tried very hard to avoid writing about Donald Trump. I was desperate to write about anything else: the floods, or the Tatler Tory, or the fact that a bloke whose job is to hit people has been saying offensive things (making him a sort of reverse Clarkson), or even high street spending, God help me. But it was no good. I couldn’t stop thinking about Trump, couldn’t get his name out of my mind – it was like the head of the herd was calling far far away.

It would probably be better to ignore him. If, at a polite drinks do, a man starts noisily doing a shit in the corner of the room, the dignified response is to avert your gaze. But it takes so much self-restraint. Our inner child wants to stare and cry out: “What’s that man doing? He’s so weird! Eeeeuuuurrrggghhh! I can’t stop looking at him!” That’s how I feel about Donald. I can’t take my eyes off him. I’m guiltily drawn to pictures of him, as if he’s boobs.

It’s not just his unique look that I’m amazed by, but how he moves, what he says and the way he says it. It’s so fascinating and disgusting, like staring through the glass at the zoo to see a huge hairy spider gradually devour a mouse. He’s a perfectly watchable and villainous entity – the Lord High Emperor of the planet Katie Hopkins came from. As panto season approaches, I long for him to take the stage so I can boo.

Donald Trump attacked by American bald eagle – video http://gu.com/p/4fxgb/stw

What adds infinitely to this repellent allure (a concept which would be self-contradictory in anyone else) is that Trump isn’t trying to play the villain, he’s trying to be popular. And, current evidence suggests, he’s succeeding. When he says that many Mexicans are rapists, that thousands of Arab Americans celebrated the 9/11 attacks or, as last week, that Muslims should be prevented from entering the United States, he’s not trying to publicise a book, stimulate debate or generate internet traffic. He’s saying it because he thinks lots of people will agree.

To most of the American political mainstream, and pretty much all of the British one, this induces a lot of spluttering – not just because Trump’s views seem so despicable but because his success contradicts the current political orthodoxy. Modern politicians, and their surrounding media, and their further surrounding social media, are obsessed with spotting gaffes and transgressions – moments where lines of propriety have been crossed by their opponents – and then exploiting them.

But you can’t do that with Trump. He’s not just a straight-talker, he’s a man who reliably says the things politicians dream their opponents will be caught muttering within range of forgotten radio-mics – except he declaims them on a podium in front of thousands. And reiterates them on TV and Twitter. He’s built a campaign from gaffes alone. It’s like he’s found a way to make an incredibly strong suit of armour entirely out of chinks.

This is infuriating for us all, and naturally makes many people desperate to retaliate. So last week Trump was stripped of his membership of the “GlobalScot business network” and his honorary degree from Aberdeen’s Robert Gordon University; and a petition to parliament was launched, and signed by a quarter of a million within the first day, to ban him from entering the UK.

One man, made objectionable by never being questioned. If you doubt how damaging that can be, just look at his hairdo.
I’m not very keen on these ideas. I dislike the trend for “stripping” the disgraced of the honours bestowed on them when they were in our good books. I think if it turns out you’ve made, say, Hitler an honorary PhD in peace studies, the record ought to stand as a rebuke to your whole honorary doctorate admissions policy. Otherwise it’s like a denial of historical fact: the truth is that, in 2010, Robert Gordon University thought Donald Trump was the bee’s knees and they shouldn’t get to erase that from their annals now it turns out he’s a prick. And obviously we shouldn’t ban him from entering Britain. It’s wrong to ban people from going to places – that’s mainly why we’re so cross with him.

But the biggest problem with these responses is that they seem so outraged and feeble. One can’t help picturing how microscopically, sub-molecularly minuscule a damn Trump will give about them. What do he or his supporters care about the rebukes of foreigners? Foreigners whose cities, by Trump’s own invented account, are “so radicalised the police are afraid for their lives”. He can just make capital out of it: he can say it shows how sick Europe has become that rich and successful winners are excluded and denigrated by an unholy alliance of slavishly politically correct liberals and terrorist sympathisers. He’ll probably break that down into several sentences.

