March 23, 2007
Escalating Oppression Seeks to Destroy Coptic Christians
JERSEY CITY, NJ, Mar. 20 /Christian Newswire/ — The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Coptic Christians, as they continue to suffer human rights abuses under Egypt’s regime. In lieu of the escalating violence and oppression against the Copts, the American Coptic Union is asking Congress to intervene on behalf of those victimized, and impose economic sanctions against Egypt. Since the current U.S. foreign policy appeases Egypt’s regime actions against Coptic Christians, it will inevitably endanger America’s interests in Egypt and the Middle East because the eventual eradication of Coptic Christians in Egypt will cause the U.S. to lose its political leverage in the region.
Recent Acts of Violence, Oppression and Subjugation
Murder of Copts by Muslims in Cairo
On March 9, 2007, two Coptic Christians were killed by Muslims in Imbabah, Cairo. Atta Attia and his son Magdy, were gunned down in front of their home by a group of Muslims who were waiting to murder them. The District Attorney investigating the case did not prosecute any of the Muslim attackers, but rather accused Attia’s second son, Essmat, of carrying a weapon, even though no weapon was found. As usual, the Egyptian authorities sought to protect the perpetrators and punish the victims.
Muslims Raid Christian Village in Armant, Qina Province
Christian villages have become the target of systematic persecution and violence by the Egyptian authorities. The most recent of these attacks was on February 22, 2007, when Muslims raided a Coptic Christian village in Armant, Upper Egypt. As a result, many homes and businesses belonging to Christians were set on fire and destroyed.
Report by Compass Direct
Report by United Press International
Direct threats against Copts in the US by the Patriarch and Egyptian Government
As a result of the American Coptic Union’s growing support against Article 2 of Egypt’s Constitution, Shenouda III, (the current disputed Patriarch on behalf of Egypt’ regime and the Muslim Brotherhood), publicly warned Copts against calling for the cancellation of Article 2. Shenouda has said that he fully endorses Article 2.
Shenouda’s message is disturbing because Article 2 calls for the implementation of Sharia Law as the main source of legislation in Egypt. This law seriously discriminates against Christians, women and non- Muslim minorities, thus encouraging violence against them. Copts have been targeted by Muslims for increased attacks as a result of Article 2.
Shenouda has also publicly supported the Muslim takeover of Jerusalem, and has called for America to stop supporting Israel. He has said publicly that the Al Aqsa Mosque should be protected by Muslims and must be taken from the Jews.
The American Coptic Union questions Shenouda’s motives, as his fiery speeches have only served to spread increased hatred against Copts, and have created an even greater anger among , Christians, Catholic, and Protestant, and Jews. And while aligning himself as a sympathetic and vocally active supporter of Egypt’s Arab Muslim agenda, Shenouda has done nothing to protect his flock. He has, instead, aligned himself with despicable actions perpetrated by the Egyptian government by cooperating in the cover up of numerous crimes against the Copts. He has also flagrantly compromised the safety and future security of the Copts by shamelessly aiding and abetting the Egyptian government in its forward movement to destabilize and eradicate the Coptic culture in Egypt, through continued persecution, fear and infiltration.
Egypt’s Persecution of a Muslim Sympathizer with Israel
During the recent espionage trial of Muhammed Ghunaim Al Attar, a Canadian Egyptian Muslim who was communicating with Israeli Jews, Mr. Hussein Abdu Ghany, Al Jazeera’s Cairo correspondent, said “According to Egyptian official sources this trial is a warning to the Copts in the US.” Not only was Al Attar arrested, but warrants were issued to three Israelis who were associated with him as well. Al Attar’s trial was understood to be a confirmation of this treat by Egyptian authorities against Coptic activists.
AHN Media Corp. Global News: Egypt Forbids Christians to Make Easter Pilgrimage to Israel as Egyptian Stands Trial as Spy For Israel
United Press International reports that the Egyptian government has banned Coptic Christians from traveling to Israel.
