“The reason the securities cannot be valued is because it is continually unclear, based on shifting government plans, which ones will be worthless at the end of the day.”
—ALG President Bill Wilson.
ALG Urges Congress to Stop the $2.8 Trillion Bank Bailout
February 26rd, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government today in a letter urged Congress to stop the $2.8 trillion bank bailout that is “only burdening us, our children—and our children's children—with a mountain of debt that can never possibly be paid back.”
“Enough is enough,” said Wilson in a statement. “Congress has completely abdicated the power of the purse to keep afloat a financial system that doesn't work for the American taxpayer or the American people.”
“We are hopelessly descending into bankruptcy, and Congress does not appear to have the political will to stop it,” Wilson added.
Three days ago, ALG launched StopBailouts.net, an online petition in response to President Barack Obama's $2.8 trillion financial plan to urge Congress to halt what ALG President Bill Wilson termed the “greatest theft in human history.”
According to the letter, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's financial plan is unconstitutional, which includes up over $2 trillion to be committed by the Treasury and Federal Reserve without a vote.
Wilson urged Congress to follow the law, “on behalf of our hundreds of thousands of members nationwide hereby call upon you to fulfill your mandated duty as enunciated under Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution: 'No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law…'”
The letter also called upon Congress to reject H.R. 1106, the mortgage-bankruptcy cram-down legislation that “give bankruptcy judges the arbitrary authority to reduce mortgage principals, lower rates, and otherwise modify the terms of loans.”
Wilson believes, according to the letter, that the bill would add “more uncertainty as to which mortgages may ultimately be modified.”
Wilson believes that the government interventions have prevented mortgage-backed securities from finding their market value, “which is perpetuating the crisis needlessly.”
According to the letter, “The reason the securities cannot be valued is because it is continually unclear, based on shifting government plans, which ones will be worthless at the end of the day.”
Wilson believes that Congress is the only body that has the power to “stop the bailouts once and for all.”
“We are urging Congressmen and women, and Senators, to take back the power of the purse before it is too late. The nation is going bankrupt—we're $11 trillion in debt with a $1.2 trillion budget deficit this year, and we're begging the Chinese to lend us more money that even they might not have,” Wilson added.
“And if Congress does not stop it, no one will,” Wilson concluded.
(Alan note: Wrong! The people will and the "tea party" protests have started against the O-khomeini all across the nation and their "Change" will be to change the Congress and sooner or later the treacherous, usurper President)
Interview Availability: Please contact Alex Rosenwald at (703)383-0880 or at arosenwald@getliberty.org to arrange an interview with ALG President Bill Wilson.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
KUWAIT PROFESSOR PROJECTS ON NEXT USA TERRORIST ATTACK
By Bob Unruh
Kuwaiti prof: 330,000 dead from 4 pounds of anthrax
Outlines potential White House attack that would make 9/11 'small change'
A professor from Kuwait, the country liberated from Saddam Hussein's attack squads by the United States in the first Gulf War, has outlined on Arab television a potential terror attack that would involve smuggling anthrax from Mexico into the U.S. and killing 330,000 people in 60 minutes.
The plan was described by Abdallah Al-Nafisi in a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera television Feb. 2, according to MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent nonprofit that provides translations and analysis of media reports.
Al-Nafisi, whose school affiliation was not identified, says: "Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there."
A professor from Kuwait, the country liberated from Saddam Hussein's attack squads by the United States in the first Gulf War, has outlined on Arab television a potential terror attack that would involve smuggling anthrax from Mexico into the U.S. and killing 330,000 people in 60 minutes.
The plan was described by Abdallah Al-Nafisi in a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera television Feb. 2, according to MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent nonprofit that provides translations and analysis of media reports.
Al-Nafisi, whose school affiliation was not identified, says: "Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there."
"There is good reason for the Americans' fears, because al-Qaida used to have in the Herat region. ... It had laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists, and nuclear physicists. They are nothing like they are portrayed by these mercenary journalists – backward Bedouins living in caves. No, no. By no means. This kind of talk can fool only naïve people. People who follow such things know that al-Qaida has laboratories, just like Hezbollah," he said.
He cited Hezbollah "laboratories" in Lebanon where the terrorist group makes weapons to use and sell.
After viewing the Al-Nafisi video, Jamie Glazov, author of the new book "United in Hate" explained that "militant Islam needs to kill in order to survive. It can breathe only if it kills."He noted with President Bush now gone from office, potential threats from the likes of Al-Nafisi are closer to becoming reality.
"In the face of this morbid threat we have the liberal-Left trivializing the danger that confronts us and, worse still, going out of its way to frustrate our society's ability to defend itself," Glazov said. "We have Obama now, who has closed all of our CIA interrogation centers abroad, plans on closing Guantanamo, has appointed people who are intent on frustrating every ability we have to gather information on impending strikes, and the list goes terrifyingly on."
Why does the American Left love radical Islam? Find out in "United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror."
MEMRI said Al-Nafisi also ventured into other areas of comment.
He called terrorists "the most honorable people in the world, the best people in the world," the report said.
He spoke of 300,000 "white militia members" in the U.S. who are "calling to attack the federal government in Washington, and to banish the Arabs, the Jews and the negroes (sic) from the U.S."
Explained Al-Nafisi, "These are racist people. They are called 'rednecks.' The Ku Klux Klan. They are racists."
He suggested that element in the U.S. is considering bombing "nuclear plants."
"May Allah grant them success. … They have plans to bomb the nuclear plant at Lake Michigan. This plant is very important. It supplies electricity to all of North Africa (sic)," Al-Nafisi said.
He also dismissed any idea of discussions between Jews and Arabs.
"Allah states in the Quran that the hostility between us and [the Jews] is eternal. So whoever talks about dialogue – cut off his tongue! What dialogue are they talking about?! There is no room for dialogue. Allah said that our hostility towards the Jews is eternal, and then along comes someone and talks about brotherhood and so on ...
This contradicts the Quran. Anyone who contradicts the Quran is an infidel," he said.
As part of his effort to further Arab interests, he also advocated threats against journalists.
"There are voices expressing doubts about the leaders of the resistance. We must confront these [journalists], and prevent them from continuing this, even if it means calling them over the phone, and saying to them: 'Do not repeat these despicable things in your columns or your articles, or else we will take the following measures against you.' We must resort to pressure with these people," he said.
Kuwaiti prof: 330,000 dead from 4 pounds of anthrax
Outlines potential White House attack that would make 9/11 'small change'
A professor from Kuwait, the country liberated from Saddam Hussein's attack squads by the United States in the first Gulf War, has outlined on Arab television a potential terror attack that would involve smuggling anthrax from Mexico into the U.S. and killing 330,000 people in 60 minutes.
The plan was described by Abdallah Al-Nafisi in a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera television Feb. 2, according to MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent nonprofit that provides translations and analysis of media reports.
Al-Nafisi, whose school affiliation was not identified, says: "Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there."
A professor from Kuwait, the country liberated from Saddam Hussein's attack squads by the United States in the first Gulf War, has outlined on Arab television a potential terror attack that would involve smuggling anthrax from Mexico into the U.S. and killing 330,000 people in 60 minutes.
The plan was described by Abdallah Al-Nafisi in a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera television Feb. 2, according to MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, an independent nonprofit that provides translations and analysis of media reports.
Al-Nafisi, whose school affiliation was not identified, says: "Four pounds of anthrax – in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there."
"There is good reason for the Americans' fears, because al-Qaida used to have in the Herat region. ... It had laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists, and nuclear physicists. They are nothing like they are portrayed by these mercenary journalists – backward Bedouins living in caves. No, no. By no means. This kind of talk can fool only naïve people. People who follow such things know that al-Qaida has laboratories, just like Hezbollah," he said.
He cited Hezbollah "laboratories" in Lebanon where the terrorist group makes weapons to use and sell.
After viewing the Al-Nafisi video, Jamie Glazov, author of the new book "United in Hate" explained that "militant Islam needs to kill in order to survive. It can breathe only if it kills."He noted with President Bush now gone from office, potential threats from the likes of Al-Nafisi are closer to becoming reality.
"In the face of this morbid threat we have the liberal-Left trivializing the danger that confronts us and, worse still, going out of its way to frustrate our society's ability to defend itself," Glazov said. "We have Obama now, who has closed all of our CIA interrogation centers abroad, plans on closing Guantanamo, has appointed people who are intent on frustrating every ability we have to gather information on impending strikes, and the list goes terrifyingly on."
Why does the American Left love radical Islam? Find out in "United in Hate: The Left's Romance With Tyranny and Terror."
MEMRI said Al-Nafisi also ventured into other areas of comment.
He called terrorists "the most honorable people in the world, the best people in the world," the report said.
He spoke of 300,000 "white militia members" in the U.S. who are "calling to attack the federal government in Washington, and to banish the Arabs, the Jews and the negroes (sic) from the U.S."
Explained Al-Nafisi, "These are racist people. They are called 'rednecks.' The Ku Klux Klan. They are racists."
He suggested that element in the U.S. is considering bombing "nuclear plants."
"May Allah grant them success. … They have plans to bomb the nuclear plant at Lake Michigan. This plant is very important. It supplies electricity to all of North Africa (sic)," Al-Nafisi said.
He also dismissed any idea of discussions between Jews and Arabs.
"Allah states in the Quran that the hostility between us and [the Jews] is eternal. So whoever talks about dialogue – cut off his tongue! What dialogue are they talking about?! There is no room for dialogue. Allah said that our hostility towards the Jews is eternal, and then along comes someone and talks about brotherhood and so on ...
This contradicts the Quran. Anyone who contradicts the Quran is an infidel," he said.
As part of his effort to further Arab interests, he also advocated threats against journalists.
"There are voices expressing doubts about the leaders of the resistance. We must confront these [journalists], and prevent them from continuing this, even if it means calling them over the phone, and saying to them: 'Do not repeat these despicable things in your columns or your articles, or else we will take the following measures against you.' We must resort to pressure with these people," he said.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
OBAMA COVERS UP SACRIFICE OF ISRAEL
The Obama administration's decision to join the planning of the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference has just taken a new twist: cover-up.
On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration.
The trouble is that they didn't.
The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva "outline[d] our concerns with the current outcome document" and in particular "our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism."
One member of the delegation told The Washington Post: "The administration is pushing back against efforts to brand Israel as racist in this conference."
In fact, tucked away in a Geneva hall with few observers, the U.S. had done just the opposite. The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.
Getting involved in activities intended to implement the 2001 Durban Declaration--after seven and a half years of refusing to lend the anti-Israel agenda any credibility--was controversial to be sure.
But late on Saturday Feb. 14, the State Department slithered out a press release justifying the move. It claimed that "the intent of our participation is to work to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading.