We don’t have to give a damn about him either. He’s just one man, made objectionable by never being questioned. If you doubt how damaging that can be, just look at what it’s done to his hairdo. But his rise poses a question: “How many Americans are stupid or unpleasant enough to vote for him?”

His rhetoric is entirely based on spurious notions of strength, victory and a return to greatness, his specific ideas appeal almost exclusively to people’s least creditable feelings. That’s ticking quite a few boxes on the “Is History Repeating Itself?” form. But will enough Americans fall for it that we need to worry? Our current answer is not a resounding “No!” It’s a slightly interrogatively inflected “Probably not”, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of the health of American civilisation.

A surprise advocate of the petition was Armando Iannucci, though he took quite a nuanced view, calling it “a history-defining moment of active hypocrisy” and, once enough signatures had been collected for parliament to consider a debate, concluding: “I don’t think we should ban anyone for something they’ve said; but it’s really funny it might be him.” And it is funny. Also quite funny was what Boris Johnson said in response to Trump’s claims about urban no-go areas – “The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump” – and the Twitter TrumpFacts hashtag, which spoofed Britain’s supposed radicalisation with, for example, a picture of a Saracens Head pub sign captioned: “Even England’s famous pubs are controlled by Islamic radicals.”

That’s the strongest way of responding to him: to point at the shitting man and laugh. He can’t dismiss that as liberalism. He’s been a ridiculous figure for years. The most dangerous thing we can do now is stop finding him funny.
By David Mitchell
Original Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/13/dont-ban-donald-trump-just-laugh-at-him
Related:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

A Project of
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines, Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

11 careers that would have made Donald Trump more successful than he is now

What other paths could he have gone down since 1974 that would arguably have been more fulfilling, and at least made him a buck or two?

1. Hairdresser/beauty therapist
Hairdressers are reportedly some of the happiest workers on earth. And you know the Donald would get a kick out of helping people achieve his own signature comb over/fake tan look.

2. Marriage counsellor
Always full of sound advice.

3. Construction worker
That wall on the border with Mexico isn't going to build itself.

4. Impressionist
Maybe not of the movements of people with physical disabilities, though, like he's doing here.

5. Professional sports player (well, he could try)
Trump reportedly dreamed of playing major league baseball when he was young. It's not like he doesn't own enough sports facilities to practise now, though.

6. Military strategist
Donald famously dodged military service becaus of a knee problem. But his sophisticated analysis of the current issues in the Middle East is 'beautiful, secret, foolproof'.

7. Professional hunter
He'd have to go live in the woods. But we're probably OK with that.

8. Doctor
Trump's attitude towards the West African ebola crisis also showed a thorough grasp of the ethics and complexities of public health.

‏@realDonaldTrump

The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far away places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences!

9. Child carer/teacher
He loves kids! Look!

10. Zoologist
Trump could have been first to discover this little guy.

11. Artist
We couldn't find any pictures of Trump finger-painting. But we did find Paint with Trump, the results of which you can see here.

FYI, Donald: if you feel like ending the nightmare that is your presidential bid early, it's never too late to pursue your dreams...

Source: http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/11-careers-that-would-have-made-donald-trump-more-successful-than-he-is-now--Z1t7SEMs5g

Related:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

A Project of
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines, Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Religion is not doomed

Books Contrary to what secularists believe, a new book argues that ‘the world is more religious than ever’ | Rodney Stark

Rodney Stark is a sociologist and historian of religion who at age 81 remains a distinguished professor of the social sciences at Baylor University. Stark’s clear writing—he was a newspaper reporter before going to graduate school—distinguishes him from most academics. His argument that Christian practice wasn’t as common in the Middle Ages or in 18th century America as we like to think distinguishes him from some church-oriented historians. The argument in his new book, The Triumph of Faith, that “the world is more religious than ever,” distinguishes him from “new atheists” who seem ready to take a victory lap. Stark’s The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion(HarperOne) was WORLD Magazine’s 2012 Book of the Year. I also interviewed him back in 2007. Here, with permission from the publisher, ISI Books, is the last chapter of The Triumph of Faith, published last month. —Marvin Olasky Conclusion:

Why Faith Endures Whether or not it is so, the universe testifies to intelligent design. Even the militant atheist Richard Dawkins agrees that “living systems give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”[1] Of course, Dawkins goes on to argue that this is a false appearance—that the whole universe is an accident without purpose or meaning. But the point stands that life, indeed the entire physical universe, seems so complex and yet so orderly that to regard it as a pointless accident seems absurd. Again, the truth of intelligent design is irrelevant to my purpose here. That design seems self-evident to most people is sufficient.

