OBA-HUSSEIN BLACKMAILED TO PROTECT/SUPPORT THE MULLAHS?

Pierre Omidya, eBay founder, brief background summary:

Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar's politics have become the subject of blog
commentary because the web auction site over the last week repeatedly
scrubbed an offering of an allegedly genuine copy of President Barack Obama
s birth certificate – from Mombasa, Kenya.

But the company said it wouldn't get involved in any discussion of Omidyar's
activities or political statements.

Spokeswoman Evonne Gomez said, "We certainly wouldn't comment on our founder s political concessions or beliefs. He is not involved in the day-to-day
operations of the company."

She said if a question was submitted in writing, she would consult on
whether it would be answered. A question submitted by WND didn't, however,
produce a response.

"I will coordinate with colleagues on the corporate side," she said. "We
wouldn't comment on his political views or associations."

Omidyar, a billionaire, former CEO and current chairman of eBay, earlier
this month was appointed by Barack Obama to serve on the 28-member President
s Commission on White House Fellowships.

According to a White House press release from June 17, Omidyar joins former
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, General Wesley Clark, former NBC anchor
Tom Brokaw, and several others on the committee, which recommends candidates
to the president for selection as White House Fellows. The release calls the
White House Fellowship "America's most prestigious program for leadership
and public service, providing young individuals with experience working at
the highest levels of the federal government."

Omidyar further serves as a trustee of the Punahou School in Hawaii, the
elite private high school that Obama graduated from in 1979, and endorsed
Obama's candidacy for president on his blog in March 2008.

WND reported has reported that over the last week eBay has scrubbed at least
five auctions offered by a seller known to the public only as
colmado_naranja."

The sale was for a document that purportedly was a Kenyan birth certificate
for Obama.

Gomez told WND any items that are removed are being of company policy.

The "birth certificate" seller allegedly obtained Obama's document while
traveling in Africa. The seller explained that the Kenyan natives boasted
that Barack Obama II was born in the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa at
7:24 p.m. On Aug. 4, 1961, which correlates with speculation that has
existed over President Obama's birthplace since even prior to his election.

WND also reported that the seller, colmado_naranja, then tried to sell a
dissertation" on Obama's birth, including the "supporting documents" – which
presumably includes the Kenyan birth certificate advertised on the seller's
original auction page.

Nonetheless, like the four previous auction pages posted by the seller, the
fifth sale for the "dissertation" was scrubbed by eBay administrators.

Further, an alert notice was sent to eBay members who had been in contact
with colmado_naranja, warning them that the seller may be fraudulent and
attempting to extract private information from prospective buyers.

Previously, colmado_naranja claimed, the auction pages were removed because
of an eBay policy prohibiting the sale of government documents, even though
WND discovered several foreign birth certificates and even a driver's
license – albeit all from 1935 or older – for sale on the auction site.

An eBay help desk representative said the fifth auction auction for "the
dissertation" was removed because the company believed, "a third party had
accessed the [seller's] account."

The latest offering from colmado_naranja is an auction for a photograph of
several people who reportedly helped in the hunt for the "birth certificate,
and a promise that more information would be unveiled in a planned YouTube
video.

President Obama's place of birth, however, remains only one of several
questions and possible avenues for answers that remain in determining
whether or not Obama is a "natural born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution
and eligible to serve as president.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a
natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No
Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he
insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the
suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American
citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a
Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his
birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the
Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth
certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama
includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his
Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia
thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his
scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical
records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois
State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder
Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post
billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected almost 400,000
signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard
signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable
magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The eBay birth certificate seller is a self-proclaimed "collector of old
Dominican and Cuban money" and has worked in the Congo.

"This spring I traveled through Kenya and its capital Nairobi. I was
overwhelmed by the 'iconicized' face of U.S. President Barack Obama that
displays itself throughout the country. I had lunch at a small eatery and
noticed that the club sandwich with fried plantains was now known as 'Obama
s Plate of the Day,'" the seller wrote on the initial auction page. "As an
American I was bombarded with questions in English (English is national
language of Kenya) on my feelings and opinions of a Kenyan governing the
United States of America.