"Following what was clearly a planned public relations exercise, Washington Post columnist Colum Lynch championed the U.S. bravado in an article based on the story orchestrated by the American delegates.
In his Feb. 20 article entitled: "U.S. Holds Firm on Reparations, Israel in U.N. Racism Talks," he fawned:
"The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments ... to desist from singling out Israel for criticism in a draft declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April."
The reality, however, was nothing of the sort.
Instead, Obama's Durban II team slipped easily into the U.N.'s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that "fitting in" was best accomplished by staying silent.
On Tuesday, the Palestinian delegation proposed inserting a new paragraph under the heading "Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives ... for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance..." with the subtitle "General provisions on victims ... of discrimination."
The paragraph includes: "Calls for ... the international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory."
In other words, it claims that the Palestinian people are victims of Israeli racism and demands that all U.N. states provide protection from the affronts of the racist Jewish state.
Furthermore, the new Palestinian provision "Calls for ... implementation of international legal obligations, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the wall..."
This is a dramatic attempt to change an "advisory opinion" into a "legal obligation"--a status which attaches to no advisory opinion.
The ICJ decision, which advises that the Israeli security fence is illegal, has always been rejected by the United States--hitherto. And with good reason.
The Egyptian judge had voiced his opinion on the result before the case was even heard, in his capacity as a leading Egyptian diplomat. The terms of reference from the General Assembly who asked for the decision, and the documents they laid before the Court, predetermined the outcome.
And as the strong dissent by the American judge and Holocaust survivor Tom Buergenthal pointed out, the Court came to its preposterous conclusion that "the right of legitimate or inherent self-defense is not applicable in the present case" without considering "the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel is being subjected."
But when the Palestinian delegation laid their new proposal before the drafting committee, what did Obama's team do?
Nothing, absolutely nothing. They made no objection at all.
It is impossible to argue that their silence was unintended. Over the course of the week's negotiations the American delegation had objected to a number of specific proposals. They had no trouble declaring "we share reservations on this paragraph," in the context of a demand to criminalize profiling.
They "called for the deletion" of provisions undermining free speech like the suggestion to "take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols."
Their silence when it came to Israel was, therefore, deafening.
It also had the very concrete result of not placing the Palestinian paragraph in dispute, and the diplomatic rule of thumb is that paragraphs that have not been flagged as controversial cannot be reopened for discussion, as negotiations finalize an end product.
The Obama team was not only silent on the new "Israel is racist" language, it also said nothing when faced with Holocaust denial.
Negotiators from the European Union suggested on Wednesday a new provision to "condemn without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, or any activities to this end."
Iran--whose president is a Holocaust-denier--immediately objected and insisted that the proposal be "bracketed" or put in dispute. The move blocked the adoption of the proposal and ensured another battle over the reality of the Holocaust in April--at these supposedly "anti-racism" meetings.
After Iran objected, the chair looked around the room, expecting a response. He said: "Is there any delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It doesn't seem the case. We move on."
U.S. delegates said nothing, even after the prompt.
Again, the American silence must have been deliberate. In marked contrast, after the E.U. objected to a provision calling for limits on free speech, the American delegation had no trouble piping up immediately: "I want to echo the comments from the E.U. This ... call for restrictions is something that my government is not able to accept."
Evidently, a U.S. team bent on legitimizing Durban II believed it would be counter-productive to object vigorously to sections most likely to be noticed by Americans skeptical about participation in the conference.
They must have figured that no objection would mean no controversy, which in turn would mean there would be no cause for complaint from U.S. observers. That's one way to buy favors on the international stage, but it sure doesn't forward a stated intention of changing the Conference direction.
Nor does it promote the ultimate need to change the anti-Semitic and anti-democratic direction of global human rights policy.
The week's events also revealed that European negotiators have adopted the same strategy at Durban II that they did at Durban I. After the United States and Israel walked out of Durban I on Sept. 4, 2001, it was the European Union that cut the deal trading off a mention of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for a reference to Palestinians victims of Israeli racism.
Likewise, this week the European Union said nothing in response to the Palestinian proposal but pushed the Holocaust reference instead. No matter that discrimination against the Jewish state, and against Jews for supporting the Jewish state, is the major form of anti-Semitism today.
The manipulation of Holocaust remembrance--knowing that Israel is the bulwark of the Jewish people against "never again"--is as cynical as it gets.
European Union delegates confirmed that their silence on the Palestinian proposal was deliberate, commenting off-camera that the references to Israeli racism had already been made in the Durban I Declaration, and the purpose of Durban II is to implement Durban I.
State department officials and U.S. delegates to Durban II's planning committee insist that their minds have not been made up.
Friday's State department press release said "the United States has not made a decision about participating in the Durban Review Conference or about whether to engage in future preparations for the Conference, but the work done this week will be important information for taking these decisions."
Similarly, The Washington Post reports, quoting an American delegate: "This is a fact-finding mission; it's just a first step ... Negotiations will probably resume in March or early April."
The strategy is painfully obvious--spin out the time for considering whether or not to attend the April 20 conference until the train has left the station and jumping off would cause greater injury to multilateral relations than just taking a seat.
The delay tactics are indefensible. The U.S. administration attended four full days of negotiation. During that time they witnessed the following:
the failure to adopt a proposal to act against Holocaust denial,
a new proposal to single out Israel, which will now be included in the draft without brackets,
broad objections to anything having to do with sexual orientation,
vigorous refusal by many states to back down on references to "Islamophobia" (the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims),
and numerous attacks on free speech.
This "dialogue" is not promoting rights and freedoms.
It is legitimizing a forum for disputing the essence of democracy, handing Holocaust deniers a global platform and manufacturing the means to demonize Israel in the interests of those states bent on the Jewish state's destruction.
But you can be sure that the State Department report now on Obama's desk reads "can't tell yet, don't know, maybe, too early to tell." Why?
If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion possible.
His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom.
This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in
Forbes, "The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel."
On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration.
The trouble is that they didn't.
The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva "outline[d] our concerns with the current outcome document" and in particular "our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism."
One member of the delegation told The Washington Post: "The administration is pushing back against efforts to brand Israel as racist in this conference."
In fact, tucked away in a Geneva hall with few observers, the U.S. had done just the opposite. The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.
Getting involved in activities intended to implement the 2001 Durban Declaration--after seven and a half years of refusing to lend the anti-Israel agenda any credibility--was controversial to be sure.
But late on Saturday Feb. 14, the State Department slithered out a press release justifying the move. It claimed that "the intent of our participation is to work to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading.
"Following what was clearly a planned public relations exercise, Washington Post columnist Colum Lynch championed the U.S. bravado in an article based on the story orchestrated by the American delegates.
In his Feb. 20 article entitled: "U.S. Holds Firm on Reparations, Israel in U.N. Racism Talks," he fawned:
"The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, pressing foreign governments ... to desist from singling out Israel for criticism in a draft declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April."
The reality, however, was nothing of the sort.
Instead, Obama's Durban II team slipped easily into the U.N.'s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that "fitting in" was best accomplished by staying silent.
On Tuesday, the Palestinian delegation proposed inserting a new paragraph under the heading "Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives ... for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance..." with the subtitle "General provisions on victims ... of discrimination."
The paragraph includes: "Calls for ... the international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory."
In other words, it claims that the Palestinian people are victims of Israeli racism and demands that all U.N. states provide protection from the affronts of the racist Jewish state.
Furthermore, the new Palestinian provision "Calls for ... implementation of international legal obligations, including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the wall..."
This is a dramatic attempt to change an "advisory opinion" into a "legal obligation"--a status which attaches to no advisory opinion.
The ICJ decision, which advises that the Israeli security fence is illegal, has always been rejected by the United States--hitherto. And with good reason.
The Egyptian judge had voiced his opinion on the result before the case was even heard, in his capacity as a leading Egyptian diplomat. The terms of reference from the General Assembly who asked for the decision, and the documents they laid before the Court, predetermined the outcome.
And as the strong dissent by the American judge and Holocaust survivor Tom Buergenthal pointed out, the Court came to its preposterous conclusion that "the right of legitimate or inherent self-defense is not applicable in the present case" without considering "the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel is being subjected."
But when the Palestinian delegation laid their new proposal before the drafting committee, what did Obama's team do?
Nothing, absolutely nothing. They made no objection at all.
It is impossible to argue that their silence was unintended. Over the course of the week's negotiations the American delegation had objected to a number of specific proposals. They had no trouble declaring "we share reservations on this paragraph," in the context of a demand to criminalize profiling.
They "called for the deletion" of provisions undermining free speech like the suggestion to "take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols."
Their silence when it came to Israel was, therefore, deafening.
It also had the very concrete result of not placing the Palestinian paragraph in dispute, and the diplomatic rule of thumb is that paragraphs that have not been flagged as controversial cannot be reopened for discussion, as negotiations finalize an end product.
The Obama team was not only silent on the new "Israel is racist" language, it also said nothing when faced with Holocaust denial.
Negotiators from the European Union suggested on Wednesday a new provision to "condemn without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, or any activities to this end."
Iran--whose president is a Holocaust-denier--immediately objected and insisted that the proposal be "bracketed" or put in dispute. The move blocked the adoption of the proposal and ensured another battle over the reality of the Holocaust in April--at these supposedly "anti-racism" meetings.
After Iran objected, the chair looked around the room, expecting a response. He said: "Is there any delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It doesn't seem the case. We move on."
U.S. delegates said nothing, even after the prompt.
Again, the American silence must have been deliberate. In marked contrast, after the E.U. objected to a provision calling for limits on free speech, the American delegation had no trouble piping up immediately: "I want to echo the comments from the E.U. This ... call for restrictions is something that my government is not able to accept."
Evidently, a U.S. team bent on legitimizing Durban II believed it would be counter-productive to object vigorously to sections most likely to be noticed by Americans skeptical about participation in the conference.
They must have figured that no objection would mean no controversy, which in turn would mean there would be no cause for complaint from U.S. observers. That's one way to buy favors on the international stage, but it sure doesn't forward a stated intention of changing the Conference direction.
Nor does it promote the ultimate need to change the anti-Semitic and anti-democratic direction of global human rights policy.
The week's events also revealed that European negotiators have adopted the same strategy at Durban II that they did at Durban I. After the United States and Israel walked out of Durban I on Sept. 4, 2001, it was the European Union that cut the deal trading off a mention of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for a reference to Palestinians victims of Israeli racism.
Likewise, this week the European Union said nothing in response to the Palestinian proposal but pushed the Holocaust reference instead. No matter that discrimination against the Jewish state, and against Jews for supporting the Jewish state, is the major form of anti-Semitism today.
The manipulation of Holocaust remembrance--knowing that Israel is the bulwark of the Jewish people against "never again"--is as cynical as it gets.