To assume intelligent design is, of course, to assume a creator, and this, in turn, supposes that there is a supernatural consciousness. Thus have humans repeatedly “discovered” the existence of a god or gods. And if people accept the existence of a supernatural consciousness, it is inevitable that they will seek its blessings, for the supernatural is a plausible source of many things humans greatly desire, some of which are otherwise unobtainable. Many of these desires are for tangible things such as good crops, protection against the elements or enemies, health, and fertility, and potentially tangible things such as life after death. People also desire intangibles, such as happiness or that there be meaning and purpose to life. In pursuit of all such rewards, people will attempt to enlist the aid of the supernatural, which raises the question: what does the supernatural desire? Sometimes this question is answered through reason (theology), sometimes through trial and error; and sometimes people experience what they perceive to be communications from the supernatural (revelations).[2] This is how religion arises and endures. I have analyzed this process of the origin and evolution of religion at great length elsewhere.[3] Here it is sufficient to consider several basic issues. Perhaps the most important is the claim that religious faith is irrational, an assumption based in part on the additional premise that religion was originated by ignorant and irrational primitives and thus is rooted in crude superstition. Religion and Rationality There are two rather different claims involved in the charge that it is irrational to be religious. One is that religious beliefs are, in and of themselves, irrational because they are demonstrably untrue. The second is that people do not reason about their religious choices but simply take them for granted based on the culture into which they are born. Both claims are easily exposed as false.

Although endlessly proclaimed by professional atheists, the charge that religion is intrinsically irrational is based on the ignorant claim that scientific “laws” about the material world govern the immaterial realm postulated by religion. Carl Sagan frequently and smugly asserted that miracles can’t happen because they violate laws of nature. For example, the Red Sea could not have parted to allow Moses and the Israelites to escape from Egypt because no physical principles involving tides or currents could have made it possible—as if that would come as shattering news to the religious believer. What Sagan could not grasp was that nothing qualifies as a miracle unless it violates laws of nature. The Old Testament does not claim that Moses chose the very moment of a rare tidal phenomenon to lead his people out of Egypt; it says that God worked a miracle and parted the sea just long enough for the Israelites to pass. It may be that this miracle didn’t happen, but to say it could not have done so because it violates the laws of nature misses the point entirely. More generally, the claim that science disproves religion is nonsensical. Science is limited to study of the natural, empirical world. It can say nothing about the existence or nature of a nonempirical realm. Of course, one is free to argue that there is no nonempirical world, but one may not cite “scientific proof” of that claim. Secularists insist on portraying science and religion as being in opposition. But the truth is that modern science arose because of religion. Science began and flourished only in the West. Why? Because only Christians and Jews (also Muslims) conceived of God as a rational creator and concluded that therefore the universe must run according to rational principles that could be discovered.[4]

Elsewhere in the world it was assumed that the universe was an incomprehensible mystery, an object suitable for meditation only. The uniquely Judeo-Christian notion of a universe functioning according to rational principles inspired a group of learned figures—mostly very religious people—on to groundbreaking scientific discoveries. A study of the fifty-two most important scientists of the era known as the “Scientific Revolution” (1543–1680) demonstrated that thirty-one were extremely devout (many were clergy members, in fact), twenty were conventionally religious, and only one (Edmond Halley) was irreligious.[5] As to whether or not people are rational about accepting and practicing their religion, consider that 44 percent of Americans have adopted a religious affiliation different from that of their parents.[6]

