All I can think is what in the world??
Iranian Vice President, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai made an unprecedented statement saying Iran is “a friend of the nation in Israel and the United States.” Mashai, who gave a speech at a tourism conference in Tehran said that “no nation in the world is our enemy.”
Iranian officials made statements in the past regarding friendship with the American nation, but a statement like this regarding Israel has never been made by a senior Iranian official.
Thanks to Gateway Pundit for pointing this out.
Like many Iraqis, Sami and his family are impatient for some direct benefits to come their way.
Sami's family, too, represents the questions many Iraqis have about Obama's views.
The family strongly backed last year's U.S. troop "surge" that is now credited with halting much of the insurgency attacks and sectarian killings in and around the capital.
Obama, who criticized the reinforcements at the time, has lauded the military successes, but argues that sending 30,000 additional soldiers to Iraq pulled away focus from the widening battles against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and border regions of Pakistan.
Sami also supports the idea of a slow pullback by U.S. forces — not the rapid withdrawal that Obama has suggested...
But few Iraqis appear to support a full-scale American withdrawal under current conditions. Many fear that could undercut recent security gains and open the door to greater influence by Iran with Shiite militias — a charge that Tehran denies.
"A pullout would create a vacuum that could be used by many sides," said Salah al-Rubaie, a Shiite vegetable vendor in Kut, about 90 miles southeast of Baghdad. "Sectarian and militia killings would return as well as looting and robbing. Public life could come to a halt again. That would be a catastrophe."
Hamid Alwan Jassim finds ample evidence against a U.S. withdraw in his home city of Baqouba, the hub of Diyala province where Sunni insurgents are trying to regroup. On Tuesday, double suicide bombings killed at least 28 army recruits.
"Iraq should be stable first, because any early pullout would allow extremists to emerge again and more fiercely," he said.
This from Investors Business Daily:
All told, 600 American children are being indoctrinated into jihad in 22 madrassas across Pakistan. A U.S. filmmaker stumbled on them while tracing the path of the London suicide bombers. He discovered they attended the same radical Islamic schools. A congressional delegation has confirmed his findings.
One particularly radical school in Karachi freely displays a banner at its main gate urging Muslims to join the Taliban. At least 80 Americans are enrolled at Jamia Binoria, an international school. Many of its graduates joined the Taliban and became commanders.
Another jihadist seminary in Pakistan connected to Jamia Binoria brainwashed John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban now serving time for attacking U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
The mullahs who run these terrorist hatcheries come to America to recruit boys, many of them from Lindh's home state of California. Jamia Binoria's headmaster, Mufti Mohammad Naeem, travels to the U.S. each year during Ramadan to meet with Muslim parents — like a college football coach recruiting prospects.
They hope Naeem will teach their kids to memorize the Quran, a high honor in Islam, so the whole family can get into Paradise. They also want them protected against "corrupting" Western influences.
The pupils, some as young as 8, spend years locked inside these cults reciting the Muslim holy book for hours on end. They learn "Islam, only Islam," the mufti says.
An English translation of his school's mission statement reveals its goal is to send Western students back to their home countries to spread extremism. "The outgoing scholars of the Jamia are fighting a crusade against infidels and pagans," Naeem states.
Astonishingly, the U.S. has the most enrollees at the nine madrassas run by Jamia Binoria of any country outside Pakistan.
Of course there's no Churches of America Calendar the ACLU would be all over that. More from World Net Daily on this:
This now available from the U.S. State Department: "2009 Mosques of America Wall Calendar: Limited Edition for Ramadan."
"Yep, you read that correctly. It's 'perfect for Muslim outreach efforts," according to a commentary at the Gates of Vienna blog. "Where's the ACLU on this one?"
The product was being advertised by "Global Publishing Solutions," a division of the U.S. State Department, until bloggers started talking about it.
Officials then apparently hid the page behind the security of a password-protected wall. However, the page is still viewable in a Google cache of the website.
One of them was even running for 20 minutes with the AC on!
Newsbusters has more.
NEW YORK: A group of Americans, Canadians and Israelis who claim Hezbollah rocket attacks injured them and killed relatives have accused two banks of helping finance the terrorist attacks and have sued them for $650 million.
The 85 plaintiffs say in court papers the American Express Bank Ltd. of New York and the Lebanese-Canadian Bank SAL of Beirut unlawfully transferred millions of dollars for Hezbollah between 2004 and 2006.