Another Coptic Bishop to be exiled by Egypt
Destroying the Coptic culture and religion is an ongoing process by the Egyptian government. Last month, Bishop Kerrolus of Nagah Hamadi, in Upper Egypt, was sent to a trial to excommunicate and exile him from his diocese. Many of his followers attended the trial to protest this action.
Bishop Kerrolus is the sixth bishop to be excommunicated and exiled. The other five are:
Bishop Armonious of Luxor,
Bishop Taklah of Deshnah,
Bishop Bafnatious of Samalutt,
Bishop Mina of Al Mina,
Bishop Mittias of Al Mahallah
With the help of Shenouda, Egypt’s regime has adopted a policy of excommunication and exile for these bishops who were helping their own parishioners and actively seeking to stop the forced conversion of Coptic Christians into Islam.
The American Coptic Union believes that Bishop Kerrolus’ involvement in the release of two kidnapped Christian girls by Muslim men in April of 2006 is the reason for his eventual excommunication and exile.
While living in Egypt, George Bebawi, a respected Coptic professor and dean of the Indiana Orthodox School for Christian Studies, was also exiled for his outspokenness against the Egyptian Patriarch. Dr. Bebawi, a popular figure among the Copts in both the U.S. and Egypt, has recently accused Shenouda of heresy and of spreading the teachings of Islam.
Egypt Continues to Include Article 2 in its Constitution
Despite the call by millions of Christian and moderate Muslims in Egypt to get rid of Article 2 from the constitution, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has joined forces with the Muslim Brotherhood to fight hard to include this article. .
The American Coptic Union implores the U.S. government to stop the Egyptian government from the continued violence and subjugation against the Coptic Christians before their presence in Egypt is completely destroyed.
March 23, 2007
The $124 billion supplemental appropriation is a good bill
to oppose. I am pleased that many of my colleagues will
join me in voting against this measure.
If one is unhappy with our progress in Iraq after four
years of war, voting to de-fund the war makes sense. If
one is unhappy with the manner in which we went to war,
without a constitutional declaration, voting no makes
equally good sense.
Voting no also makes the legitimate point that the
Constitution does not authorize Congress to direct the
management of any military operation – the president
clearly enjoys this authority as Commander in Chief.
But Congress just as clearly is responsible for making
policy, by debating and declaring war, raising and equipp-
ing armies, funding military operations, and ending
conflicts that do not serve our national interests.
Congress failed to meet its responsibilities four years
ago, unconstitutionally transferring its explicit war power
to the executive branch. Even though the administration
started the subsequent preemptive war in Iraq, Congress
bears the greatest responsibility for its lack of courage
in fulfilling its duties. Since then Congress has obedient-
ly provided the funds and troops required to pursue this
We won’t solve the problems in Iraq until we confront
our failed policy of foreign interventionism. This latest
appropriation does nothing to solve our dilemma. Micro-
managing the war while continuing to fund it won’t help
Here’s a new approach: Congress should admit its mistake
and repeal the authority wrongfully given to the executive
branch in 2002. Repeal the congressional sanction and
disavow presidential discretion in starting wars. Then
start bringing our troops home.
If anyone charges that this approach does not support the
troops, take a poll. Find out how reservists, guardsmen,
and their families – many on their second or third tour
in Iraq – feel about it.
The constant refrain that bringing our troops home would
demonstrate a lack of support for them must be one of the
most amazing distortions ever foisted on the American
public. We’re so concerned about saving face, but whose
face are we saving? A sensible policy would save American
lives and follow the rules laid out for Congress in the
Constitution – and avoid wars that have no purpose.
The claim that it’s unpatriotic to oppose spending more
money in Iraq must be laid to rest as fraudulent.
GO AHEAD… MAKE MY DAY…
With the Deal of the Day ezine we will!
Five days a week you’ll get an email with an item and a
discounted price… in many cases these are selling at less
than cost. We simply must get rid of them.
Join the Deal of the Day community that focuses on selling
COOL STUFF CHEAP… And joining is free.
Subscribe to this fun and money saving ezine (for free) at:
Get the Deal of the Day free ezine
We should pass a resolution that expresses congressional
opposition to any more undeclared, unconstitutional,
unnecessary, preemptive wars. We should be building a
consensus for the future that makes it easier to end our
current troubles in Iraq.