The first several times I responded in saying that
not enough time had elapsed since Barack Obama's appointment as president of
the U.S.A., and that I'd have to hold my official opinion until at least
January 2010, a year in office might be sufficient for me to judge his
ability to govern the U.S.A.

"Naturally I thought that by 'Kenyan' they were referring to Barack Obama's
blood, being that his father Barack Obama Sr. was a native of Kenya. After a
day and a half of my being in Nairobi I learned that they were literally
referring to President Barack Obama Jr. as being born in Kenya, a native of
Kenya."

The seller also cited the fact that Obama has not release his "Hawaiian"
birth certificate. His administration, the seller says, "in an attempt to
put the birth certificate issue to a rest, has presented the American public
with a fake, forged, fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate."

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama
s birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since
the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in
Hawaii.

The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information
such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only
document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not
permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen.
John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born
citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim
to a Hawaiian birth.

CANADIAN PRESS & OBAMA

"A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head"
The Canadian Press

http://www.thecanadianpress.com/about_cp.aspx?id=104

Obama's White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield

In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.

Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.

Ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries

While the press is still chewing over Obama's Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama's endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America 's traditional allies. Those who aren't being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.

While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, "Let's put on a show." Thus far Obama has put on "shows" across America , Europe and the Middle East . And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama's shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.

Neither alienating America 's traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America 's enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran . While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.

At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.

The European Union Parliament's swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world's richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama's entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state's rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.

That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.

Obama's tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.

His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn't just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama's White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who's too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.

Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor , trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American's diplomatic reconstruction with Russia , or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.

The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW

Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public's patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn't play too well outside Detroit . And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.

With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren't there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.

In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.

A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head

Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama's White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.

WHAT IS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

From ThisNation.com:

What is an Executive Order?
From time to time I hear that President Bush has issued an Executive Order establishing this policy or that. What is an Executive Order? Where does the President get the authority to issue them? Is there any way to reverse an Executive Order?

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.”
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998

“We’ve switched the rules of the game. We’re not trying to do anything legislatively.”
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed “Presidential Decision Directives.”

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

A Brief History and Examples
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).

Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.

President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.

Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution — that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation’s “Chief Diplomat.” In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College

Additional Resources
The ultimate criticism of Executive Orders is that the runaway use of EOs could result in a President becoming a virtual dictator, capable of making major policy decisions without any congressional or judicial input. The following web sites contain articles arguing against the liberal use of Executive Orders by the President.

The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking? William Olsen, Cato Institute
Executive Orders A Blueprint for Dictatorship? Tanya L. Green, J.D., Concerned Women for America
For What Purposes Have Presidents Used Executive Orders?
The best way to get a feel for the types of “laws” that are made by Executive Order is to access them online. Executive Orders are available through multiple government publications and on the Internet (except those classified in the name of national security). You can read the text of these orders daily in the Federal Register and also under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations. All EOs have been numbered and published since 1936.

Sites Providing Access to Executive Orders
The White House
Executive Orders Disposition Tables (Federal Register)
Fedlaw
Executive Orders in the States
The use of Executive Orders is not just a presidential activity. They are also used by most state governors, who are the chief executives of their states. The following links will give you a feel for the types of Executive Orders used in a few states:

Florida
Pennsylvania
Utah

NOKIA & SIEMENS BEING BOYCOTTED INSIDE ISLAMIC IRAN AND SLOWLY BY THE PERSIAN DIASPORA WORLDWIDE

The mobile phone company Nokia is being hit by a growing economic boycott in Iran as consumers sympathetic to the post-election protest movement begin targeting a string of companies deemed to be collaborating with the regime.

Wholesale vendors in the capital report that demand for Nokia handsets has fallen by as much as half in the wake of calls to boycott Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) for selling communications monitoring systems to Iran.

There are signs that the boycott is spreading: consumers are shunning SMS messaging in protest at the perceived complicity with the regime by the state telecoms company, TCI. Iran's state-run broadcaster has been hit by a collapse in advertising as companies fear being blacklisted in a Facebook petition. There is also anecdotal evidence that people are moving money out of state banks and into private banks.