The papers, filed Friday in Manhattan's state Supreme Court, say Hezbollah used the money to finance the launch of thousands of rockets against several northern Israeli cities, including Haifa, from July 12 to Aug. 14, 2006.
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, said the youngest of the victims is now 3 and the oldest is 88. She said that besides two who were killed, another was left paralyzed from the waist down for life and others also suffered serious injuries or severe emotional trauma.
The claims are based partly on New York state Banking Department findings last year that AMEX Bank failed to establish state and federally required safeguards to prevent money transfers to terrorists, Darshan-Leitner said.
The lawyer said Lebanese-Canadian Bank, which has a branch in Montreal, transferred the money in dollars to the Middle East to the accounts of Hezbollah front organizations.
Lebanese-Canadian Bank "negligently provided extensive banking services to Hizbollah (sic), which caused, enabled and facilitated the terrorist rocket attacks in which the plaintiffs and their decedents were harmed and killed," her court papers say.
To transfer the money in dollars, she said, Lebanese-Canadian must use an American bank, in this case AMEX in New York, as a correspondent institution.
"The idea of the lawsuit in part is to warn American correspondent banks that they will be held responsible for attacks by Hezbollah if they transfer money to them," Darshan-Leitner said. "We expect them to follow the law."
The lawyer said she believes the lawsuit is the first brought by terrorism victims against a U.S. bank that serves as a correspondent for a Lebanese bank.
I predicted this would come out by Monday. Looks like I guessed a little to early. It is not revealed that Jesse Jackson had the following to say when his mic was turned down:
"Barack...he's talking down to black people...telling n*****s how to behave.
Great audio... Way to go Boortz way to speak the truth.
Thanks to Pat Dollard for this.
Great Read... Read it all.
In a cartoon on the cover of the latest issue of the New Yorker, a turbaned Barack Obama fist-bumps his wife Michelle, who sports an AK-47. They are standing in the Oval Office, where a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs on the wall and an American flag burns in the fireplace.
David Remnick, the New Yorker’s editor, explained that they had only intended to lampoon “right-wing” attacks on Obama: “Our cover...combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall -- all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton, however, was not amused. "The New Yorker may think," he fumed, “as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”
To see a political cartoon being denounced these days should make everyone uneasy. There are indeed plenty of political cartoons that are truly tasteless and offensive, but today international Islamic organizations are making concerted efforts to compel Western countries to limit free speech in the wake of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that were published in late 2005.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference, declared recently that “confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna,’” which showed Muslims acting on violent passages in the Qur’an, “we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed.” He said that Western countries had “started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.” In other words, they were moving to restrict freedom of speech. Whether or not Ihsanoglu’s confidence that the West will soon outlaw criticism of Islam such as is implied by the Danish cartoons is warranted, it would have been wiser for the Obama camp to have laughed off this New Yorker cartoon.
What’s more, one would think Obama’s camp would have welcomed “a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create.” Does Bill Burton think that this is how the New Yorker, of all publications, actually views Obama? That seems beyond the realm of possibility. So the only thing that reasonably explains his dudgeon over what is nothing more than a funny satirical cartoon is that he is afraid that a good number of Americans actually view Obama this way.
This is in line with the Obama camp’s general defensiveness over the issue of Obama’s Muslim ties. Obama has been going to some lengths to make sure nobody thinks he’s a Muslim. Nor has he been making any particular effort to add, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that” – in fact, his denial of the claim that he ever practiced Islam is included on his “Fight the Smears” website, implying that to say that someone is a Muslim is to smear him.
And then there was the incident in the primary season where a couple of women wearing Muslim head scarves were shuffled out of camera range.
How sad...
Islamabad (AsiaNews) - District judge Mian Muhammad Naeem, of the section of Muzaffargarh, has ruled that the two Christian sisters "have converted in a legitimate manner to Islam", and for this reason they cannot be "restored to their family of origin". Setting aside the request from their father to regain custody of his daughters, the judge also admitted the "validity" of the marriage of the girls to two Muslims.
Saba Younas, aged 13, and her sister Anila were kidnapped last June 26 in the village of Chowk Munda, in the province of Punjab, where they had gone to visit their uncle, Khalid Raheel. This is the same uncle who in recent days reported their kidnapping, asking for help from news organisations and human rights groups. According to Raheel's account, a Muslim fruit vendor named Muhammad Arif Bajwa kidnapped the girls, and then handed them over to a friend, Falak Sher Gill, who then organised the marriage between his own son and the older of the Christian sisters, Saba. In court, moreover, father and son both stressed the "complete willingness of the girl to contract marriage".