It’s amazing to me that this Congress is more intimidated
by political propagandists and special interests than the
American electorate, who sent a loud, clear message about
the war in November. The large majority of Americans now
want us out of Iraq.
Our leaders cannot grasp the tragic consequence of our
policies toward Iraq for the past 25 years. It’s time we
woke them up.
We are still by far the greatest military power on earth.
But since we stubbornly refuse to understand the nature of
our foes, we are literally defeating ourselves.
In 2004, bin Laden stated that al-Qaeda’s goal was to
bankrupt the United States. His second in command,
Zawahiri, is quoted as saying that the 9/11 attack would
cause Americans to, “come and fight the war personally on
our sand where they are within rifle range.”
Sadly, we are playing into their hands. This $124 billion
appropriation is only part of the nearly $1 trillion in
military spending for this year’s budget alone. We should
be concerned about the coming bankruptcy and the crisis
facing the U.S. dollar.
We have totally failed to adapt to modern warfare. We’re
dealing with a small, nearly invisible enemy – an enemy
without a country, a government, an army, a navy, an air
force, or missiles. Yet our enemy is armed with suicidal
determination, and motivated by our meddling in their
regional affairs, to destroy us.
And as we bleed financially, our men and women in Iraq die
needlessly while the injured swell Walter Reed hospital.
Our government systematically undermines the Constitution
and the liberties it’s supposed to protect – for which it
is claimed our soldiers are dying in faraway places.
Only with the complicity of Congress have we become a
nation of preemptive war, secret military tribunals,
torture, rejection of habeas corpus, warrantless searches,
undue government secrecy, extraordinary renditions, and
uncontrollable spying on the American people. The greatest
danger we face is ourselves: what we are doing in the name
of providing security for a people made fearful by
distortions of facts. Fighting over there has nothing to
do with preserving freedoms here at home. More likely the
opposite is true.
Surely we can do better than this supplemental
authorization. I plan to vote no.
March 14, 2007
By Ali Sina
One of the most obvious mathematical mistakes of the Quran can be found in the division of the inheritance.
The laws of inheritance are spread out in several Suras. One can find references to them in Al-Baqarah(2), Al-Maidah(5) and Al-Anfal(8). But the details of these laws are spelled out in the Surah Nisa (4).
“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of legacies and debts…”
Q. 4: 12
“In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts…”
“If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance: If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance: If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.”
Despite the fact that it says “Allah made them clear”, these laws are far from clear.
Verse 4:11 says that if a man has only one daughter, she gets half of the inheritance irrespective of other heirs. But since the same verse says that the portion of the male is twice that of the female, her brother is supposed to get all the inheritance. Isn’t this a discrepancy? Certainly there is an error in how this law is written. Yet the problem is aggravated further when the share of other heirs like parents and wives are taken into consideration.
There are cases when the total of the shares assigned to the heirs exceeds the patrimony. Take for example the following.
According to the above verses, if a man dies leaving behind a wife, three daughters and his two parents,
His wife’s share of his inheritance is 1/8. (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth)
His daughters would receive 2/3 (if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance;)
and his parents each will get 1/6 of his inheritance. (For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children;)
When you add all these fractions the sum is more than the total of inheritance.
Wife1/8 = 3/24
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24
Father 1/6 = 4/24
Mother1/6 = 4/24
Total = 27/24
Now take another example. Say a man is survived by his wife, his mother and his sisters.
The wife receives 1/4 of the inheritance, (In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child;)
the mother 1/3 (if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the heirs, the mother has a third;)
and the sisters 2/3. (If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them)
When we add up these fractions they too are more than the total.
Wife1/4 = 3/12
Mother 1/3 = 4/12
Sisters 2/3 = 8/12
Total = 15/12
In the above examples, the shares apportioned to the heirs exceed the total of the inheritance. In both cases the total of the inheritance sums to exactly one BEFORE taking into account the wife’s share.
What should be done if a man has two wives, one with children and the other without children? Does the one with children receive 1/8 and the one without children 1/4? And is this justice?