Nokia is the most prominent western company to suffer from its dealings with the Iranian authorities. Its NSN joint venture with Siemens provided Iran with a monitoring system as it expanded a mobile network last year. NSN says the technology is standard issue to dozens of countries, but protesters believe the company could have provided the network without the monitoring function.

Siemens is also accused of providing Iran with an internet filtering system called Webwasher.

"Iranians' first choice has been Nokia cellphones for several years, partly because Nokia has installed the facility in the country. But in the past weeks, customers' priority has changed," said Reza, a mobile phone seller in Tehran's Big Bazaar.

"Since the news spread that NSN had sold electronic surveillance systems to the Iranian government, people have decided to buy other company's products although they know that Nokia cellphones function better with network coverage in Iran."

Some Tehran shops have removed Nokia phones from their window displays. Hashem, another mobile phone vendor, said: "I don't like to lose my customers and now people don't feel happy seeing Nokia's products. We even had customers who wanted to refund their new Nokia cellphones or change them with just another cellphone from any other companies.

"It's not just a limited case to my shop – I'm also a wholesaler to small shops in provincial markets, and I can say that there is half the demand for Nokia's product these days in comparison with just one month ago, and it's really unprecedented. People feel ashamed of having Nokia cellphones," he added.

News of the boycott has appeared on the front page of Iranian pro-reform papers such as Etemad-e Melli, owned by the reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi. Hadi Heidari, a prominent Iranian cartoonist, has published an image of a Nokia phone on a No Entry traffic sign.

A Nokia spokeswoman refused to comment on the company's sales in Iran.

The Iranian authorities are believed to have used Nokia's mobile phone monitoring system to target dissidents. Released prisoners have revealed that the authorities were keeping them in custody on the basis of their SMS and phone calls archive, which was at officials' disposal.

One Iranian journalist who has just been released from detention said: "I always had this impression that monitoring calls is just a rumour for threatening us from continuing our job properly, but the nightmare became real when they had my phone calls – conversations in my case.

"And the most unbelievable thing for me is that Nokia sold this system to our government. It would be a reasonable excuse for Nokia if they had sold the monitoring technology to a democratic country for controlling child abuse or other uses, but selling it to the Iranian government with a very clear background of human rights violence and suppression of dissent, it's just inexcusable for me. I'd like to tell Nokia that I'm tortured because they had sold this damn technology to our government."

NSN spokesman Ben Roome said: "As in every other country, telecoms networks in Iran require the capability to lawfully intercept voice calls. In the last two years, the number of mobile subscribers in Iran has grown from 12 million to over 53 million, so to expand the network in the second half of 2008 we were required to provide the facility to intercept voice calls on this network."

In other sectors, state-run TV has also been targeted by protesters who have listed products advertised on its channels and urged supporters to join a boycott. Companies are running scared, and viewers have noticed the number of commercials plummet.

"We don't have many choices to show and continue our protests. They don't let us go out, they have killed many, we are threatened to text people or distribute emails, they have summoned people who shout Allahu Akbar ['God is great'] on rooftops at nights, so we need to look for new ways," said Shahla, a 26-year-old Iranian student.

"I can obviously see on the TV that they are facing an [advertising] crisis. This at least shows them how angry people are," she added.

The SMS boycott, meanwhile, has apparently forced TCI into drastic price hikes. The cost of an SMS has doubled in recent days. Protesters view the move as a victory.

ISLAMIC SHARIA BEING ENFORCED BY TERRORISTS IN GAZA

JERUSALEM (AP) — An attempt by Hamas police to detain a young woman walking with a man along the Gaza beach has raised alarms that the Islamic militant group is seeking to match its political control of the coastal territory with a strict enforcement of Islamic law.

The man she walked with and two of his peers were detained, beaten and ordered to sign statements promising not to engage in immoral activities, said the woman and one of the men.

The incident was the first known case of Hamas openly trying to punish a woman for behaving in a way it views as un-Islamic since seizing power two years ago. But it follows months of quiet pressure on Gaza's overwhelmingly conservative 1.4 million residents to abide by its strict religious mores.