Although a few American sons and daughters of religious parents choose to drop out of religion entirely, the majority of those raised in irreligious homes choose to become religious.[7] Moreover, even those who don’t leave the religion in which they were raised choose whether to be active or inactive in pursuing their faith, and this is true around the world. Choose is the critical verb; it assumes rationality. But to assume rationality is not to assume that human beings follow the path of pure reason in all ways at all times. No competent social scientists who begin their analysis of human behavior with the assumption of rationality believe our brains are little computers that always choose to gain the most at the least cost. Instead, everyone knows that humans are subject to many factors and forces that affect their decisions. It is more accurate to say: Within the limits of their information and understanding, restricted by available options, guided by their preferences and tastes, humans attempt to make rational choices. The first part of this proposition—within the limits of their information—recognizes that we cannot select choices if we do not know about them, and that we cannot select the most beneficial choice if we have incorrect knowledge about the relative benefits of choices. The second part—within the limits of their … understanding—acknowledges that people must make choices based on a set of principles, beliefs, or theories they hold about how things work. Such baseline assumptions may be false, as the history of science demonstrates, but the rational person applies his or her principles because these are, for that moment, the most plausible assumptions.

Finally, of course, people may select only from among available options, and the full range of choices actually available may not be evident to them. If humans attempt to make rational choices, why is it that they do not always act alike? Why don’t people reared in the same culture all seek the same rewards? Because their choices are guided by their preferences and tastes. This helps us understand not only why people do not all act alike but also why it is possible for them to engage in exchanges: to swap one reward for another—as a child I often traded my dessert to my sister in return for her second pork chop. Of course, not all preferences and tastes are variable—clearly there are things that virtually everyone values regardless of their culture or upbringing: food, shelter, security, and affection among them. Obviously, too, culture in general, and socialization in particular, will have a substantial impact on preferences and tastes. It is neither random nor purely a matter of personal taste whether someone prays to Allah or Shiva, or, indeed, whether one prays at all. Still, the fact remains that within any culture, there is substantial variation in preferences and tastes. Some of this variation is at least partly the result of socialization differences—for example, we probably learn our preferences concerning highly liturgical services as children. But a great deal of variation is so idiosyncratic that people have no idea how they came to like or dislike certain things.

As the old adage says, “There’s no accounting for tastes.” Finally, as implied by the word attempt in the phrase “humans attempt to make rational choices,” people don’t always act in entirely rational ways. Sometimes we act impulsively—in haste, passion, boredom, or anger (“I really didn’t stop to think about what I was doing”). Sometimes human also err because they are lazy, careless, or neurotic. All that said, most of the time normal human beings will choose what they perceive to be the more reasonable option, and whenever they do so, their behavior is fully rational, even if they are mistaken. It follows that the religious choices people make are as rational as their other choices: religion offers things most people very much desire and does so with considerable plausibility. Little of what people know about the world is the result of their own experience. For example, few have an experiential basis for knowing that the earth is round, let alone that the stars are distant suns. People “know” these things because they have been taught them by others in whom they have confidence.

The same applies to religion: people are confident in a religion because others whom they respect express their confidence in it. People not only testify to their certainty in the truth of a religion but also often enumerate personal “proofs” that religion is true. Recall from chapter 10 that 55 percent of American adults believe they have been “protected from harm by a guardian angel.” Twenty percent testify that they have heard “the voice of God speaking.” In addition, 23 percent claim to have “witnessed a miraculous, physical healing,” and 16 percent say that they themselves have “received a miraculous, physical healing.”[8] This is not peculiar to Americans; in most other major religions in most of the rest of the world, similar testimonials abound. For most people, such proofs that religion is true are as convincing as claims by scientists that, for example, the universe came into being suddenly via the Big Bang—this, too, most people must accept on faith alone. Critics such as Richard Dawkins would challenge this comparison by noting that, although laypeople must rely on testimony concerning the Big Bang, the scientists on whom they rely have firm empirical evidence for their claims. But many who offer testimonials as to the truth of religion believe they have firm empirical evidence, too: if you were sure you had been grabbed by invisible hands and saved from falling into traffic, might you tend to believe you had solid proof of the existence of angels? In any event, it is hardly irrational for most people to believe in religion, even if they are wrong.