European Union delegates confirmed that their silence on the Palestinian proposal was deliberate, commenting off-camera that the references to Israeli racism had already been made in the Durban I Declaration, and the purpose of Durban II is to implement Durban I.
State department officials and U.S. delegates to Durban II's planning committee insist that their minds have not been made up.
Friday's State department press release said "the United States has not made a decision about participating in the Durban Review Conference or about whether to engage in future preparations for the Conference, but the work done this week will be important information for taking these decisions."
Similarly, The Washington Post reports, quoting an American delegate: "This is a fact-finding mission; it's just a first step ... Negotiations will probably resume in March or early April."
The strategy is painfully obvious--spin out the time for considering whether or not to attend the April 20 conference until the train has left the station and jumping off would cause greater injury to multilateral relations than just taking a seat.
The delay tactics are indefensible. The U.S. administration attended four full days of negotiation. During that time they witnessed the following:
the failure to adopt a proposal to act against Holocaust denial,
a new proposal to single out Israel, which will now be included in the draft without brackets,
broad objections to anything having to do with sexual orientation,
vigorous refusal by many states to back down on references to "Islamophobia" (the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all Muslims),
and numerous attacks on free speech.
This "dialogue" is not promoting rights and freedoms.
It is legitimizing a forum for disputing the essence of democracy, handing Holocaust deniers a global platform and manufacturing the means to demonize Israel in the interests of those states bent on the Jewish state's destruction.
But you can be sure that the State Department report now on Obama's desk reads "can't tell yet, don't know, maybe, too early to tell." Why?
If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion possible.
His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom.
This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in
Forbes, "The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel."
Saturday, February 21, 2009
MODERATE MOSLEM BEHEADING - OXYMORONIC APPELATION
FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE
FP: Abul Kasem, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
I’d like to talk to you today about the “moderate” Muslim who beheaded his wife in Buffalo.
The liberal/Left, of course, isn’t too interested in this particular story and, as always, it's going out of its way to de-Islamize it.
But let me ask this, before the mainstream media succeeds in pushing the victim, Aasiya Z. Hassan, into historical invisibility – as it has done to so many victims of Islamic jihad and Islamic gender apartheid: When Muzzammil Hassan chopped his wife’s head off, was he doing something that he had learned to do from Islam?
Kasem: To my mind, this horrible slaughter is a case of honor killing. The killer, Muzammil Hassan, is certainly well-versed in Islamic theology and jurisprudence. He is the CEO of Bridges, the Islamic Television Station which he started to propagate the “true” image of Islam to the Western World. It is hard to believe that such an impeccably qualified person would not have been aware of what he was doing.
Most likely, Muzammil Hasan had planned this all very well, and he did it according to Islamic fashion, i.e. slaughtering by beheading.
FP: Can you tell us about the legitimacy that Muslims find for honor killing in their religious theology?
Kasem: Well, you don’t need to go further than the Qur’an, which is the basis of honor killing in Islam. Let us read 4:15:
YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.
This verse clearly tells that a disgraced woman is condemned to a solitary confinement till death. The alternative is the judgement of Allah. The Qur’an is not clear what that judgement of Allah could be. There are various interpretations on this. Therefore, it is a fish market: anyone (man) may do to his woman whatever he wishes, including ending her life.
FP: So what is your reading of what happened in this case of beheading in Buffalo?
Kasem: According to Islam, if a woman disobeys her husband she is disgraced.
Therefore, when Aasiya Zubair, the wife of Hassan, resorted to the Western justice system to seek protection from her menacing husband, she had certainly broken the Islamic tenet of complete surrender to the wishes of her husband. Thus, she had dishonoured her husband, his reputation and, most importantly, the Islamic code of conduct for an obedient wife.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the killer had to end her life Islamically, to restore his pride, honor and religious conviction.
Let us read verse 4:34:
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard.
As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
Please note that in verse 4:34 Allah permits a husband to punish his disobedient wife.
It is worthy to observe that this verse says if the husband suspects or fears disobedience and rebellion; that the actual acts might not have taken place.
This verse also says that the men are the protectors of women. Thus, Islamically, Aasiya was foolish enough to seek the protection of Canadian law. It was a clear violation of Qur’anic injunction of verse 4:34, a challenge to Islam.
And, as per the Islamic law, if anyone violates the Qur’anic command the only punishment is death by beheading. Thus, we may conclude that Hassan has acted in the manner that Qur’an commands him.
FP: So in Islam, a woman is nothing more than her husband’s property.
Kasem: Absolutely. There are a number of ahadith that say that a Muslim woman’s status to her husband is no more than a slave.
Here are a few examples:
A woman is a sexual property, the righteous woman is the best property…(Ibn Majah, 3.1855).
Sunaan Ibn Majah, Volume 3, Number 1855‘Abdullah b. ‘Amr (Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Verily, the world is a property and nothing of the property of the world is better than a righteous woman.
A husband is the owner of his wives’ chastity… (Ibn Majah, 3.2388).
Sunaan Ibn Majah, Volume 3, Number2388‘Amr b. Shu’aib (Allah be pleased with him) reported his father to have said on his grandfather’s authority that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in a sermon he delivered, “It is not lawful for a woman (to make a donation) from her property but with the consent of her husband when he becomes the owner of her chastity (i.e. when he marries her).
Since in Islam, a woman is the property of her husband, it is imperative that the husband reserves the full right to dispose off his property in any manner he wishes.
That a woman is a servant (a sexual slave) to her husband is stipulated in Hedaya, the Hanafi Law Manual, the legal code for the Muslims of Hanafi sect. This is what is written in this Sharia Book:
Woman is a servant and the husband is the person served (Hedaya, p.47).
Case of marriage on a condition of service from the husband.— ……………it is not lawful that a woman should be in a situation to exact the service of her husband who is a freeman, as this would amount to a reversal of their appointed stations, for one of the requisites of marriage is, that the woman be as a servant, and the man as the person served; but if the service of a husband to wife were to constitute her dower, it would follow that the husband is the servant and the wife as the served:
and this being a violation of the requisites of marriage, is therefore illegal; but it is otherwise with the service stipulated to be performed by another free person, with that person’s consent, as this offers no violence to the requisites of the contract; and so also in the case of service of a slave, because the service performed by a slave to his wife is, in fact, performed to his master, by whose consent it is that he undertakes it;
and the same with the case of tending flocks, because this is a service of a permanent nature, and admitted to be performed for wives, and therefore, does not violate the requisites of marriage;
for the service of the husband to his wife, as a dower, is prohibited only as it may be degrading to the former; but the tending of flocks is not a degrading office.
FP: What is our conclusion in terms of what the evidence points to?
Kasem: Though this murder is chilly, ghoulish, barbaric, and senseless, I would say that Hassan has acted in conformity with Islamic tenets. His wife was no more than a chattel to him. He simply got rid of this obnoxious object of his life. If he committed this honor killing in an Islamic country such as Iran, Jordan, Iraq…he would get very light sentence, perhaps a jail term for a few years.
Reference:
The Holy Qur’an. The internet version of three English translations can be read at: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/reference.html
Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad b. Yazid ibn-i-Maza Al-Qazwani (with Arabic Text), Sunaan Ibn-i-Majah, Vol. III. Translated in English by Muhammad Tufail Ansari. Kitab Bhavan, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daraya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, India. 2nd Ed. 2003. ISBN: 81-7151-292-5 (Vol.III).
Hamilton, Charles. Hedaya. Translated in English in 1870 from the Persian version. Reprinted by Kitab Bhavan, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daraya Ganj, New Delhi, 1994.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
DEMOCRATS HIT ETHICAL POTHOLES ONE AFTER ANOTHER
By LARRY MARGASAK
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are rapidly giving Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.
Democrats' ethical issues are popping up at a dizzying pace, after less than two months of party control of both the White House and Congress. Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill. is only the latest embarrassment.
The only consolation is timing: It's nearly two years until the next congressional election, giving Democrats a chance to stop the bleeding in time.
Republicans know all about bad timing on ethics issues. Their scandals developed over a longer period. But they were hurt most by a scandal that broke shortly before the 2006 election.
It was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., wrote suggestive notes to former teenage male pages, and several Republican lawmakers and officials failed to act when they learned of the situation.
The Democrats stepped up their campaign theme of a "culture of corruption," and it resonated all the way to the voting precincts. Democrats then regained control of the House.
Senate Democrats were blindsided by Burris, because they believed what he told them, that he was clean. Burris now acknowledges that he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama's former Senate seat.
"The story seems to be changing day by day," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday.
The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.
_The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation.
It's partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.
Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were given millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
_Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations that he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.
_Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration's point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs.
Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.
_Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed to his post after revealing he had tax troubles.
_Obama's initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.
_While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.
The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed anger about the Burris case Wednesday while he was on an official visit to Greece.
"I do believe that the public statements made by Mr. Burris to this point have raised questions ... as to the nature of his relationship with the former governor and the circumstances surrounding his appointment," Durbin said.
Reid said in Nevada, "Now there's some question as to whether or not he told the truth."
Where to go next? Reid had no answer.
"What I think we have to do is just wait and see," the Senate leader said.
Senate Democrats now may be trapped in their own ethics system. Disciplinary action against a senator usually requires a long investigation by the Senate's ethics committee.
While a preliminary inquiry on Burris is under way, that's only the first step. And, with ongoing criminal investigations in Illinois, the committee probably would have to postpone any action — as it usually does — to avoid interference.
========AND our Criminal in Chief, Obama-Khomeini faces 42 Federal and about the same number of cases against him in State courts challenging his ethics and eligibility to be in the Obama House andhas spent about ONE MILLION DOLLARS on lawyers to prevent access to any information about any part of his life - even his birth.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are rapidly giving Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power.
Democrats' ethical issues are popping up at a dizzying pace, after less than two months of party control of both the White House and Congress. Freshman Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill. is only the latest embarrassment.
The only consolation is timing: It's nearly two years until the next congressional election, giving Democrats a chance to stop the bleeding in time.
Republicans know all about bad timing on ethics issues. Their scandals developed over a longer period. But they were hurt most by a scandal that broke shortly before the 2006 election.
It was revealed that then-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., wrote suggestive notes to former teenage male pages, and several Republican lawmakers and officials failed to act when they learned of the situation.
The Democrats stepped up their campaign theme of a "culture of corruption," and it resonated all the way to the voting precincts. Democrats then regained control of the House.
Senate Democrats were blindsided by Burris, because they believed what he told them, that he was clean. Burris now acknowledges that he tried to raise money for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who authorities say sought to sell President Barack Obama's former Senate seat.
"The story seems to be changing day by day," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Wednesday.
The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months.
_The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., is the subject of a House ethics investigation.
It's partly focused on his fundraising practices for a college center in his name, his ownership financing of a resort property in the Dominican Republic and his financial disclosure reports.