Now suppose a woman dies leaving a husband and a brother:
Husband receives half (In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child.)
Brother receives everything (If (such a deceased was) a woman, who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance.)
Does this mean that the parents, sisters and husband do not get anything? In that case where is the justice and if they do how can the brother get everything?
Husband, (1/2) = 1/2
Brother (everything) = 2/2
Total = 3/2
This verse does not specify that the brother gets everything only when there are no other heirs. It just says when there are no children he gets everything. In the same verse it says that if a man dies leaving a sister, she gets half. What will happen to the other half?
Here is another example: A woman leaves behind a husband, a sister and a mother.
Husband, (1/2) = 3/6
Sister (1/2) = 3/6
Mother (1/3) = 2/6
Total = 8/6
We can conclude that the Quran in matters of inheritance is very obtuse. It is so obtuse that Shiites and Sunnis practice this law differently. For example:
If a man leaves a wife and the two parents, the Shiits will give the wife 1/4 and then distribute the remainder as 1/3 for the mother and 2/3 for the father, i.e. they will receive 1/4 and 1/2 of the original estate (see #2741). Sunnis give the wife 1/4, the mother 1/3 and the father as the nearest male relative the rest, i.e. 5/12. As one can witness, the Quran is anything but clear.
In order to solve these problems the Islamic doctors of law have devised a complex “science” called “Al-Fara’id”. It contains rules of “Awl” and “Usbah,” and the laws of “Usool” of the Fara’id, the laws of “Hajb wa Hirman,” and many other issues relating to this matter.
The laws of “Awl” (accommodation) deals with cases when the inheritor’s shares exceed or “overshoot” the sum of the total inheritance. In such case the shares are adjusted to accommodate everyone. This is how it works:
Wife1/8 = 3/24 is changed to 3/27
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24 is changed to 16/27
Father 1/6 = 4/24 is changed to 4/27
Mother1/6 = 4/24 is changed to 4/27
Total = 27/24 27/27
and for the second case,
Wife1/4 = 3/12 is changed to 3/15
Mother 1/3 = 4/12 is changed to 4/15
Sisters 2/3 = 8/12 is changed to 8/15
Total = 15/12 15/15
Thus the problem is solved thanks to human ingenuity but the portions are not the same as indicated in the Quran. Each party has to waive part of his or her share in order to make this law work. This is a clear case in which the words of Allah needed human intervention in order to become applicable.
There are yet cases when the shares of the inheritors do not sum to a whole 100% and there is a surplus left.
Take for example a man who dies and leaves his wife and his parents.
Parents 1/3 = 4/12
Wife 1/4 = 3/12
Total = 7/12
Who will receive the balance 5/12 of the inheritance?
The following are other cases that after the distribution, there is a surplus of Inheritance::
scenario fund distributed surplus
Only a wife: = 1/4 3/4
Only a mother: = 1/3 2/3
Only a daughter = 1/2 1/2
Two daughters = 2/3 1/3
Only a Sister = 1/2 1/2
A mother and a sister = 1/3 + 1/2 = 5/6 1/6
A wife and a mother = 1/4 + 1/3 = 5/12 7/12
A sister and a wife = 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 1/4
In all these cases and many other combinations there is a surplus. What will happen to this surplus? Who will inherit it?
To deal with this problem the law of “Usbah” comes to effect. This law is to regulate the unclaimed shares, which have no corresponding people to receive them. Of course if the Quran was clear with no errors, there would have been no need for all these “sciences” and amendments.
The law of Usbah is based on the following Hadith.
Sahih Bukhari 8. 80. 724
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said, “Give the Fara’id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur’an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased.”
According to this law, a man who dies and is survived by only his daughter with no other close male relative except a second cousin, his daughter will receive half of his inheritance and the other half will go to the man’s second cousin. This seems quite unfair to the daughter, but it would be especially unfair if the man had a needy aunt or a female first cousin that would receive nothing because they are of the wrong gender.
Now suppose that a man has no other heir except his wife and a distant male relative. The wife will receive 1/4 and the distant male relative gets the balance, i.e. three times the inheritance that his widowed wife gets. Is this justice?