Hamas officials in Gaza have publicly urged shopkeepers to take down foreign advertisements showing the shape of women's bodies and to stash away lingerie often displayed in windows. Officials search electronic shops to check if they are selling pornography on tiny flash drives.

"There's an open, public program to preserve public morals in Gaza," said local rights activist Isam Younis. "In reality that means trying to restrict freedoms."

Hamas denies any crackdown is under way. Since taking power, it has said it would only try to lead by example and not impose its views on anyone.

However, the group has taken no public action against small, shadowy groups that have attacked perceived hotbeds of Western immorality, such as hairdressers and Internet cafes, fueling criticism that it has not been tough enough on hard-line Muslim groups.

Freelance journalist Asma al-Ghoul says a group of Hamas police sent a clear message that certain behavior would not be tolerated when she went to the beach one evening in late June.

Al-Ghoul, 26, said she was spending time with a group of friends — two women and three men — on the northern Gaza shore.

Al-Ghoul is fairly exceptional in Gaza because she does not wear a Muslim headscarf. On that evening she wore jeans and a T-shirt — dress that is considered fairly provocative in Gaza's conservative society and which could have easily attracted the attention of the plain-clothed Hamas vice police who patrol the beaches.

Al-Ghoul swam, fully dressed, with a girlfriend, and then asked a male friend to walk her over to a nearby beach house rented by another couple she knew to shower and change.

Three policemen showed up and waited for al-Ghoul in the beach house garden, said an eyewitness who asked to remain anonymous because of security concerns. They took her identity card and demanded she accompany them to a nearby station — an order she refused.

An argument ensued and she was able to avoid detention and get her identity card back only after the homeowner contacted a senior Hamas official who intervened and spoke to the officers by telephone. The official, Taher Nunu, was not immediately available for comment.

The eyewitness said the police did not say why they wanted to detain al-Ghoul, but were insinuating that her behavior was unbecoming. Under Hamas' strict interpretation of Islamic law, a woman should not go out in public with men who are not related to her.

However, al-Ghoul said her male friends were subsequently beaten by Hamas police, detained for several hours and asked to sign statements saying they would not "violate public moral standards again," she said.

Al-Ghoul said she mostly felt angry that the police made her feel like she had done something wrong.

"I'm not provocative and my dress isn't provocative, and I'm not scandalous either," she said.

Her story only became public after rights groups published excerpts on their Web sites. Her version of events was confirmed by two other witnesses, including Adham Khalil, one of the men who was detained. Khalil said he was beaten.

Hamas police spokesman Islam Shahwan denied the incident took place but said Gaza residents "must preserve our customs and Islamic traditions."

OBAMA MISLEADING NUMBERS AND REAL NUMBERS

OBAMA CLAIMS IN RED - REALITY STATISTICS IN BLUE

Today's June Employment Numbers
===============================

The updated Official and Alternate Employment
data are displayed here:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

John Williams' full analysis of the reports is available
only to paid SGS Newsletter subscribers, but we are
providing you with the bullet points and the introductory
paragraphs, for your interest.


- June Jobs Loss Was 513,000 Net of
Concurrent Seasonal Factor Bias
Likely Topped 700,000 with Birth-Death Machinations

- Payroll Employment Growth Overstatement
Could Top 2.5 Million Per Year with Birth-Death Modeling

- Annual Payroll Decline Deepened to 4.2%
Equal to 1958 Trough and Near 1949 Trough

- SGS-Alternate Unemployment at 20.6%

"June Employment Reporting Showed Ongoing Economic Deterioration.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released ongoing indications of deteriorating U.S. employment/unemployment conditions in June, with a worse-than-expected 467,000 drop in June payrolls, but a narrower-than-expected rise in unemployment to 9.5%.

Net of the Concurrent Seasonal Factor Bias (discussed below) and net of distortions built into the reporting by the Birth-Death Model (discussed below), the June jobs loss likely exceeded 700,000.

"The severe recession continues to deepen.