Federal agents raided two Pennsylvania defense contractors that were given millions of dollars in federal funding by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.
_Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges, including allegations that he schemed to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder.
_Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota, abandoned his bid to become health and human services secretary and the administration's point man on reforming health care; and Nancy Killefer stepped down from a newly created position charged with eliminating inefficient government programs.
Both Daschle and Killefer had tax problems, and Daschle also faced potential conflicts of interest related to working with health care interests.
_Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed to his post after revealing he had tax troubles.
_Obama's initial choice for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, stepped aside due to a grand jury investigation into a state contract awarded to his political donors.
_While the Senate voted overwhelmingly to confirm William Lynn as deputy defense secretary, Obama had to waive his ethics regulations to place the former defense lobbyist in charge of day-to-day operations at the Pentagon.
The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Richard Durbin of Illinois, expressed anger about the Burris case Wednesday while he was on an official visit to Greece.
"I do believe that the public statements made by Mr. Burris to this point have raised questions ... as to the nature of his relationship with the former governor and the circumstances surrounding his appointment," Durbin said.
Reid said in Nevada, "Now there's some question as to whether or not he told the truth."
Where to go next? Reid had no answer.
"What I think we have to do is just wait and see," the Senate leader said.
Senate Democrats now may be trapped in their own ethics system. Disciplinary action against a senator usually requires a long investigation by the Senate's ethics committee.
While a preliminary inquiry on Burris is under way, that's only the first step. And, with ongoing criminal investigations in Illinois, the committee probably would have to postpone any action — as it usually does — to avoid interference.
========
MY ISRAEL-IRAN ANALYSIS
By Alan Peters
Analysis usually relies on past events but sometimes, specially with me it becomes projectional, based on extrapolation of available facts.
FACT ONE: His Highness Prince Reza Pahlavi has suddenly launched a flurry of activity after some decades of very quiet profile. He has opened an office in Paris, plans one for London and also apparently one on the USA West Coast, probably in Los Angeles.
FACT TWO: The BBC has added TV broadcasts in Persian to their Persian Radio broadcasts. These appear to be coming from across the Persian Gulf. The broadcasts provide videos and audio of Prince Reza Pahlavi's
This resembles the kind of activity BBC (without the TV at that time) used to incite pro-Khomeini advocates against the monarchy.
Note: Her Majesty the Queen of England CONGRATULATED the islamic mullahs of iran on the anniversary of the Khomeini revolution, proving how far along England has gone to become Londonistan. I do not recall this happening before, or I missed it if it did or was done very quietly and privately.
FACT THREE: Israel has just held elections and islamic iran will be "electing" a new President in a couple of months.
Israel's Foreign Minister Livni was refusing to form a coalition government with Netanyahu but has received strong suggestions from the USA to go ahead and work with Netanyahu, who is strongly against Iran.
Islamic iran's election will create possibly violent power struggles. Ahmadi-Nejad has already warned/threatened former "reformist" President Khatami that he risks assassination if he continues his bid for the Presidency.
Supreme ruler has his daughter's (or is it his son's) father-in-law Adel Haddad in mind for the presidency but will find opposition to this hardliner.
FACT FOUR: It has always been clear, and a major problem and consideration, that the Monarchy cannot take over and rule for long if the young Shah spills lots of blood to return to the throne.
FACT FIVE: Obama's support for islamic iran, Syria, Hamas palestinians and terrorists in general but Israel's direct enemies in particular, is forcing Israel into taking uniliteral action against iranian nuclear weapon capability.
BUT what happens after the Israelis bomb islamic iran and wipe out the Mullah regime command and control? Let's assume that the populace rises up against the bloodthirsty clerics and decimates them.
Then what? Who will govern? Who will be able to lend some form of stability to the New Iran? And CHANGE from the suppressive, oppressive rule the Mullahs have plagued on the Iranian populace.
Here the best and most viable candidate is the Monarchy. Not as a dictatorial direct ruler but as an umbrella catalytic authority under which political parties can function without the need for bloodshed. The monarchy acts as an umpire and overarching arbiter.
So, with this in mind and the remark by the young Shah to a former Communist, who has joined his cause, who asked if they were likely to be in Iran by the end of a year, Prince Reza firmly stated that he would be back in Iran within the next six months.
A very telling event and statement for a usually very reticent and cautious man.
So, Israel justifiably spills the blood the Monarchy cannot afford to and the Monarchy, already working for a while to get staffed and ready, will be there to lead the New Iran hopefully like a Phoenix from the ashes and rubble left (justifiably) by the Israelis in a self-defense raid to wipe out islamic iran's nuclear capability which the clerics have sworn to aim at Israel.
America can then turn to dealing with the terrorists that Obama-Khomeini will have imported into the USA, without the fear of a hostile Iran.
Analysis usually relies on past events but sometimes, specially with me it becomes projectional, based on extrapolation of available facts.
FACT ONE: His Highness Prince Reza Pahlavi has suddenly launched a flurry of activity after some decades of very quiet profile. He has opened an office in Paris, plans one for London and also apparently one on the USA West Coast, probably in Los Angeles.
FACT TWO: The BBC has added TV broadcasts in Persian to their Persian Radio broadcasts. These appear to be coming from across the Persian Gulf. The broadcasts provide videos and audio of Prince Reza Pahlavi's
This resembles the kind of activity BBC (without the TV at that time) used to incite pro-Khomeini advocates against the monarchy.
Note: Her Majesty the Queen of England CONGRATULATED the islamic mullahs of iran on the anniversary of the Khomeini revolution, proving how far along England has gone to become Londonistan. I do not recall this happening before, or I missed it if it did or was done very quietly and privately.
FACT THREE: Israel has just held elections and islamic iran will be "electing" a new President in a couple of months.
Israel's Foreign Minister Livni was refusing to form a coalition government with Netanyahu but has received strong suggestions from the USA to go ahead and work with Netanyahu, who is strongly against Iran.
Islamic iran's election will create possibly violent power struggles. Ahmadi-Nejad has already warned/threatened former "reformist" President Khatami that he risks assassination if he continues his bid for the Presidency.
Supreme ruler has his daughter's (or is it his son's) father-in-law Adel Haddad in mind for the presidency but will find opposition to this hardliner.
FACT FOUR: It has always been clear, and a major problem and consideration, that the Monarchy cannot take over and rule for long if the young Shah spills lots of blood to return to the throne.
FACT FIVE: Obama's support for islamic iran, Syria, Hamas palestinians and terrorists in general but Israel's direct enemies in particular, is forcing Israel into taking uniliteral action against iranian nuclear weapon capability.
BUT what happens after the Israelis bomb islamic iran and wipe out the Mullah regime command and control? Let's assume that the populace rises up against the bloodthirsty clerics and decimates them.
Then what? Who will govern? Who will be able to lend some form of stability to the New Iran? And CHANGE from the suppressive, oppressive rule the Mullahs have plagued on the Iranian populace.
Here the best and most viable candidate is the Monarchy. Not as a dictatorial direct ruler but as an umbrella catalytic authority under which political parties can function without the need for bloodshed. The monarchy acts as an umpire and overarching arbiter.
So, with this in mind and the remark by the young Shah to a former Communist, who has joined his cause, who asked if they were likely to be in Iran by the end of a year, Prince Reza firmly stated that he would be back in Iran within the next six months.
A very telling event and statement for a usually very reticent and cautious man.
So, Israel justifiably spills the blood the Monarchy cannot afford to and the Monarchy, already working for a while to get staffed and ready, will be there to lead the New Iran hopefully like a Phoenix from the ashes and rubble left (justifiably) by the Israelis in a self-defense raid to wipe out islamic iran's nuclear capability which the clerics have sworn to aim at Israel.
America can then turn to dealing with the terrorists that Obama-Khomeini will have imported into the USA, without the fear of a hostile Iran.
Monday, February 16, 2009
SEX STARVED SAUDIS
These photos from the first public underwear store in Saudi Arabia shows why sex-starved Moslems commit so many sex crimes when in other countries. They are retarded in this field.
Just last week a declared "moderate Moslem" Pakistani based in Buffalo, New York DECAPITATED his wife. A couple of days later another Moslem in New York city, an Afghan diplomat spent some 15-hours brutally beating his wife.
Both have been arrested. The Afghan only has limited diplomatic immunity.
The "moderate Moslem" has apparently been charged with manslaughter! After an initial charge of Second Degree murder. For cutting off his wife's head?
Maybe not premeditated, though his breaking a Restraining Order could be escalated to premeditated mindset and certainly should be First Degree Murder through the sheer brutality involved.
NONE MORE FANATICAL THAN A CONVERT
Breaking news on Saturday in OC Register:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-torture14-2009feb14,0,3370120.story
Polygamist who tortured his family is sentenced to 7 life terms
The 'reign of terror' merits the harshest punishment, Riverside County judge says. Mansa Musa Muhummed starved, beat and imprisoned his 3 wives and 19 children for decades.
But what NONE of Saturday's news stories TOLD you were his Islamic idealogical justifications, found here in an older story. Our media is a PC joke!:
http://cbs2.com/local/murrieta.mansa.musa.2.738774.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-torture14-2009feb14,0,3370120.story
Polygamist who tortured his family is sentenced to 7 life terms
The 'reign of terror' merits the harshest punishment, Riverside County judge says. Mansa Musa Muhummed starved, beat and imprisoned his 3 wives and 19 children for decades.
But what NONE of Saturday's news stories TOLD you were his Islamic idealogical justifications, found here in an older story. Our media is a PC joke!:
http://cbs2.com/local/murrieta.mansa.musa.2.738774.html
Sunday, February 15, 2009
ENOUGH TRITIUM GAS MISSING FOR A CREDIBLE DIRTY BOMB
It began in late 2007 as a routine audit. Retail giant Wal-Mart noticed that some exit signs at the company's stores and warehouses had gone missing.
As the audit spread across Wal-Mart's U.S. operations, the mystery thickened. Stores from Arkansas to Washington began reporting missing signs. They numbered in the hundreds at first, then the thousands. Last month Wal-Mart disclosed that about 15,800 of its exit signs – a stunning 20 per cent of its total inventory – are lost, missing, or otherwise unaccounted for at 4,500 facilities in the United States and Puerto Rico.
Poor housekeeping, certainly, but what's the big deal?
In a word: radiation.
The signs contain tritium gas, a radioactive form of hydrogen. Tritium glows when it interacts with phosphor particles, a phenomenon that has led to the creation of glow-in-the-dark emergency exit signs.
It's estimated there are more than 2 million tritium-based exit signs in use across North America.
It turns out that Ontario-based companies SRB Technologies (Canada) Inc. of Pembroke and Shield Source Inc. of Peterborough have sold the lion's share of these signs, which use tritium produced as a by-product from the operation of Canadian-made Candu nuclear reactors.