What if the deceased has no male relative at all? What will happen to the rest of his inheritance? What happens in the reverse case when a wife has no relatives? The husband will receive half of her inheritance; who will get the other half?
Note that in the Quran there is no priority for the distribution of the inheritance. In nowhere it says “first give to these and from what is left, give to those”. Even if we had to reinterpret these laws and prioritize them in the order that they are mentioned, it still does not work because in that case, each subsequent inheritor will have his or her share shrunk. Also in most cases the total inheritance will never be used up.
This is the fallacy in which Mr. Sami Zaatari engages. In an attempt to refute this article Mr. Zaatari wrote: “If A [ the deceased] left a widow or widower, the widow’s or widower’s share would first be calculated as in the first half of verse 4:1”
Mr. Zaatari must show us this instruction in the Quran. There is no provision in the Quran to pay certain inheritors first and divide the rest among other heirs. The fact remains that the Quran in matters of the division of the inheritance is wrong mathematically.
The obtuseness of these laws of inheritance is further emphasized in the following example. Consider the case of a man with only one daughter and 10 sons. According to the Quran, the daughter receives half while all the sons must share among themselves the other half. So each will receive not more than 1/20 of the inheritance. But this would contradict the other ruling that a male is to receive twice the share of the female.
Of course for 1400 years Muslims have practiced Islam and somehow they managed to make these confusing laws work. How they did it? They reinterpreted, adjusted and compromised to make sense of these nonsense laws. They put all the inheritance in a pool and gave to each male child twice the share of their female siblings. This solution, though satisfies one of the ruling of the Quran about the inheritance, it contradicts the other.
Despite all these incongruencies and errors the real problem with these laws is not the fact that they do not add up. The problem is in the inherent injustice that they embody. A fair minded person cannot avoid but to question, why daughters should receive half of what the sons receive? Why sisters receive less than brothers? And why a widower is entitled to double the share than a widow? Why the Quran states “to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”? (4:11). Think of a man with four wives. All the wives have to share the ¼ of his wealth, if he has no children and 1/8 if he has. In the first case each wife will receive 1/16 of the inheritance and in the second case 1/32. How a woman who may not be young enough to remarry can survive with such meager share in a male dominated society as Islamic countries? On the other hand a man who loses all his four wives will inherit half to ¼ of every wife’s wealth. Isn’t this the formula to enrich the men and impoverish the women? It is easier to forget the mathematical errors of the Quran than forgive its injustice.
The verse (4:175) claims that “Thus doth Allah make clear to you (His law), lest ye err. And Allah hath knowledge of all things.” As we saw, the above laws are anything but clear. They do not add up, the portions are not clearly defined, and the shares are distributed unfairly. It is up to Muslims to decide whether Allah, does not have the “knowledge of all things”, cannot add simple fractions, is confused and unfair or that the Quran is mistaken, and Muhammad was not a prophet of God. It is one or the other. You decide.
(Very interesting link, the new ‘moderate Moslem’ manifesto, but didn’t they release one in Holland back in the cartoon days?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isQu0hAAZRI (Irshad, cute but doesn’t know what she’s talking about if she thinks she can interpret Islam the way she wants to)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTG96tOpkoI (Ibrahim Hooper, a joke of a Moslem–do Arab Moslems wear prayer caps 24/7? Talk about “trying to prove yourself.” Gah!)
U.S. Religious Leaders Encourage Talks Between Hitler & Roosevelt — Give Assurances Hitler Will Not Seek to Extend German Borders
March 2, 2007
“The ecumenical delegation’s acceptance of President Ahmadinejad’s soothing assurances about peace and good will was absurd.” — Mark Tooley, IRD Director of UMAction
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 /Christian Newswire/ — A coalition of liberal religious leaders just returned on Sunday from a week long “bridge-building” trip to Iran. They met with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the hopes of averting U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The Iranian president, who has denied the Holocaust and threatened to incinerate Israel, assured the trusting church officials that he is against nuclear weapons. Organizers of the trip were the Mennonite Central Committee and American Friends Service Committee. Ahmadinejad invited the religious officials to Iran after having met with many of them in New York last September. The delegation included representatives of the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and the National Council of Churches, among others.