The girls' uncle does not conceal his preoccupation, and denounces to AsiaNews that the Muslims involved in the kidnapping are acting as a "gang", recruiting the girls in order to "make them work in a bordello". This alarm has also been heard by the Catholic commission for justice and peace (NCJP) in the country, which confirms the words of Khalid Raheel: the kidnappers are believed to be human traffickers linked to prostitution, known to the police and under the protection of some local politicians. "For these unscrupulous people", charges Naeem Asghar, local coordinator of the NCJP, marriage is a pretence in order to control the girls, run their lives and exploit them for their own business purposes".
The Catholic community continues to uphold the cause of Saba and Anila, and promises that the family will not be left to itself. Expressing the hope that the girls will be brought back home, the coordinator of the NCJP emphasises that "an appeal will soon be presented to the high court of Multan, to contest the decision of the district judge" and have the girls "restored to their parents".
Not a big surprise... You can read the whole report HERE
WASHINGTON, July 15, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- State Department-Negotiated Deadline for Reform Nears
Today the Center for Religious Freedom of the Hudson Institute released a 90-page report 2008 Update: Saudi Arabia's Curriculum of Intolerance, with a foreword by R. James Woolsey. It was prepared in consultation with the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs.
This report compares the 2007-2008 textbooks that are currently posted on the website of the Saudi Ministry of Education with those analyzed in our 2006 study, and shows that the same violent and intolerant teachings against other religious believers noted in 2006 remain in the current texts.
They assert that unbelievers, such as Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not share Wahhabi beliefs and practices, are hated "enemies." Global jihad as an "effort to wage war against the unbelievers" is also promoted in the Ministry's textbooks: "In its general usage, 'jihad' is divided into the following categories: ...Wrestling with the infidels by calling them to the faith and battling against them." No argument is made here that such references to jihad mean only spiritual and defensive struggles.
Lessons remain that Jews and Christians are apes and swine, Jews conspire to "gain sole control over the world," the Christian Crusades never ended, the American universities of Cairo and Beirut are part of the continuing Crusades, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are historical fact, and on Judgment Day "the rocks or the trees" will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews.
They teach that it is permissible for a Muslim to kill an "apostate," an "adulterer," and those practicing "major polytheism." Shiites are among those identified as "polytheists." One lesson states that "it is not permissible to violate the blood, property, or honor of the unbeliever who makes a compact with the Muslims," but is pointedly silent on whether security guarantees are extended to non-Muslims without such a compact. Other lessons demonize members of the Baha'i and Ahmadiyya groups.
A lesson from a tenth grade text now posted on the Saudi Ministry's website sanctions the killing of homosexuals and discusses methods for doing so.
In the lessons examined in this report, the Saudi government discounts or ignores passages in the Qur'an to support tolerance.
All of these textbooks have been reissued at least once and all but two of them reissued twice, yet overall the changes to the passages in question have been minimal, and the degree of substantive change has been negligible. Taken together, the report concludes, revisions in the currently-posted texts amount to moving around the furniture, not cleaning the house.
This analysis is issued as a deadline nears for the removal of intolerant teachings from all Saudi textbooks. This commitment stems from the Saudi government's "confirmation" of policies that resulted from extensive bilateral negotiations with the U.S., and which policies were publicly announced and lauded as "significant developments" by the State Department in July 2006. Whether Saudi Arabia's "comprehensive revision of textbooks" will be achieved by the start of the September 2008 school year remains to be seen. As the report documents, thorough textbook reform has not yet occurred.
Hot Air ask the question "McCain flip-flops on the DREAM Act — or does he?"
I must say the answer to this question is yes after reading the Q & A from this meeting with La Raza. Read the whole thing HERE
At the end of his La Raza speech, John McCain took several questions and he really seemed to win the crowd over. At one point, when it was announced there was no more time for questions, he defiantly told people lined up to ask questions to "go on" and even threw his mic to a guy when it appeared the mics had been shut off. The crowd went nuts. Not, bad, Senator.
Q: "I am ashamed of these raids that are separating children from parents. As president will you stop these inhumane raids?"
A: "We will. With all due respect, you're talking about a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself."
Q: "Will you refuse to use immigrant bashing in your campaigns?"
A: "Yes, Ma'am, I will not do that."
[...]
Q: "Will you support humanity all across the world and support The DREAM Act that we are trying to pass?"
A: "Yes. Yes, but I will also enforce the existing laws. That's why we must secure the border..."