The health effects of tritium exposure continue to be a hot topic of debate. It's not strong enough to penetrate the skin, and in low quantities regulators and industry groups say tritium is safe. But when inhaled or ingested it can cause permanent changes to cells and has been linked to genetic abnormalities, developmental and reproductive problems and other health issues such as cancer.
"The problem is that because it's hydrogen it can actually become part of your body," says Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace Canada. "The radiation doesn't emit far, but when it actually becomes part of your cell it's right next to your DNA. So for a pregnant woman, for example, it can be really dangerous."
General exposure from one broken sign might be the equivalent of getting up to three chest X-rays, even though today we no longer give pregnant women X-rays. If tritium is ingested, for example, by a child who breaks a sign with a hockey stick, it's much more potent.
If only 5 per cent of the tritium in a large exit sign is ingested, it would be equivalent to 208 years of natural background radiation, according to a report from the Product Stewardship Institute at the University of Massachusetts.
And what about exposure from thousands of signs dumped near a source of drinking water, or packed with explosives in the back of a truck that has been driven into a crowded building?
"I'm sure thousands of them would create a credible dirty bomb," says Norm Rubin, director of nuclear research at Energy Probe in Toronto. "Most experts think the main purpose of a dirty bomb is to cause panic, disruption and expensive cleanup rather than lots of dead bodies. A bunch of tritium, especially if oxidized in an explosion, would probably do that job fine."
Tritium is also a component in nuclear warheads.
In 2005, SRB Technologies got permission from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to export 70,000 of its tritium exit signs to Iran.
Foreign Affairs Canada blasted the regulator for allowing shipment to a country that's attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction. The shipment went through.
South of the border, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears more concerned with tritium contamination of landfills and the threat of leaching into drinking water. The agency regulates the use of tritium devices, requiring the reporting of lost, stolen or broken property and proper cleanup and disposal.
"Throughout the whole process we stayed in very close contact with the NRC and received their guidance," said Wal-Mart spokesperson Daphne Davis Moore. "We no longer use these signs in our stores."
Wal-Mart's poor recordkeeping was a wake-up call for the nuclear agency, which in January sternly reminded users of the signs of their regulatory obligations. At the same time, it assured the public there's nothing to worry about.
Still, the agency was concerned enough to demand that any organization possessing 500 or more tritium exit signs conduct audits and report their findings within 60 days.
The list included Home Depot, AMC Theatres and a number of universities and schools.
Wal-Mart Canada says it has a few tritium exit signs in most of its stores. "We've gone back over our records and have not found any reason for concern," said spokesperson Kevin Groh. "We are doing an audit to get an accurate inventory." The difference, in Canada, is they don't have to do it.
Users of the signs are not licensed in Canada as long as the product is properly marked as radioactive, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This makes it difficult to determine exactly how many tritium signs exist in Canada and where they end up.
Stensil of Greenpeace said it's a strange way for a government to treat a radioactive device, but he's not surprised. He said the federal government has always had lax rules when it comes to tritium, partly because Canada, through its Candu nuclear plants, is one of the biggest producers of the substance in the world.
Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg, who teaches environmental health at the University of Toronto, said there's a double standard in Canada when it comes to regulating tritium. Permissible levels in drinking water here are 100 times greater than in Europe and more than 400 times greater than in California.
She was shocked when told about the 15,800 missing tritium signs at Wal-Mart, but even more surprised to learn that use of such signs isn't tracked or monitored in Canada.
"Most people haven't even heard of tritium," she lamented.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
MOLDAVIAN DISPUTE
The below text has hyperlinks unlike the online version. Everything else is the same. MMA
American Chronicle - http://www.americanchronicle.com - http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2713
Sunday, February 15, 2009 - http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/91113
Resolving the Former Moldavian SSR Dispute
By Michael Averko
My last American Chronicle article ("Update on the Former Moldavian SSR Dispute," Dec. 31) on the meeting between the leaders of Moldova and Prodnestrovie (also referred to as Transnistria, Transdniestria, Transdnestr and Trans-Dniester) relates to the issue of how to successfully resolve the dispute between the two parties. A major stumbling block is Pridnestrovie's government refusing to accept the Moldovan government's position that Moldova's territory includes all land which comprised the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR).
Theoretically, there is a way to honor Pridnestrovie's stance, in a settlement that would unite the two parties. Rather than advocate Pridnestrovie acknowledging itself as part of Moldova, a constitutionally loose union state of two republics can be proposed. Its name could be along the lines of the Union of Moldova and Pridnestrovie (UMP).
The problem with this option is the likely rejection by Moldova, which might also include some opposition in Pridnestrovie. In the early 1990s, then Moldovan President Mircea Snegur opposed Moldova becoming a federal state of three republics (Moldova, Pridnestrovie and Gagauzia - the latter is an autonomous territory within Moldova). Apprehension over the UMP concept shows no successful alternative for settling a dispute that is approaching the twenty year mark.
Pridnestrovie and Moldova each face conflicting realities. Moldovan opposition to becoming part of the Soviet Union in 1940 is not complete without acknowledging how Pridnestrovie was arbitrarily put into the Stalin-era created Moldavian SSR. Post-Soviet Moldova has been unable to implement its will in Pridnestrovie. Like it or not, Pridnestrovie's desire for independence is not recognized by any nation. These thoughts lead to further elaboration on the UMP suggestion.
In the UMP scenario, the flags of Moldova and Pridnestrovie can be maintained at the defined republic level of a union state. At international gatherings like the United Nations and Olympics, the UMP flag would be utilized to represent both republics as one. South Africa's post-apartheid flag can be used as a reference. This flag has the colors of the flags of the major political groups in South Africa. The UMP flag might be a stylish conglomeration of the flags of Moldova and Pridnestrovie. Another option could consider a flag expressing a relation to the flags of Moldova, Russia, Ukraine and Gagauzia. These flags relate to the four main ethnic groups comprising the former Moldavian SSR land mass.
If implemented, the described UMP state will no doubt lead some in Gagauzia to seek a republic status. At present, the Gagauz leadership acknowledges Gagauzia as an autonomous/non-republic part of Moldova. Following this past summer's war in the Caucasus, the Gagauz parliament voted to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This move suggests that Gagauzia has a good degree of separatist sympathy. On the other hand, Gagauzia's parliament does not recognize the independence of Pridnestrovie. Not recognizing Pridnestrovie's independence keeps Gagauzia on better terms with the Moldovan government. In addition, the Gagauz parliament's independence recognition policy (on South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Pridnestrovie) matches Russia's. If Moldova and Pridnestrovie were to buy into the UMP idea, it stands to reason that Gagauzia would do the same, if it were to achieve a republic status. In such an instance, the Union of Sovereign Republics (USR) is a smoother alternative to the Union of Moldova, Pridnestrovie and Gagauzia.
The circumstances regarding the disputed former Communist bloc territories are not completely uniform. Therefore, the suggestions in this essay are not intended to be across the board considerations for the other disputes.
Of late, there is talk of Russia and the United States seeking ways to improve their relationship. In the former Moldavian SSR dispute, Moscow and Washington have expressed support of a state based on the boundaries of the former Soviet republic in question. Russia is concerned about former Moldavian SSR territory becoming part of NATO. A firmly written UMP or USR constitutional clause could negate NATO membership and support the possibility of entering into the European Union.
Concerning Moldova's upcoming April parliamentary election, its current president, the Pridnestrovie born Vladimir Voronin, looks more favorably at the Soviet past, unlike a good number of others in Moldova. When compared to Moldova, Pridnestrovie has had a lengthier history of affiliation with Russia and Ukraine. As of now, Voronin's Communist Party appears positioned to top the upcoming vote.
Nevertheless, the more Westward leaning of Moldovan political parties show signs of increasing influence. The geopolitical direction of Moldova has been a cause of concern for some in Russia and the West.
American Chronicle - http://www.americanchronicle.com - http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/2713
Sunday, February 15, 2009 - http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/91113
Resolving the Former Moldavian SSR Dispute
By Michael Averko
My last American Chronicle article ("Update on the Former Moldavian SSR Dispute," Dec. 31) on the meeting between the leaders of Moldova and Prodnestrovie (also referred to as Transnistria, Transdniestria, Transdnestr and Trans-Dniester) relates to the issue of how to successfully resolve the dispute between the two parties. A major stumbling block is Pridnestrovie's government refusing to accept the Moldovan government's position that Moldova's territory includes all land which comprised the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR).
Theoretically, there is a way to honor Pridnestrovie's stance, in a settlement that would unite the two parties. Rather than advocate Pridnestrovie acknowledging itself as part of Moldova, a constitutionally loose union state of two republics can be proposed. Its name could be along the lines of the Union of Moldova and Pridnestrovie (UMP).
The problem with this option is the likely rejection by Moldova, which might also include some opposition in Pridnestrovie. In the early 1990s, then Moldovan President Mircea Snegur opposed Moldova becoming a federal state of three republics (Moldova, Pridnestrovie and Gagauzia - the latter is an autonomous territory within Moldova). Apprehension over the UMP concept shows no successful alternative for settling a dispute that is approaching the twenty year mark.
Pridnestrovie and Moldova each face conflicting realities. Moldovan opposition to becoming part of the Soviet Union in 1940 is not complete without acknowledging how Pridnestrovie was arbitrarily put into the Stalin-era created Moldavian SSR. Post-Soviet Moldova has been unable to implement its will in Pridnestrovie. Like it or not, Pridnestrovie's desire for independence is not recognized by any nation. These thoughts lead to further elaboration on the UMP suggestion.
In the UMP scenario, the flags of Moldova and Pridnestrovie can be maintained at the defined republic level of a union state. At international gatherings like the United Nations and Olympics, the UMP flag would be utilized to represent both republics as one. South Africa's post-apartheid flag can be used as a reference. This flag has the colors of the flags of the major political groups in South Africa. The UMP flag might be a stylish conglomeration of the flags of Moldova and Pridnestrovie. Another option could consider a flag expressing a relation to the flags of Moldova, Russia, Ukraine and Gagauzia. These flags relate to the four main ethnic groups comprising the former Moldavian SSR land mass.
If implemented, the described UMP state will no doubt lead some in Gagauzia to seek a republic status. At present, the Gagauz leadership acknowledges Gagauzia as an autonomous/non-republic part of Moldova. Following this past summer's war in the Caucasus, the Gagauz parliament voted to recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This move suggests that Gagauzia has a good degree of separatist sympathy. On the other hand, Gagauzia's parliament does not recognize the independence of Pridnestrovie. Not recognizing Pridnestrovie's independence keeps Gagauzia on better terms with the Moldovan government. In addition, the Gagauz parliament's independence recognition policy (on South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Pridnestrovie) matches Russia's. If Moldova and Pridnestrovie were to buy into the UMP idea, it stands to reason that Gagauzia would do the same, if it were to achieve a republic status. In such an instance, the Union of Sovereign Republics (USR) is a smoother alternative to the Union of Moldova, Pridnestrovie and Gagauzia.