Primitive Philosophers All the early social scientists, including Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917), and Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), agreed that the religion of primitive societies was crude to the point of being absurd. Spencer claimed that early humans were unable to distinguish their dreams from their experiences while awake, were “without curiosity,” and even lacked any notion of cause and effect. Hence, their religious ideas were ignorant and “childlike.”[9] Tylor agreed that primitive humans lived in a “childish” world, cluttered with spirits.[10] Durkheim even dismissed the idea that religion involves the worship of a god or gods, claiming that the actual object of religious worship is always society itself—even if the worshippers remain ignorant of this “fact.”[11] These early scholars went further. They held that what was true of primitive religion was also true for the religions of modern times—even if this was obscured by elaborate theologies. Moreover, they believed that the flaws of primitive religions were “a weapon which could be used … with deadly effect against Christianity.”[12] As Charles Darwin put it in a letter to Tylor, upon having read his book Primitive Society, “It is wonderful how you trace [primitive religion] from the lower races up to the religious beliefs of the higher.”[13] Then came a shocking development. After studying a mountain of trustworthy reports from anthropological field studies of primitive tribes, Andrew Lang (1844–1912) revealed that most such tribes had a quasimonotheistic religion based on high gods: “moral, all-seeing directors of things and men … eternal beings who made the world and watch over morality.”[14] That is, rather than being crude and ignorant, the religions of even the most primitive groups reflected a clear concern to explain the meaning and purpose of life. In 1927 the distinguished anthropologist Paul Radin (1883–1959) published Primitive Man as Philosopher—a collection of interviews with members of preliterate societies (before any contact with missionaries) on the great philosophical questions about the origin and meaning of life. A Greenland Eskimo explained: “Thou must not imagine that no Greenlander thinks about these things. … Certainly there must be some Being who made all these things.”[15] Lang’s and Radin’s work caused a wholesale revision of anthropological claims about primitive religion—but it has been met with the counterclaim that all religious answers to existential questions are primitive and pointless.[16]

The Need for Meaning Just as many of the secularization faithful continue mistakenly to believe that primitive people could not engage in “sophisticated” thought, these same academics generally assume that few people around the world today ever think about the “big” philosophical questions such as the meaning and purpose of life. It is widely claimed that most people simply believe what they are told, accepting without further reflection the answers provided by the religious culture into which they were born. But that’s not so, as shown in Table C–1 (download). The overwhelming majority of people on earth do think about the meaning and purpose of life. China is lowest, but even there half the population say they think about the meaning and purpose of life. Nearly everywhere else, three-fourths or more do so. Regional variations are modest, ranging from 89 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa to 76 percent in Asia. When people think about the meaning and purpose of life, what do they conclude? Do many end up agreeing with Richard Dawkins that life has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”?[17] Whatever else one makes of this claim, it certainly is not a view that people will be eager to embrace; not even Dawkins’s most dedicated readers will find this claim sets their hearts soaring. People want life to have some purpose. And hardly anyone agrees with Dawkins that life does not serve any purpose, as can be seen in Table C–2 (download). Comparisons with Table 1–8 [from Chapter 1] (download) show that the percentage of people who think life serves no purpose is comparable to (but even lower than) the percentage of atheists in a country. Around the world, nearly everyone thinks their life has an important purpose or meaning, as shown in Table C–3 (download). Only in Hong Kong (62 percent) and Taiwan (66 percent) do fewer than 70 percent of the people think their life has an important purpose and meaning. In only a few nations is the percentage below 80, and in a great many it is above 90 percent. The Global Religious Awakening Contrary to the constant predictions that religion is doomed, there is abundant evidence of an ongoing worldwide religious awakening. Never before have four out of five people on earth claimed to belong to one of the great world faiths. Today there are millions of devout Protestants in Latin America; not so long ago there were none. Even so, Latin American Catholics are far more religious than ever before. Sub-Saharan Africa is now home to more churchgoing Christians than anywhere else on earth, and North Africa and the Middle East are ablaze with Muslim fervor. Hinduism has never been stronger, and India’s transport systems are straining to meet the demands of pilgrims. The Chinese have rebuilt tens of thousands of temples destroyed by the Red Guards, and millions have converted to Christianity. Only in parts of Europe are the churches still rather empty, but this is not the reliable sign of secularization it has long been said to be; it is, rather, a sign of lazy clergy and unsuitable established religions. As has been said, Europe is a continent of “believing non-belongers.” The three tables [mentioned above] (C–1, C–2, and C–3) help to reveal why religion endures. People want to know why the universe exists, not that it exists for no reason, and they don’t want their lives to be pointless. Only religion provides credible and satisfactory answers to the great existential questions. The most ardent wishes of the secularization faithful will never change that. Secularists have been predicting the imminent demise of religion for centuries. They have always been wrong—and their claims today are no different. It is their unshakeable faith in secularization that may be the most “irrational” of all beliefs. From The Triumph of Faith. Reprinted with permission by ISI Books.