American Pundit has 2 great posts about Obamas contradictory claims on how often he attended Rev Wrights church of hate. Check out the post here and here.
Here is what he told Newsweek in 2004:
At 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, 2004, when I was the religion reporter (I am now its religion columnist) at the Chicago Sun-Times, I met then-State Sen. Barack Obama at Café Baci, a small coffee joint at 330 S. Michigan Avenue in Chicago, to interview him exclusively about his spirituality…
GG:
Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA:
Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday that Iran has the ability to launch a ballistic missile capable of hitting sections of eastern and southern Europe.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, director of the Missile Defence Agency, told reporters he believes Iran now has a missile with a range of 2,000 km, but he declined to say whether the weapon has been test-fired.
Iran said last week it conducted two missile tests involving a number of weapons including what Iranian state television called a "new" Shahab-3 missile, a medium-range missile that could be used to strike Israel.
Tensions over Iran's missile arsenal and accusations from the United States and its allies that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons have roiled international financial markets with fears of a possible military confrontation.
Iran denies it wants nuclear weapons and says its nuclear program is designed to produce electricity to increase its output of oil and natural gas.
Older versions of the Shahab-3 have a 1,300-km range. But a new extended version is believed to have a range of up to 1,250 miles, making it capable of hitting targets as far away as Greece, Serbia, Romania and Belarus.
Iran is also developing a solid-fuel missile known as the Ashura with a range of 1,250 miles, according to the Pentagon.
U.S. officials and independent missile experts have said last week's tests involved no new or enhanced technology, or even the latest generations of missiles known to be in Iran's arsenal.
Its about time!
In what is being seen as a first step towards a major offensive in the tribal areas of Pakistan, coalition troops started to take up positions on the Pakistan-Afghan border from Tuesday. A command post was also set up at the Torkham Border point, which army officials say has been done for coordination between the allied forces and the Pakistan army.
Hundreds of allied troops armed with choppers, tanks, mortars and high-tech weapons arrived at the Pak-Afghan border areas and took up positions, local media and eyewitnesses said. The movement of allied troops comes after weeks of bickering between Pakistan and Afghanistan as to who is responsible for the cross-border infiltration by militant groups.
On Tuesday, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf again said the remarks by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that Pakistan was responsible for terror attacks in Afghanistan were “baseless”. Musharraf said Pakistan “was also the victim of such terror attacks”.
Everyone is all a buzz about the controversial cover of the New Yorker. Obama said it was tasteless. John Mccain also condemned the cover. Im not really sure why so many people are making a big deal about this cover personally. Especially since the New Yorker published the following cover in 2006 and I dont remember hardly a mention of it. Thanks to Bud Simmons for this:
Bud also asks a good question. "Are Americans really going to want to vote for someone who holds himself to be above criticism and mockery?"
From MEMRI:
Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced July 14 at a press conference that fighters from Afghanistan, Chechnya, and other countries were situated on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and that there was a fear that they were an attack on the scale of 9/11 against U.S. targets.
Source: Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, London, July 15, 2008
There is so much coverage of this article in the blogosphere right now. As there should be. Here is the article from the NY Daily News:
Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Monday, July 14th 2008, 8:10 PM
WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq, the Daily News has learned.
The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a "problem" that had barely reduced violence.
"The surge is not working," Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007.
It praises G.I.s' "hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice."
Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is "not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events."
GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. "The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong," said McCain, adding that Obama "refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding."
In June Obama said Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. He is now backtracking on that statement. VIDEO HERE
This from Pat Dollard
Barack Obama specifically voted four times in the Illinois Legislature to allow criminal charges against a homeowner who used a firearm in self-defense of their person and home — specifically what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional right. Obama may say he supports it, but his record says exactly the opposite.
In 2004, the Illinois Senate considered S.B. 2165 (IL 2004), sponsored by Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield). The bill came about because of an arrest in Wilmette, IL in late December of 2003. A 54-year-old businessman shot and wounded a man who had broken into his home for the second time in 24 hours. Cook County prosecutors found the shooting justified, but the businessman, Mr. DeMar, faced a fine and possible destruction of two guns under a 1989 village ordinance prohibiting handgun possession.
S.B. 2165 would allow residents to use self-defense as a basis for seeking dismissal of criminal charges stemming from local gun ordinances if they used the banned weapon in an act of self-defense in their home, business or property.
Obama voted no on third reading March 25, 2004, and voted no on concurrence to a House amendment on May 25, 2004. In fact, Obama voted no four times: in the Judiciary Committee, on Third Reading, in the Judiciary Committee’s vote on concurrence with the House, and on the final concurrence.