My broad outlook has not changed; the worst of the financial and economic crises remain ahead of us.

Best regards,
The ShadowStats Team

THE CULT OF INSANITY

Obama's pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at expense of allies has failed

Our World: Ideologue-in-chief
By Caroline Glick Jun. 29, 2009


For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.

Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for - most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.

Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates - presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice - to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.

After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.

Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."

No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.

IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.

So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.

Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.

Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.

While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.

Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.

TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.

Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.

And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."

His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.

Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."

But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.

FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.

While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed - as it has in North Korea - or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.

Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.

So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?

The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.

For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.

Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.

And then they will sink him.

SOMETHING HUGE IS HAPPENING - LIKE WORLD ORDER CHANGE & DESTRUCTION OF THE USA

Pamela "Atlas" Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as
Associate Publisher. She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.


by Pam Geller

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these exist
but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now
coming into a sharper focus.


Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it
because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people
react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years.
The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing
our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history,
and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are
not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close
election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so
controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one
woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We
have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to
write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream
Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana
republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free
fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire
government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and
know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its
length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war
with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same
religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have
the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has
never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big a s Wasilla ,
Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in
their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip
by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him
speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course.
The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he
answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more
important.)

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will
divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign
the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed
coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German
knew next to nothing.. What they did know was that he was associated with
groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they
disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory
and promises.. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he
was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even
newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would
bully them into submission.

And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic
crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the
controls of government power, department by department, person by person,
bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name,
where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his
side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and
goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating
the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country,
across Europe , and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and . . .. change. And the people surely got
what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read
your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down,
called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed
out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in
England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and
called a crazy troublemaker.. He was right, though .

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in
Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, a nd
universities. And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just
two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens,
killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and
neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course.
The road to Hell is paved with them.


***************************************************************

Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not
too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.

IN GOD WE TRUST

Every body that is on this mailing list is either a
senior citizen, is getting close or knows sombody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version
(at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive
rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this20part of
the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by
Bloomberg with the following statement.

Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform "will
not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just
remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that
is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder
of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the internet to get this
message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election
coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and
reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have
begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard! Lets do it!

If you disagree, don't do anything.

GREEN ODE TO PADDY O'MOUSAVI

O Paddy dear, and did ye hear the news that’s goin’ round?

The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground!

No more Saint Patrick’s Day we’ll keep, his color can’t be seen

For there’s a cruel law ag’in the Wearin’ o’ the Green.

”I met with Napper Tandy, and he took me by the hand

And he said, “How’s poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?”

“She’s the most distressful country that ever yet was seen

For they’re hanging men and women there for the Wearin’ o’ the Green.”

“So if the color we must wear be England’s cruel red

Let it remind us of the blood that Irishmen have shed

And pull the shamrock from your hat, and throw it on the sod

But never fear, ‘twill take root there, though underfoot ‘tis trod.

When laws can stop the blades of grass from growin’ as they grow

And when the leaves in summer-time their color dare not show

Then I will change the color too I wear in my caubeen

But till that day, please God, I’ll stick to the Wearin’ o’ the Green.

OBA-HUSSEIN'S UNCLE SAM PLANTATION

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out.

It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability.

"Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.

"Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

CONSIDERATIONS HOW ISRAEL WILL ATTACK IRAN

Israeli government ministers and Knesset members who will help make the decision about whether to attack Iran's nuclear facilities do not have to wait any longer for a preparatory briefing by the Israel Air Force.

They can read about all the possible scenarios for a strike on Iran, and about the potential risks and chances of success, in a study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. Never before has such an open, detailed and thorough study of Israel's offensive options been published.

The authors of the 114-page study meticulously gathered all available data on Israel's military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran's nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries' missile inventory.

After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: "A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible ... [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the
overall mission will have a high success rate."

FULL ARTICLE http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1085619.html

OBAMBI WANTS TO SPEND NEARLY ONE BILLION DOLLARS ON SUPPORTING PALESTINIAN TERRORISS

As President Oba-Hussein is getting set to welcome Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to Washington this week, and US lawmakers debate the proposed $900 million aid package to the PA, it is once again using its money to proclaim that killing Israeli woman and children is heroic.