The circumstances regarding the disputed former Communist bloc territories are not completely uniform. Therefore, the suggestions in this essay are not intended to be across the board considerations for the other disputes.
Of late, there is talk of Russia and the United States seeking ways to improve their relationship. In the former Moldavian SSR dispute, Moscow and Washington have expressed support of a state based on the boundaries of the former Soviet republic in question. Russia is concerned about former Moldavian SSR territory becoming part of NATO. A firmly written UMP or USR constitutional clause could negate NATO membership and support the possibility of entering into the European Union.
Concerning Moldova's upcoming April parliamentary election, its current president, the Pridnestrovie born Vladimir Voronin, looks more favorably at the Soviet past, unlike a good number of others in Moldova. When compared to Moldova, Pridnestrovie has had a lengthier history of affiliation with Russia and Ukraine. As of now, Voronin's Communist Party appears positioned to top the upcoming vote.
Nevertheless, the more Westward leaning of Moldovan political parties show signs of increasing influence. The geopolitical direction of Moldova has been a cause of concern for some in Russia and the West.
HONOR KILLINGS AGAIN
by Robert Spencer
Last July, Chaudhry Rashid, a Pakistani immigrant living in Clayton County, Georgia, strangled his daughter to death.
According to police, Rashid explained to them that he had killed his daughter, Sandeela Kanwal, in order to restore his family’s honor, which she had sullied by planning to divorce the husband to whom she had been given in an arranged marriage.
Clayton County Police spokesman Tim Owens explained: “Apparently she and the father had argued over the marriage and the fact that it was arranged, and at some point during the altercation he did end up killing his daughter.”
The family appears to have adhered to traditional Islamic mores.
A neighbor noted: “I would see the young lady outside every once in a while dressed in the traditional Muslim gear.” Added another: “The father, he would pray at certain times of the mornings and evenings.”
And indeed, honor killing most commonly occurs among Muslims. While there is no direct sanction given in the Qur’an or Islamic law for it, the practice is encouraged by the shame/honor culture that Islam has created.
A transgression of the moral law is not seen only as a sin to be somehow expiated by the individual who committed it, but as a blot upon the honor and purity of the family of the victim – and that blot inheres in the sullied purity of the victim, not the perpetrator.
“Honor killings” are distressingly common throughout the Muslim world. Phyllis Chesler reports that “in 1997, in Cairo Egypt, twenty-five-year-old Nora Marzouk Ahmed’s honeymoon ended when her father chopped off her head and carried it down the street.
‘Now,’ he said, ‘the family has regained its honor.’ Nora’s crime? She had eloped.”
And “in 2002, in Tehran, an Iranian man cut off his seven-year-old daughter’s head after suspecting she had been raped by her uncle. ‘The motive behind the killing was to defend my honor, fame, and dignity.’
Some people called for this man’s death under Islamic law, but ironically, only the father of the victim can demand the death sentence.”
Chesler recounts many such killings. “In 1999, in Lahore, Pakistan, Samia Imran was shot dead in her feminist lawyer’s office by a man whom her parents had hired to kill her. Her crime? Seeking a divorce….
In 2001, in Gujar Khan, Pakistan, Zahida Perveen’s husband attacked her, gouged out both her eyes, her nose, and her ears. He wrongly suspected her of adultery.
He was arrested, but male relatives shook his hand and men decided she ‘must have deserved it’ and that a ‘husband has to do what a man has to do.’…
In 2005, in Gaza, five masked members of Hamas…shot Yusra Azzumi, a twenty-year-old Palestinian woman, to death, brutalized her corpse, and savagely beat both her brother, Rami, and her fiancé, Ziad Zaranda, whom she was to marry within days.
This self-appointed Morality Squad wrongly suspected Yusra (herself a Hamas member) of “immoral behavior.”
Islamic clerics are partially responsible for the strong association of this practice with Islam. One notorious example of this association came in the relatively moderate Muslim country of Jordan in 2003, when the Jordanian Parliament voted down a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings.
Al-Jazeera reported with unintentional irony that increasing penalties for honor killings would destroy families: “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”
Ignoring the clear and close link between of honor killing and Islamic culture, however, the mainstream media searched for explanations elsewhere.
CNN consulted Ajay Nair, associate dean of multicultural affairs at Columbia University, to see if honor killing was a “South Asian” problem.
Certainly not, explained Nair: “My immediate reaction was that this is an anomaly in the South Asian community. This isn’t a rampant problem within South Asian communities. What is a problem, I think, is domestic violence, and that cuts across all communities.”
Also ignoring the incidence of honor killings in Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Gaza and elsewhere (including among Muslim immigrants in Germany, Britain, Canada, and Texas), the Chicago Tribune attributed it to the cultural rigidity of Pakistani and Indian immigrants, and even dragged in the crowned heads of Europe:
“Such cultural unions serve as social contracts among South Asians and other communities, where a marriage agreement is more about families joining forces than about two people finding love—akin to the arranged marriages of European royalty…”
To this Warner Todd Huston of NewsBusters trenchantly responded: “Last I checked my history books common Europeans didn’t go around killing their daughters for marrying ‘wrong’ and neither did their ages old Monarchs.”
In line with the widespread acceptance of this practice in Islamic culture, when he appeared before a judge, Chaudhry Rashid insisted: “I have done nothing wrong.”
Speaking to the judge, he demanded prison food prepared according to Islamic requirements, and declared that he would refuse pork in any form. It was a clear indication of the strength of his commitment to Islam, even as the mainstream media remained determined not to notice any such commitment.
The price of this politically correct refusal to confront the ugly realities of the Islamic link to honor killing will be, quite simply, more honor killings.
No one will call upon Islamic groups to do something about this practice. No special scrutiny will be focused upon Muslims in the United States, or any studies undertaken about how honor killings can be prevented. No one will examine the question of unrestricted Muslim immigration in light of this problem.
While learned analysts search for clues in South Asian cultural habits and the practices of European royalty, more young women will be murdered by their Muslim fathers, husbands, and brothers to cleanse their family’s honor.
These young women are the ultimate victims of political correctness now turning England into Londonistan and Europe into Eurabia. And increasingly appearing in the USA as more and more Moslems settle here on visas we generously provide them them though they refuse to assimilate into Western cultures and bring this kind of distress to add to home-grown problems.
NOTE: The New York Moslem who decapitated his wife this week has been charged only with SECOND DEGREE murder (see story on Main page)
ALSO
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024843.php
February 14, 2009
French court gives Muslim 20 years for setting ex-girlfriend on fire
Her face burned, his honor restored
"Prosecutor Camille Palluel said Butt had meticulously planned his attack 'to end the life' of his former girlfriend in an attempt 'to restore his honour.'"
Love Is In The Air Update: "Jilted man jailed for fire attack," from the BBC, February 13 (thanks to Kapil):
A Pakistani man has been sentenced to 20 years in prison by a French court for setting fire to an ex-girlfriend who had refused to marry him.
Amer Mushtaq Butt doused the woman with petrol and set her alight as she was leaving her home in a Paris suburb.
Chahrazad Belayni, a 21-year-old Moroccan-born woman, suffered third-degree burns to 60% of her body.
The case has highlighted violence against women in poor urban communities with large Muslim populations....
Prosecutor Camille Palluel said Butt had meticulously planned his attack "to end the life" of his former girlfriend in an attempt "to restore his honour".
Butt set fire to Ms Belayni in the street in the impoverished Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Marne in 2005 after she ended their relationship....
Friday, February 13, 2009
FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW
By Andrew C. McCarthy
It has come to this: If you are an Islamic radical, trained to carry out terrorist atrocities in al-Qaeda’s jihad against the United Kingdom, the
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVhODU5MDQ2OTg5OGNmOWJkNjk3MTRlYTg4MGJjZjM
British will welcome you with open arms. Not content with that, Great Britain will lobby insistently for your release from custody so that you may freely roam British streets—and the halls of Westminster.If, by contrast, you are a duly elected representative in the democratic government of a country to which England is bound in the European Union, and you speak about the undeniable—though mulishly denied—nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror, Great Britain will slam her door in your face.That is the lesson in the appalling saga of Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and Exhibit Umpty-Umpth illustrating the depths of capitulation to which the West has sunk in its half-hearted bid for cultural survival.