Luckily for the people of Illinois, the legislation passed despite Obama’s opposition. Had he had his way, people in Illinois could still be prosecuted for defending themselves against crimes.
Also at these times…
In 1999, Obama voted in favor of S.B. 177 (IL 1999). The legislation required guns to be secured by trigger locks, placed in a lock box, or placed in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure from a minor. Likewise, in 2003, Obama voted for H.B. 2579 (IL 2003) for a law that restricted the rights of Illinois’s citizens so that they could only buy one gun a month. The law created the offense of “unlawful acquisition of handguns.”
In 2001, Obama voted against S.B. 604 (IL 2001), which would have allowed individuals who have valid orders of protection against other individuals to carry concealed weapons for their protection. The bill would have created an affirmative defense against a charge of violating Illinois’s concealed carry law if the person had a lawfully issued protection order against someone seeking to do harm to the person.
In 2002, Obama voted against S.B. 397 (IL 2002), which amended the Firearms Owners Indentification Card Act. The legislation was specifically crafted for sporting events and allowed a non-resident participating in a sanctioned competitive shooting event in Illinois to purchase a shotgun or shotgun ammunition in Illinois, but only at the site where the event is being held, for the purpose of participating in the event.
WASHINGTON — It's a nightmare scenario that awakens some U.S. intelligence officials at night: Pakistani-American youths will enter the country to carry out terrorist attacks after spending time at radical religious schools and al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan.
Officials say it hasn't happened, and some experts warn against labeling all young Americans who study in Pakistan as potential terrorists.
But the high-profile return home of two U.S.-born Pakistani-American teenagers last week who spent four years at a radical Islamic madrassa in Karachi has focused fresh attention on the potential threat, even though the brothers have no known ties to terrorism.
Their saga stirred concern among some members of Texas' congressional delegation, prompting a call for congressional hearings and a request by 10 Republican members of the House for Pakistan to deport the estimated 700 Americans studying at the madrassas.
"From al-Qaida's standpoint, Pakistanis with American nationality are very attractive targets to recruit," says Bruce Riedel, a former career intelligence officer whose assignments included responsibility for South Asia. "They would have American passports that mean when they get to Dulles International Airport (outside Washington, D.C.) or George Bush International Airport (in Houston), they just sail right through."
Just as every bit as ignorant as his comments after 9/11 which I previously covered HERE. Now he blames the wests policies for jihadists actions. Here is the the interview from CNN:
"It isn't to say that there is a direct correlation, but what is absolutely true is that there has been a shift in Islam that I believe is connected to the failures of governments and the failures of the West to work with many of these countries, in order to make sure that opportunities are there, that there's bottom-up economic growth."
Rusty at Jawa Report has been following this closely.
When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it.
This week, Huckabee is meeting with Fox officials about plans to host his own show on the network. Plus, he’s subbing for Paul Harvey on ABC Radio Network and appearing on a number of existing Fox shows.
A former Arkansas governor who upended the Republican presidential race with his upset victory in the Iowa caucuses, Huckabee continued campaigning for the nomination after it became mathematically impossible for him to catch John McCain in the delegate race. That prompted speculation that Huckabee was more interested in boosting his profile than in a future in politics, though his name is still bandied about as a possible running mate for McCain.
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, worked in local radio as a teenager. And, on the campaign trail, he won raves for his quick wit and folksy delivery.
After an appearance as a political analyst on one of MSNBC’s election-night broadcasts, Huckabee last month inked a one-year deal with Fox to provide commentary on a variety of the networks shows.
A source with knowledge of Huckabee’s contract said it included tentative plans for him to host his own show. Fox declined to comment about plans for the show, while a Huckabee advisor did not immediately have information about the discussions.
But, in a Monday e-mail, Huckabee told supporters he’s looking to expand his media footprint on Fox and elsewhere.
“I’m in New York for a few days to meet with Fox News officials and discuss a show I would host, as well as appear on numerous Fox programs in the next few days,” reads his email. “On Tuesday and Wednesday, a really special opportunity for me — I’ll be subbing for the legendary and immortal Paul Harvey on the ABC Radio Network.”
Thanks to Immigration Watchdog for this. Heres what the San Diego Union Tribune had to say:
Local immigrant-rights activist Enrique Morones said he was thrilled but shocked to receive a public thank-you from Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential candidate was launching into his speech Sunday at the National Council of La Raza convention.