More: http://freebookpark.blogspot.com/2012/07/free-books.html

More: http://justOneGod.blogspot.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

A Project of
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines, Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Politics Donald Trump calls for ‘total’ ban on Muslims entering United States

Republican presidential contender Donald Trump said that he was in favor of a 'total and complete' shutdown of Muslims entering the United States, barring followers of the world’s fastest-growing religion because he considers the faith rooted in hatred and violence. The proposal — which was quickly denounced by other candidates from both parties — marks the latest escalation of the virulent anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant rhetoric that has fueled his unlikely candidacy.

It also came less than 24 hours after President Obama urged tolerance in an Oval Office address, saying the fight against terrorists should not “be defined as a war between America and Islam.” But at a rally Monday night in South Carolina, Trump received a boisterous standing ovation as he shared the idea, telling the crowd that a ban is “common sense” and that his Muslim friends agree with him. “We have no choice,” he said to cheers. “We have no choice. We have no choice.” Party leaders have worried for months that Trump’s divisive rhetoric could poison their party, even as it has allowed him to maintain a commanding lead over the divided GOP field since summer. Trump has broadly described illegal immigrants as violent criminals, called for the immediate deportation of the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States and, at a recent rally, seemed to condone an assault on a Black Lives Matter protester. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump at a campaign rally Monday on board the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, S.C. (Charles Ommanney/The Washington Post)

Many legal scholars said such a plan would violate both U.S. and international law and would never be allowed by the courts, while leaders of Islamic groups called the idea outrageous. “One has to wonder what Donald Trump will say next as he ramps up his anti-Muslim bigotry,” said Ibrahim Hooper, national communications director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “Where is there left for him to go? Are we talking internment camps? Are we talking the final solution to the Muslim question? I feel like I’m back in the 1930s.” Trump’s proposal came in a statement issued Monday calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” He said in the statement that “it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.” “Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine,” he continued. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” [Donald Trump’s plan to ban Muslims is based on a very shoddy poll]

Like most of the ideas Trump has floated, the proposal is both far-reaching and vague, raising numerous questions that his aides declined to answer Monday: Which Muslims would be included in the ban? How would they be identified? Would the U.S. bar American-born citizens who practice Islam and are returning from an overseas trip? What about holders of green cards visiting family overseas, or wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen journeying to the United States to finalize a deal?

Backlash grows against Trump's call to ban all Muslims In San Bernardino, Calif., and across the country, many are taking issue with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s call for the U.S. to ban all Muslims from entering the country. (Reuters) Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, told the Associated Press that the ban would apply to “everybody” but did not elaborate. Later, Trump said in an interview on Fox News that the ban would not apply to Muslim members of the military or “people living in the country.” On Twitter, Christian Broadcasting Network correspondent David Brody wrote that Trump was the only candidate with the “bravery” to call for a ban on Muslim immigration, and he predicted it would “give him a boost with evangelicals.” But Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University expert on constitutional law, said such a ban “would not only violate international law but do so by embracing open discrimination against one religion. It would make the United States a virtual pariah among nations.’’ Muslims make up nearly a quarter of the world’s population, and that portion is projected to hit 30 percent by 2050, at which point Muslims would be nearly as numerous as Christians, according to a Pew Research Center report issued in April.