======
ALSO A POST THAT GOOGLE KEPT DELETING
Dear Senators and Congressmen:
Thank you for taking the time to review the documentation relevant to the Constitutional legitimacy of the presidency Barack Obama. There have been various problems with the vetting of Mr. Obama throughout the campaign and the present. I’d like to take the opportunity to highlight the most pertinent and alarming issues that have been clearly revealed. I’m sure you will agree that this information must be further investigated promptly before any damage is done to the United States and its citizens—beyond the Constitutional compromises that currently exist. Most interesting, though, is the fact that Mr. Obama has not simply ordered the original vault copy of his birth certificate to be sealed and chosen to retain three (3) law firms to defend the various cases—spending a reported $800,000 (of whose money?). If Mr. Obama has nothing to hide, then why fight the more than 42 cases in federal courts alone (According to Justia) and similar number in state courts of which the merits are well-founded and substantiated through factual evidence, state and federal statutes, and international laws. Main issue is that the state of HI, according to statue 338 allows Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates and obtain them based on a statement of one relative only. There is plenty of evidence of Mr. Obama being born in Kenya and obtaining his Hawaiian birth certificate based on a statement of his grandparent only, who simply didn’t want to deal with immigration and not based on any records from any hospitals. Extensive searches in the State of Hawaii showed no birthing records for his mother Ann Dunham in any hospital in Hawaii.I would also like to schedule a meeting with you, for which I will fly to Washington, D.C. to personally meet with you in the short term. Having been raised in the former Soviet Union, I am no stranger to horrors of communism, totalitarianism, civilian labor camp rule and I see clearly the path Mr. Obama is taking the United States. It is a downward spiral of total destruction of the constitution and economic infrastructure of this country. I urge you to look at the information thoroughly. Americans need to know that their president is a legitimate president and that their senators and representatives are upholding their oaths:“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” As a Senator you have to uphold your oath and initiate proper committee and FBI investigation.There are serious concerns about Mr. Obama’s identity and financial dealings. I have obtained a list of some 100 addresses under the name of Barack Obama (and similar spellings). These addresses are attached to different social security numbers. As you know the first three digits in a social security number signify the state. Those were issued all over the country. One of his social security numbers, that was used while he was a law student at Harvard and attached to his address in Sommervile MA, was issued in Ct and attached to a holder of this social security number , that is 118 years old. Clearly no human being can legally have dozens of different social security numbers and Soetoro/Obama is not a 118 years old. I believe there is evidence of massive fraud and massive financial fraud. I believe those units of Name/ss number/ addresses were used to fraction large campaign contributions and other transactions. There is evidence of campaign contributions coming from countries like Libya, Uganda, Palestinian authority and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Ms. Madelyn Dunham worked as a volunteer in probate department of the Oahu Circuit court and had access to the Social security numbers of the deceased individuals, which might explain the findings. Mr. Obama’s mother Ann Dunham, according to databases had numerous aliases and at least two social security numbers.Mr. Obama was a chair of Annenberg challenge. Officially he collected 50 mln from Annenberg+110 million matching funds=160 mln total. There were reports that due to fund swap with Annenberg per se he had as much as 500mln. This charity operated for 6 years and was supposed to increase student performance in Academics. After 6 years there was zero improvement in comparison to other schools in Chicago and it is not clear what happened to 500 mln donated. I saw their tax returns, they don’t show an explanation.As a State Senator Mr. Obama was retained by his friend, Mr. Robert Blackwell, to represent him as an attorney. (Mr. Obama worked for Miner law firm to supplement his 56K salary as a state senator ) Mr. Obama has used State Senator letterhead to solicit grants for Mr. Robert Blackwell. Mr. Blackwell consequently received $320k in State grants for his company and paid Mr. Obama 100K as a salary. Later upon inquiry Mr. Obama buried the payment he received from Mr. Blackwell amongst hundreds of names of the clients of his firm. This was a clear case of public corruption, but Mr. Obama was never prosecuted, while other lawmakers are serving jail terms for such actions.While being sworn as an attorney in the State of IL, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. (I am in possession of his registration.) In reality he used name Barry Soetoro. I am in possession of his school registration in Indonesia, that clearly shows his name to be Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonezia. Later it was reported that he studied at Occidental college in Ca under the name Barry Soetoro and there was an entry in the journal of the California assembly in re. to grants given to foreign exchange students, one Soetoro from Indonesia. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar if Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?I request all of this information to be forwarded to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Judicial Committee, Mr. Steven Whitlock, director of the whistle blower office of the IRS, ICE, State Department, and FBI for further investigation.Respectfully submitted,Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.Excerpt, Go hereMuch more hereDr. Orly Taitz, ESQ26302 La Paz, ste 211Mission Viejo, CA 92691949-683-5411Dr_taitz@yahoo.com
It has come to this: If you are an Islamic radical, trained to carry out terrorist atrocities in al-Qaeda’s jihad against the United Kingdom, the
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDVhODU5MDQ2OTg5OGNmOWJkNjk3MTRlYTg4MGJjZjM
British will welcome you with open arms. Not content with that, Great Britain will lobby insistently for your release from custody so that you may freely roam British streets—and the halls of Westminster.If, by contrast, you are a duly elected representative in the democratic government of a country to which England is bound in the European Union, and you speak about the undeniable—though mulishly denied—nexus between Islamic doctrine and jihadist terror, Great Britain will slam her door in your face.That is the lesson in the appalling saga of Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament and Exhibit Umpty-Umpth illustrating the depths of capitulation to which the West has sunk in its half-hearted bid for cultural survival.
======
ALSO A POST THAT GOOGLE KEPT DELETING
Dear Senators and Congressmen:
Thank you for taking the time to review the documentation relevant to the Constitutional legitimacy of the presidency Barack Obama. There have been various problems with the vetting of Mr. Obama throughout the campaign and the present. I’d like to take the opportunity to highlight the most pertinent and alarming issues that have been clearly revealed. I’m sure you will agree that this information must be further investigated promptly before any damage is done to the United States and its citizens—beyond the Constitutional compromises that currently exist. Most interesting, though, is the fact that Mr. Obama has not simply ordered the original vault copy of his birth certificate to be sealed and chosen to retain three (3) law firms to defend the various cases—spending a reported $800,000 (of whose money?). If Mr. Obama has nothing to hide, then why fight the more than 42 cases in federal courts alone (According to Justia) and similar number in state courts of which the merits are well-founded and substantiated through factual evidence, state and federal statutes, and international laws. Main issue is that the state of HI, according to statue 338 allows Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates and obtain them based on a statement of one relative only. There is plenty of evidence of Mr. Obama being born in Kenya and obtaining his Hawaiian birth certificate based on a statement of his grandparent only, who simply didn’t want to deal with immigration and not based on any records from any hospitals. Extensive searches in the State of Hawaii showed no birthing records for his mother Ann Dunham in any hospital in Hawaii.I would also like to schedule a meeting with you, for which I will fly to Washington, D.C. to personally meet with you in the short term. Having been raised in the former Soviet Union, I am no stranger to horrors of communism, totalitarianism, civilian labor camp rule and I see clearly the path Mr. Obama is taking the United States. It is a downward spiral of total destruction of the constitution and economic infrastructure of this country. I urge you to look at the information thoroughly. Americans need to know that their president is a legitimate president and that their senators and representatives are upholding their oaths:“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” As a Senator you have to uphold your oath and initiate proper committee and FBI investigation.There are serious concerns about Mr. Obama’s identity and financial dealings. I have obtained a list of some 100 addresses under the name of Barack Obama (and similar spellings). These addresses are attached to different social security numbers. As you know the first three digits in a social security number signify the state. Those were issued all over the country. One of his social security numbers, that was used while he was a law student at Harvard and attached to his address in Sommervile MA, was issued in Ct and attached to a holder of this social security number , that is 118 years old. Clearly no human being can legally have dozens of different social security numbers and Soetoro/Obama is not a 118 years old. I believe there is evidence of massive fraud and massive financial fraud. I believe those units of Name/ss number/ addresses were used to fraction large campaign contributions and other transactions. There is evidence of campaign contributions coming from countries like Libya, Uganda, Palestinian authority and Saudi Arabia. Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Ms. Madelyn Dunham worked as a volunteer in probate department of the Oahu Circuit court and had access to the Social security numbers of the deceased individuals, which might explain the findings. Mr. Obama’s mother Ann Dunham, according to databases had numerous aliases and at least two social security numbers.Mr. Obama was a chair of Annenberg challenge. Officially he collected 50 mln from Annenberg+110 million matching funds=160 mln total. There were reports that due to fund swap with Annenberg per se he had as much as 500mln. This charity operated for 6 years and was supposed to increase student performance in Academics. After 6 years there was zero improvement in comparison to other schools in Chicago and it is not clear what happened to 500 mln donated. I saw their tax returns, they don’t show an explanation.As a State Senator Mr. Obama was retained by his friend, Mr. Robert Blackwell, to represent him as an attorney. (Mr. Obama worked for Miner law firm to supplement his 56K salary as a state senator ) Mr. Obama has used State Senator letterhead to solicit grants for Mr. Robert Blackwell. Mr. Blackwell consequently received $320k in State grants for his company and paid Mr. Obama 100K as a salary. Later upon inquiry Mr. Obama buried the payment he received from Mr. Blackwell amongst hundreds of names of the clients of his firm. This was a clear case of public corruption, but Mr. Obama was never prosecuted, while other lawmakers are serving jail terms for such actions.While being sworn as an attorney in the State of IL, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. (I am in possession of his registration.) In reality he used name Barry Soetoro. I am in possession of his school registration in Indonesia, that clearly shows his name to be Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonezia. Later it was reported that he studied at Occidental college in Ca under the name Barry Soetoro and there was an entry in the journal of the California assembly in re. to grants given to foreign exchange students, one Soetoro from Indonesia. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar if Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?I request all of this information to be forwarded to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Judicial Committee, Mr. Steven Whitlock, director of the whistle blower office of the IRS, ICE, State Department, and FBI for further investigation.Respectfully submitted,Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.Excerpt, Go hereMuch more hereDr. Orly Taitz, ESQ26302 La Paz, ste 211Mission Viejo, CA 92691949-683-5411Dr_taitz@yahoo.com
Sunday, February 08, 2009
DETAILS OF THE MUGHNYEH ASSASINATION
Israeli daily fleshes out anatomy of Mughniyeh assassinationMossad 'extracted information' from captured Hizbullah manBy Andrew Wander Daily Star staffMonday, February 09, 2009
Listen to the Article - Powered by http://www.mindzatwork.net
Israeli daily fleshes out anatomy of Mughniyeh assassination
BEIRUT: Hizbullah military commander Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated by Israeli Mossad agents supplied with information gathered by American CIA officials in Iraq, according to a report published in an Israeli newspaper.
The Yediot Ahronot newspaper said it had received new details about Mughniyeh's death from an anonymous Lebanese official who had been charged with investigating the killing, and from Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer.
The report claimed that important details used to plan the assassination were gathered from Ali Moussa Daqduq, a Hizbullah operative who was arrested in Iraq in January 2007, where he was allEgedly training members of the Shiite Mehdi Army.
He was handed to US intelligence agents, who extracted a wealth of information about Mughniyeh from their prisoner, including his telephone numbers, his physical description, his behavioral traits and the names of his acquaintances.
The US then passed this information to the Israeli intelligence service, which began planning an operation to kill the Hizbullah military mastermind.
The newspaper says a single mistake by Mughniyeh led to his death. Israel received intelligence that he would be attending a reception hosted by Iran's new ambassador to Damascus to commemorate the 29th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Mughniyeh had apparently eschewed his usual security detail for the event, traveling without his bodyguards or chauffeur, and had arrived at the reception alone. He had no idea that a Mossad hit squad was lying in wait for him.
According to the newspaper, Israel had dispatched a team of agents tasked with killing Mughniyeh to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq before the reception. The team slipped across the border into Syria in three vehicles and began monitoring their target the day before he died.
While Mughniyeh was attending the reception, the assassins broke into his car, a silver Mitsubishi Pajero, removing the headrest on his seat and replacing it with an identical one loaded with explosives.
Rather than setting the explosives on a timer, the agents used a remote controlled charge that they could detonate at the right moment. They lay in wait for their quarry and when he was in the car, they detonated the explosives, killing him instantly.
His death sent shockwaves through Hizbullah, an organization known for being almost impenetrable to hostile intelligence agencies, and the group's leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah immediately pledged revenge.
Almost a year on, no response has come. But during a news conference held at the end of January, Nasrallah reiterated his promise to avenge the assassination. "The Israelis live in fear of our revenge," he said. "The decision to respond to the killing is still on. We decide the time and the place"
His comments have sparked fears in Israel that a Hizbullah revenge attack is imminent. Israeli troops stationed on the border with Lebanon have been placed on high alert, and the Jewish state's counter-terrorism bureau has issued a warning to Israeli nationals that they may be targeted abroad.
Israeli politicians, currently locked in a bitter election race, have pledged a devastating response to any Hizbullah attack. On a visit to northern Israel last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that Lebanon would be held responsible for Hizbullah's actions.