Obama, at the podium, had just thanked two top NCLR officials before his speech when he thanked Morones of Border Angels, a group that stocks desert water stations and lobbies intensely for immigrant rights, often with a theatrical flair and a blunt style that has drawn the ire of anti-illegal immigration activists.
Morones said that prior to the speech he, several elected officials and others had attended a meeting with Obama and his campaign staff, and that he’d handed the candidate a t-shirt from his “Marcha Migrante III,” the third in a series of cross-country trips he and other activists have made to lobby elected officials for immigrant-friendly law changes.
At first, he said, he thought the candidate must be thanking someone else.
“I’m sitting there when he says ‘Enrique…’ ” he said afterward. “Of course, I’m very happy. I’m on cloud nine with this thing.”
Aside from the high-profile shout out, Morones said, he was glad to hear Obama promise during his speech that he would make immigration reform a priority. The candidate promised, among other things, to allow a path to eventual citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living and working here, provided they pay a fine, learn English and wait their turn behind legal residents.
Hmmmm. very interesting. All the details at Free Republic:
Strange thing. Google has buried the disputed Birth Certificate images. They are NOT in Google's image results when searching "Obama Birth Certificate" or "Barack Obama Certificate" or "Obama Certificate of Live Birth". They have lots of general pictures of Obama and pictures of generic BCs or joke ones, but not the ones being disputed. I've gone over 20 pages deep, 400 images, and NOT found any of the disputed images or the various post KOS posting created variations. That is very suspicious... someone is hiding something.
Even More Strange: I searched through 980 images out of over 18,700 of a search for Barack Obama "Birth Certificate" and 480 images of Barack Obama "Certificate of Live Birth" and did not find ONE image of the disputed Birth Certificate. On the first search, after 980 images, it came to a screen that said
"Your search - Barack Obama "Birth Certificate" - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
Why do I suddenly feel that the old Soviet Union is alive and well in the United States? Data is being erased by not being indexed. These images were there a week ago—now they are not.
An authoritative new report by Policy Exchange, the UK's leading centre-right thinktank, entitled The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain's mosques, reveals the worrying extent of extremist penetration of mosques and other key institutions of the British Muslim community. The report is the most comprehensive academic survey of its kind ever produced in the UK and is based on a year-long investigation by several teams of specialist researchers into the availability of extremist literature and covers more than a hundred mosques and Islamic centres throughout the UK.
Among the reports findings are:
* Most of the extremist literature is published and distributed by agencies linked to the Saudi Arabian government.
* Some of the most high-profile and prestigious mosques in Britain are among the worst offenders; in many of them, it is openly available.
* Separatist literature is distributed at the East London Mosque - which is closely associated with the Muslim Council of Britain (which purports to be the main body representing British Muslims).
Shocking statements
Pamphlets, books and leaflets obtained from mosques and Islamic centres contain an assortment of shocking statements including:
* "Jihad against a tyrant, oppressors, people of bid'ah [Muslim innovators], or wrongdoers. This type of jihad is best done through force if possible."
* "The Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the Muslim."
* "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."
Although some of the hate literature is in English, a proportion is written in Arabic. The translations commissioned by Policy Exchange have been independently verified.
Many of the publications encourage British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims. So-called unbelievers are to be treated as second-class and avoided wherever possible.
There are also repeated calls for gays to be thrown from mountains and tall buildings and for women to be subjugated.
Among the literature available are extracts from the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (published by the Saudi Ministry of Education), and other publications peddling bizarre conspiracy theories alleging that birth control is a plot against Muslims and Arabs, and that pornography is spread as part of a Jewish plot to corrupt Muslims.
The report has been authored by Dr Denis MacEoin, the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University who received his doctorate in Persian (Islamic) Studies from Cambridge University and has taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at Durham, Newcastle and Fez universities.
Speaking about the findings of the report, Anthony Browne, Director of Policy Exchange said, "It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques. I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregation have found their way into the UK's mosques."
Mr Browne went on to say, "The fact that the Saudi regime is producing extremist propaganda and targeting it at British Muslims must also be challenged by our own government. It is reassuring that the majority of mosques investigated do not propagate hate literature -but much work needs to be done to ensure that a large number of leading Islamic institutions remove this sectarianism from their midst."