Between 80,000 to 90,000 Muslims immigrate to the United States each year, according to a 2011 report by Pew. Targeted bans on specific groups of immigrants are not unprecedented in U.S. history. In the early 20th century, the United States passed a series of strict quotas on foreign arrivals, culminating in the immigration acts of 1917 and 1924. There were no visas for anyone residing in a designated “Asiatic Barred Zone.” That included most of the Muslim world, from the Arabian Peninsula to Indonesia. Those quotas were lifted by the Immigration Act of 1965. Since last month’s terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump has called for surveillance of mosques and barring Syrian refugees, and he has suggested he would consider establishing a database to track Muslims. In the past, Trump has also suggested that Obama was not born in the United States and hinted that the president could be Muslim rather than Christian. Trump’s standing in most polls has grown as he has made increasingly harsh rhetoric and policies the focus of his campaign, prompting other GOP candidates to follow or ratchet up their own statements. Every Republican presidential candidate has called for a pause in accepting Syrian refugees into the country, with Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and former Florida governor Jeb Bush saying Christian refugees should still be allowed in; Trump said at the time it would be impossible to implement because it is difficult to prove a person’s religion.

Most of Trump’s GOP rivals issued statements opposing Trump’s idea. Bush wrote Monday on Twitter that Trump is “unhinged,” while Ohio Gov. John Kasich said the proposed ban “is just more of the outrageous divisiveness that characterizes his every breath.” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called it “a ridiculous position,” and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) tweeted: “His habit of making offensive and outlandish statements will not bring Americans together.” Cruz said in an NBC interview that “there are millions of peaceful Muslims around the world.” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said Trump’s escalating rhetoric about Islam endangers U.S. soldiers and diplomats operating in the Muslim world: “The effects of this statement are far-reaching.” On the Democratic side, front-runner Hillary Clinton and her two main challengers, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, all condemned Trump, with O’Malley calling him “a fascist demagogue.” Clinton’s campaign is fundraising off of Trump’s latest statement, circulating an email from Clinton’s longtime top aide Huma Abedin that reads, in part: “I’m a proud Muslim — but you don’t have to share my faith to share my disgust.” At the heart of Trump’s statement was a questionable poll commissioned by the Center for Security Policy, a conservative group founded by Frank Gaffney, a veteran of the Reagan administration who accused the George W. Bush administration of helping Islamists infiltrate the government and who has been identified as an anti-Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Gaffney did not respond to a request for comment. “Mr. Trump is basing his very un-American proposal on the bogus data provided by a well-known and unhinged individual, who’s been rejected by conservatives,” said Suhail Khan, who worked in the George W. Bush administration and has been singled out by Gaffney.

“It’s all very un-American. Our country was based on religious freedom. The framers specifically included a ban on religious tests to seek and hold higher office.” Americans’ fears of Muslim extremists grew last year following a series of high-profile beheadings by the Islamic State, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Half said Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers, the highest in surveys since 2002. Views that Islam encourages violence peaked among white evangelical Protestants, Republicans, and those 65 and older. Sean Sullivan, Jerry Markon and Scott Clement contributed to this report. Jenna Johnson is a political reporter who is covering the 2016 presidential campaign. David Weigel is a national political correspondent covering the 2016 election and ideological movements.

More washingtonpost.com
Related:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace

A Project of
Peace Forum Network
Peace Forum Network Mags
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines, Videos, Social Media
Overall 2 Million visits/hits

Follow @Peace_Forum

Peace-Forum

Pages

Featured Post

SalaamOne NetWork

Donald Trump

Defeating Terrorism & Radicalisation of Muslim youth

ISIS ... Daesh Oil route

Canadian children performed the same song for refugees that was sung to Mohamed when he sought refuge:

Don’t ban Donald Trump. Just keep on laughing at him

11 careers that would have made Donald Trump more successful than he is now

Religion is not doomed

Politics Donald Trump calls for ‘total’ ban on Muslims entering United States