IRD UMAction Director Mark Tooley commented:
“The ecumenical delegation’s acceptance of President Ahmadinejad’s soothing assurances about peace and good will was absurd. The Iranian dictator, who presides over a vicious Shiite theocracy, has publicly prophesied for an apocalypse that concludes with the destruction of non-believers. Presumably he did not discuss his genocidal plans with the church officials, and presumably they did not bother to ask.
“Supposedly Ahmadinejad told the 13-member delegation his government ‘Iran has no intention to acquire or use nuclear weapons’ yet his foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki has reiterated that his country would never suspend uranium enrichment. (AP)
“The ecumenical statement released included, ‘We believe it is possible for further dialogue and that there can be a new day in U.S. – Iranian relations.’ Perhaps the ecumenical delegation should have sung Kumbaya with the Iranian president. For over 30 years, officials from these church groups have never failed to meet an anti-American dictator they could not trust and even admire. If they made any impression on Ahmadinejad at all, these church officials must have only confirmed his stereotypes about naïve and gullible Americans.”
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, founded in 1981, is an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians working to reform their churches’ social witness, in accord with biblical and historic Christian teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad.
CAA Appeals for International Intervention
MIDLAND, Texas, Mar. 1 /Christian Newswire/ — CAA learned that a severely persecuted house church leader from Xi’an, Shangxi province was denied protection by the United Nations High Commissioner Office in Thailand. Elder Lei Wensen and his family members were severely persecuted by the Chinese security for their leadership in the house church movement in China. CAA president Bob Fu received a letter for help from elder Lei Wensen on January 26, 2007. After a thorough investigation, CAA has verified elder Lei’s claim that he and his family indeed had been persecuted for their independent Christian faith as House Church leaders in China. We believe elder Lei Wensen and his family members will face harsh persecution from the Chinese government if they are forced to return to China from Thailand. We have been able to communicate with Rev. Larry Pan of Los Angeles who was the applicant Mr. Lei Wensen’s pastor in China.
In an open letter to UNHCR, Rev. Bob Fu asked the UN body to act quickly before elder Lei’s situation gets worse. “We urge you to reconsider your previous decision and grant elder Lei and family members in Thailand refugee status so that they can be protected by UNHCR before they resettle in the USA.”
China Aid Association, Inc. was established in Pennsylvania in 2002 and is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization. In addition to collecting documents and materials related to Chinese law and government policy toward religion in China, CAA also issues news releases on cases of religious persecution in China and carries out other advocacy on behalf of persecuted religious believers in China, and provides humanitarian relief and supplies, including Christian materials, to persecuted members of underground Protestant churches in China. CAA supports the broad principle of freedom of religion for all believers in China, and aspires to conduct activities which protect the civil rights of believers from all religions.
Letters of concern can be sent to:
UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES
Branch office for Thailand
Fax: +66 2 280 0555
P.O Box: 2.121, Rajamnam
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
March 2, 2007
In his latest exclusive column, A Petition to Free 27 Million Slaves, in WorldNetDaily TODAY, Chuck Norris talks about how we can solve this worldwide problem.
“A few years ago, National Geographic reported that there are 27 million slaves in the world today — more than any other time in human history. What can be done to free them? Be a ‘Wilberforce’ or ‘Newton’!” Norris says.
Norris has starred in more than 20 films and the long-running TV series, “Walker, Texas Ranger.” He has written for WorldNetDaily on a number of hot-button topics, including: abortion, his old friend — and opponent — Bruce Lee, Bob Dylan’s true hero, the biggest threat to America, and Pearl Harbor. Norris writes a weekly column exclusive to WorldNetDaily.
While the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the UK will soon be celebrated around the world, slavery has mushroomed, as there are now over 27 million people in bondage worldwide.
WorldNetDaily is an independent news company. Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah in May 1997, it is now a leading Internet news site in both traffic and influence and has launched popular columns by Bill O’Reilly, David Limbaugh and others into national syndication.