Recommendations
The report makes several key recommendations:
i) The Saudi Arabian government must be told to stop distributing extremist literature in Britain or else risk its good relations. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is currently on a state visit to the UK and the British government should address this matter directly with him.
ii) Mosques and other Islamic institutions must act immediately to remove extremist literature from their premises.
iii) The government, local authorities, police forces, other institutions and prominent individuals should have nothing to do with mosques that continue to sell or distribute extremist literature.
iv) Islamic schools must be subject to clear and rigorous regulation and made part of a genuinely shared system of national education.
I know alot of blogs are talking about the cover of The New Yorker. Obama has already said it is tasteless. I dont want to focus on the cover. I want to take a moment and take a look at some of the content of the article. One thing that is published in this piece from The New Yorker is Obamas response to 9/11. You can read the whole article HERE
I want to focus on what Obama said about after 9/11 and what his response would be.
“Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.”
LGF has the details:
Judge Leonie Brinkema, last seen presiding over the farcical trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, has now ordered that Islamic Jihad kingpin Sami Al-Arian be freed on bond.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A federal judge is overruling government objections and has ordered free on bond a former professor who has been in custody since 2003 as part of a wide-ranging terrorism investigation.
It’s unlikely that former University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian will immediately be set free. It’s expected that he’ll be transferred to immigration authorities since he’s subject to deportation.
But U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s order could trigger provisions that bar the government from prosecuting Al-Arian for criminal contempt.
For more details, see the Investigative Project on Terrorism: Judge Orders Al-Arian’s Release on Bond.
Al-Arian’s appeal for bond included 60 pages of letters from supporters of his, including three university professors who had worked with his think tank, the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE):
* John Esposito, director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, told Brinkema he has known Al-Arian for 20 years and saw him as “a man of conscience with a strong commitment to peace and social justice.” Esposito described WISE as “a think-tank that brought together prominent scholars and experts from academia, the U.S. government and the media.”
* Esposito’s Georgetown colleague, John Voll, wrote of Al-Arian’s “devotion to his family,” and that he has “gotten to know [Al-Arian] through his children,” concluding that “it is highly improbable that [Al-Arian] would break the trust involved in being released on bond.” Voll, the dissertation mentor of Al-Arian’s son, Abdullah - currently a doctoral student at Georgetown - noted that Abdullah “will be teaching a course in the History Department curriculum this coming fall semester.”
* University of Maryland professor Charles Butterworth wrote to Brinkema that he held WISE “in high esteem, especially because of Sami Al-Arian’s excellent management of it.”
In fact, WISE was home to four members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) governing board, including Al-Arian, current PIJ leader Ramadan Shallah, Basheer Nafi and Mazen Al-Najjar. While it did produce academic work, it also received funding from PIJ accounts in addition to substantial financial support from the think-tank that is now targeted by the Virginia grand jury.
Thanks to Doctor Bulldog for this:
CHICAGO - It might have looked like easy money to O’Hare International Airport worker Riad Skaff: $26,500 to help smuggle night-vision goggles, rifle scopes and cash aboard Paris-bound jets.
But the payment was part of a federal sting operation that netted Skaff, 69, a two-year prison sentence handed down Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall.
The judge brushed aside the claim by defense attorney Robert G. Clarke that Skaff was an unsophisticated laborer who didn’t belong in the same category with big-time international arms smugglers.
“I don’t see this offense as trivial - I see this as a very serious offense,” the judge said. She dismissed the claim that Skaff was merely trying to make money and did not intend to jeopardize national security by agreeing to help smuggle military scopes and goggles.
Skaff is a naturalized American citizen born in Lebanon. He formerly was employed by a company that services Air France jetliners.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested him in January 2007.
Federal prosecutors said he pocketed a total of $26,500 from an undercover ICE agent in return for agreeing to smuggle night-vision scopes, goggles, a cell phone jammer and $396,000 in cash, aboard three outbound planes.
Skaff pleaded guilty to all nine counts in the indictment.
His attorney lobbied for a sentence of probation with no prison time, saying that Skaff was in “delicate health and he is of very old age.” He said his client’s ailments include diabetes, kidney disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and swelling of the legs and feet.
The judge said she might have given Skaff a stiffer sentence if not for his health woes.
This is just plain ridiculous.
There's a new movement becoming increasingly visible around the country: Churches sheltering illegal immigrants facing deportation.
A lead organizer is in town this weekend talking about how "the new sanctuary movement" is changing attitudes toward illegal immigrants. She said the network is in effect at houses of worship in 35 cities across the U.S., including Phoenix, although Tucson has no official role.
The network has its roots in the Sanctuary Movement, which began at Tucson's Southside Presbyterian Church during the 1980s. That movement illegally brought Central Americans into the United States. Supporters said the refugees faced persecution and death squads in their home nations, while critics said many were just seeking jobs.