"Hizbullah is not just a terrorist organization running around the hills but also sits at the cabinet table in Beirut," Barak said. "Therefore, the Lebanese government bears overall responsibility and any attempt to attack Israel will be met with a response."
Listen to the Article - Powered by http://www.mindzatwork.net
Israeli daily fleshes out anatomy of Mughniyeh assassination
BEIRUT: Hizbullah military commander Imad Mughniyeh was assassinated by Israeli Mossad agents supplied with information gathered by American CIA officials in Iraq, according to a report published in an Israeli newspaper.
The Yediot Ahronot newspaper said it had received new details about Mughniyeh's death from an anonymous Lebanese official who had been charged with investigating the killing, and from Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer.
The report claimed that important details used to plan the assassination were gathered from Ali Moussa Daqduq, a Hizbullah operative who was arrested in Iraq in January 2007, where he was allEgedly training members of the Shiite Mehdi Army.
He was handed to US intelligence agents, who extracted a wealth of information about Mughniyeh from their prisoner, including his telephone numbers, his physical description, his behavioral traits and the names of his acquaintances.
The US then passed this information to the Israeli intelligence service, which began planning an operation to kill the Hizbullah military mastermind.
The newspaper says a single mistake by Mughniyeh led to his death. Israel received intelligence that he would be attending a reception hosted by Iran's new ambassador to Damascus to commemorate the 29th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
Mughniyeh had apparently eschewed his usual security detail for the event, traveling without his bodyguards or chauffeur, and had arrived at the reception alone. He had no idea that a Mossad hit squad was lying in wait for him.
According to the newspaper, Israel had dispatched a team of agents tasked with killing Mughniyeh to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq before the reception. The team slipped across the border into Syria in three vehicles and began monitoring their target the day before he died.
While Mughniyeh was attending the reception, the assassins broke into his car, a silver Mitsubishi Pajero, removing the headrest on his seat and replacing it with an identical one loaded with explosives.
Rather than setting the explosives on a timer, the agents used a remote controlled charge that they could detonate at the right moment. They lay in wait for their quarry and when he was in the car, they detonated the explosives, killing him instantly.
His death sent shockwaves through Hizbullah, an organization known for being almost impenetrable to hostile intelligence agencies, and the group's leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah immediately pledged revenge.
Almost a year on, no response has come. But during a news conference held at the end of January, Nasrallah reiterated his promise to avenge the assassination. "The Israelis live in fear of our revenge," he said. "The decision to respond to the killing is still on. We decide the time and the place"
His comments have sparked fears in Israel that a Hizbullah revenge attack is imminent. Israeli troops stationed on the border with Lebanon have been placed on high alert, and the Jewish state's counter-terrorism bureau has issued a warning to Israeli nationals that they may be targeted abroad.
Israeli politicians, currently locked in a bitter election race, have pledged a devastating response to any Hizbullah attack. On a visit to northern Israel last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned that Lebanon would be held responsible for Hizbullah's actions.
"Hizbullah is not just a terrorist organization running around the hills but also sits at the cabinet table in Beirut," Barak said. "Therefore, the Lebanese government bears overall responsibility and any attempt to attack Israel will be met with a response."
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Thursday, February 05, 2009
ANOTHER CORRUPT OBAMA CABINET CHOICE
PREFACE
Rep. Hilda Solis, D-CA, should be asked in her Senate confirmation process as President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor to explain why she approved funds to pay for congressional lobbying by a union-supported non-profit group on two bills she co-sponsored.
She should also explain why she failed to note this on her financial disclosure report.
She should further explain her role in approving spending by the non-profit group on "electioneering" television ads targeting incumbent Republican senators during the 2008 campaign.
Besides being a congressman, Solis is treasurer and a member of the board of directors of American Rights at Work (ARW), the 501c4, non-profit group that has received at least $1 million in contributions from labor unions.
ARW spent more than $230,000 in 2007 and 2008 lobbying Congress on two bills Solis actively co-sponsored – the Employee Free Choice Act and the Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act.
Both bills are top priorities for labor bosses who spent in excess of $300 million electing Democrats to Congress in 2008.
Solis failed to note her role as ARW treasurer on her congressional disclosure reports, as she is required to do under House rules.
EXAMINER STORY BELOW
Rep. Hilda Solis, D-CA, should be asked in her Senate confirmation process as President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor to explain why she approved funds to pay for congressional lobbying by a union-supported non-profit group on two bills she co-sponsored.
She should also explain why she failed to note this on her financial disclosure report. She should further explain her role in approving spending by the non-profit group On "electioneering" television ads targeting incumbent Republican senators during the 2008 campaign.
Besides being a congressman, Solis is treasurer and a member of the board of directors of American Rights at Work (ARW), the 501c4, non-profit group that has received at least $1 million in contributions from labor unions.
ARW spent more than $230,000 in 2007 and 2008 lobbying Congress on two bills Solis actively co-sponsored – the Employee Free Choice Act and the Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act.
Both bills are top priorities for labor bosses who spent in excess of $300 million electing Democrats to Congress in 2008. Solis failed to note her role as ARW treasurer on her congressional disclosure reports, as she is required to do under House rules.
As treasurer, she was required by IRS rules to account for all spending by the group, so her role was hardly ceremonial or passive, as claimed by her supporters.
But ARW also spent thousands of dollars on television spots described by the group in its report to the FEC as "electioneering communications."
Since as treasurer, Solis is required to approve all ARW spending, she must have signed off on the spots. This may well put her and ARW in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
Among the Republicans targeted by ARW were incumbents Norm Coleman, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, and John Sununu.
The anti-Sununu ad, for example, cost ARW $169,225 to air in New Hampshire, while another $69,105 paid for airing an anti-Coleman spot in Minnesota. So ARW clearly spent funds, with Solis' knowledge and approval "in connection with an election for federal office."
Again, as treasurer, Solis could hardly have been in a ceremonial or passive participant.
Rep. Hilda Solis, D-CA, should be asked in her Senate confirmation process as President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor to explain why she approved funds to pay for congressional lobbying by a union-supported non-profit group on two bills she co-sponsored.
She should also explain why she failed to note this on her financial disclosure report.
She should further explain her role in approving spending by the non-profit group on "electioneering" television ads targeting incumbent Republican senators during the 2008 campaign.
Besides being a congressman, Solis is treasurer and a member of the board of directors of American Rights at Work (ARW), the 501c4, non-profit group that has received at least $1 million in contributions from labor unions.
ARW spent more than $230,000 in 2007 and 2008 lobbying Congress on two bills Solis actively co-sponsored – the Employee Free Choice Act and the Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act.
Both bills are top priorities for labor bosses who spent in excess of $300 million electing Democrats to Congress in 2008.
Solis failed to note her role as ARW treasurer on her congressional disclosure reports, as she is required to do under House rules.
EXAMINER STORY BELOW
Rep. Hilda Solis, D-CA, should be asked in her Senate confirmation process as President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor to explain why she approved funds to pay for congressional lobbying by a union-supported non-profit group on two bills she co-sponsored.
She should also explain why she failed to note this on her financial disclosure report. She should further explain her role in approving spending by the non-profit group On "electioneering" television ads targeting incumbent Republican senators during the 2008 campaign.
Besides being a congressman, Solis is treasurer and a member of the board of directors of American Rights at Work (ARW), the 501c4, non-profit group that has received at least $1 million in contributions from labor unions.
ARW spent more than $230,000 in 2007 and 2008 lobbying Congress on two bills Solis actively co-sponsored – the Employee Free Choice Act and the Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act.
Both bills are top priorities for labor bosses who spent in excess of $300 million electing Democrats to Congress in 2008. Solis failed to note her role as ARW treasurer on her congressional disclosure reports, as she is required to do under House rules.
As treasurer, she was required by IRS rules to account for all spending by the group, so her role was hardly ceremonial or passive, as claimed by her supporters.
But ARW also spent thousands of dollars on television spots described by the group in its report to the FEC as "electioneering communications."
Since as treasurer, Solis is required to approve all ARW spending, she must have signed off on the spots. This may well put her and ARW in violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.
Among the Republicans targeted by ARW were incumbents Norm Coleman, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, and John Sununu.
The anti-Sununu ad, for example, cost ARW $169,225 to air in New Hampshire, while another $69,105 paid for airing an anti-Coleman spot in Minnesota. So ARW clearly spent funds, with Solis' knowledge and approval "in connection with an election for federal office."
Again, as treasurer, Solis could hardly have been in a ceremonial or passive participant.
Monday, February 02, 2009
OBAMA'S COMMUNIST/MOSLEM COUSIN
For three days in December 2007, Kenya slid into chaos as ballot counters steadily took what appeared to be a presidential election victory for the challenger and delivered it to the incumbent.
As tensions mounted, Kenneth Flottman sat in Nairobi and grew increasingly frustrated. He had in his hands the results of an exit poll, paid for by the United States government, that supported the initial returns favoring the challenger, Raila Odinga.
Mr. Flottman, East Africa director for the International Republican Institute, the pro-democracy group that administered the poll, said he had believed that the results would promptly be made public, as a check against election fraud by either side. But then his supervisors said the poll numbers would be kept secret. (snip)
An examination by The New York Times found that the official explanation for withholding the poll — that it was technically flawed — had been disputed by at least four people involved in the institute’s Kenya operations.
The examination, including interviews and a review of e-mail messages and internal memorandums, raises questions about the intentions and priorities of American observers as Kenyans desperately sought credible information about the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Raila Odinga is Obama’s Moslem/Communist cousin and the one who burned Christians alive in their churches. I wondered why the US government would bother with an exit poll.
read/view more
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/10/llke-ayers-another-obama-just-in.html
AND
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-with-communist-cousin-odinga.html
AND these graphic photos of Odinga’s rioting
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-family-political-methods-warning.html
As tensions mounted, Kenneth Flottman sat in Nairobi and grew increasingly frustrated. He had in his hands the results of an exit poll, paid for by the United States government, that supported the initial returns favoring the challenger, Raila Odinga.
Mr. Flottman, East Africa director for the International Republican Institute, the pro-democracy group that administered the poll, said he had believed that the results would promptly be made public, as a check against election fraud by either side. But then his supervisors said the poll numbers would be kept secret. (snip)
An examination by The New York Times found that the official explanation for withholding the poll — that it was technically flawed — had been disputed by at least four people involved in the institute’s Kenya operations.
The examination, including interviews and a review of e-mail messages and internal memorandums, raises questions about the intentions and priorities of American observers as Kenyans desperately sought credible information about the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Raila Odinga is Obama’s Moslem/Communist cousin and the one who burned Christians alive in their churches. I wondered why the US government would bother with an exit poll.
read/view more
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/10/llke-ayers-another-obama-just-in.html
AND
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-with-communist-cousin-odinga.html
AND these graphic photos of Odinga’s rioting
http://noiri.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-family-political-methods-warning.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