The new movement's premise is the same as the old: that we are at a unique point in history when divine law and human law are in conflict, and that God's justice demands we stand with those who break unjust laws.
The new movement includes a network of volunteers, lawyers and houses of worship.
By bringing illegal immigrants into their fold, church leaders and worshippers are learning individual stories, said the Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, a Los Angeles-based minister with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and one of the new movement's founders and leaders.
Q: Why did you decide to live here and defy a deportation order?
A: We have to show the government that we are many, we are strong, we are humans and that we deserve respect in this country. There's a concept that we're criminals or living on welfare or Social Security. There are millions of cases in the U.S. (like me). The majority are forced out of their countries of origin because of trade policies created with this system of government.
Q: If you could vote in the presidential election, who would you vote for and why?
A: Maybe (Barack) Obama. I think that he would govern with humanity.
Q: If you could have the ideal immigration reform, what would it have?
A: The first and the most important: reunite families. The most important thing is to stop violating the rights of children who are U.S. citizens. We need to re-negotiate NAFTA. ... Specifically, they can help farmers and help stimulate (the value) of local products like corn, flour, milk and sugar (in Mexico).
Great article at New English Review:
U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, is trying to take down hundreds of terrorist videos on YouTube operated by Google many showing violent actions against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The videos give instructions in making weapons to conduct such attacks, while others spew out incitement to hate against us. On May 19th, Lieberman sent a letter to Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google calling on Google to take down the terrorist content produced by al Qaeda and its wannabes. We also would include by extension videos currently posted by Al Manar, the Hezbollah TV outlet, on YouTube.
As noted in the Senator’s letter:
Central to this media campaign is the branding of content with an icon or logo to guarantee authenticity that the content was produced by al-Qaeda or their directly controlled franchises like al-Qaeda in Iraq (a.k.a Islamic State in Iraq), Ansar al-Islam (a.k.a Ansar al-Sunnah) or al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb. All of these groups have been designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) by the Department of State.”
Senator Lieberman appealed to ‘the better nature’ of Google by urging it to follow its own guidelines and noted:
YouTube posts “community guidelines” for users to follow, but it does not appear that the company is enforcing these guidelines to the extent they would apply to this content. For example, the community guidelines state that “[g]raphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don’t post it.” Many of the videos produced by one of the production arms of al-Qaeda show attacks on U.S. forces in which American soldiers are injured and, in some cases, killed.
Lieberman ended the letter to Google by entreating it to do the right thing: take the terrorist content down.
I ask you, therefore, to immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations from YouTube. This should be a straightforward task since so many of the Islamist terrorist organizations brand their material with logos or icons identifying their provenance. In addition, please explain what changes Google plans to make to the YouTube community guidelines to address violent extremist material and how Google plans to enforce those guidelines to prevent the content from reappearing.
Google’s reply from Dr. Schmidt was to take down dozens of the more offending al Qaeda videos, but leave up many others. It was a sop to alleged First Amendment ‘free speech’ doctrine by appealing to the best judgment of YouTube viewers to determine what was ‘offensive’.
Read the whole thing here.
Q: How do you think of your self as a conservative. Do you think of yourself more as a Goldwater conservative or Reagan conservative or George W. Bush conservative.
Senator John McCain: A Teddy Roosevelt conservative, I think. He’s probably my major role model, we could go back to Lincoln, of course. In the 20th century Teddy Roosevelt. I think Teddy Roosevelt he had a great vision of America’s role in the 20th Century. He was a great environmentalist. He loved the country. He is the person who brought the government into a more modern – into the 20th century as well. He was probably engaged more in national security slash international affairs that any president ever been. I understand that TR had failings. I understand that every one of my role models had failings. TR became embittered at the end, we all know that. If you look at his presidency, if you looked at his reformist agenda from the time he was the police commissioner in New York City…..
Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?
Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.
Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?
Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.
(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)
Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.
Q: If California wants to legalize gay marriage, should it be permitted to do so?
Mr. McCain: I respect the rights of the states to make those decisions. I obviously am personally in favor of preserving the unique status of marriage between man and woman. And I also would point out that we passed a thing called the Defense of Marriage Act, which I know you’re familiar with, where we said that states were not required to recognize in their states the decision that other states made. In other words, if the state of Massachusetts recognized marriage between man and --- had allowed same-sex marriage, that does not mean that that decision can be imposed on the state of Arizona. The state of Arizona will make that decision. “