The PA chose to name its latest computer center "after the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," who led the most deadly terror attack in the country's history. Her 1978 bus hijacking killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children, including American photographer Gail Rubin. The new center is funded by Abbas's office, which is bolstered by Western aid money. (Al-Ayyam, May 5).

US law prohibits the funding of Palestinian structures that use any portion of their budget to promote terror or honor terrorists. But $200 million of the US's proposed $900m. aid package is earmarked to go directly to the Abbas government, which regularly uses its budget to honor terrorists.

In fact, this latest veneration of Mughrabi is not an isolated case, but part of a continuing pattern of honoring terrorists that targets children in particular.

Last summer the PA sponsored "the Dalal Mughrabi football championship" for kids, and a "summer camp named for martyr Dalal Mughrabi... out of honor and admiration for the martyr."

It also held a party to honor exemplary students, also named "for the martyr Dalal Mughrabi," under the auspices of Abbas and at which Abbas's representative "reviewed the heroic life of the martyr [Mughrabi] (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, July 23, 24 and August 8, 2008).

All these PA-funded activities were to teach kids that a killer of women and children is a role model.

TWO MONTHS AGO, 31 years to the day after the Mughrabi murders, PA TV broadcast a special program celebrating the terror attack, calling the killing of 37 civilians "one of the most important and most prominent special operations... carried out by a team of heroes and led by the heroic fighter Dalal Mughrabi" (PA TV March 11).

And its not just Mughrabi who is a Palestinian hero. Despite professions in English by Abbas and other PA leaders that they reject terror, the PA has a long and odious history in Arabic of celebrating terrorists as role models and heroes, often involving US money.

USAID spent $400,000 in 2004 to build the Salakh Khalaf soccer field. After Palestinian Media Watch reported that Khalaf was the head of the Palestinian terror group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and two American diplomats in Sudan, USAID publicly apologized and said it would demand that the PA change the name. The name was never changed.

In 2002, US money funded renovations of the "Dalal Mughrabi school for girls." After PMW alerted the US State Department to Mughrabi's terrorist past, the funding was cancelled. Within 24 hours, the PA said the name would be changed, and the American money was reinstated.

Once the work was completed, however, the school was renamed for the terrorist. It bears Mughrabi's name to this day.

AT A RECENT hearing of the House Appropriations Committee, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged: "We will work only with a Palestinian Authority government that unambiguously and explicitly accepts the Quartet's principles, [including] a commitment to nonviolence."

And it's not just Clinton's pledge. US law interprets nonviolence to include not honoring terrorists: "None of the [US]... assistance under the West Bank and Gaza program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or otherwise honoring individuals who commit, or have committed acts of terrorism" (2008 Foreign Operations Bill Sec. 657.B - C.1).

This latest glorification of the terrorist Mughrabi, coming as Congress considers the administration's latest request to fund Abbas, imposes a profound responsibility on Congress. But it also creates a unique opportunity.

Will the US follow its own laws, and insist that the PA stop turning killers of women and children into heroes and role models before it receives another cent of US money?

Congress and Obama can send a message to the PA that the US will not fund the PA, or any part of its budget, until it proves that it has ceased promoting terrorist murderers as heroes and role models. It can demand a statement from Abbas - in public, in Arabic and in the PA media - that murdering Israelis is terror, that terrorists are neither heroes nor holy martyrs and that they will no longer be honored.

Or they can send a different message to Abbas: that raising another generation of Palestinian children to the values of hate, murder and martyrdom is acceptable to the US - so acceptable that the US is even willing to fund it.

Alan Note: and spend nearly a $100 million bringing thousands of these trained terrorists into the USA and establish a life for them at taxpayer expense. Another Oba-Hussein, increasingly overt, dilution of loyal Americans with the import of terrorists and illegal aliens with little or no loyalty to America. When will we wake up and SEE through what he is doing to us and our country.

The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (Book)

By: Daniel Estulin

As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects ongoing such as the Rockefellers and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings apparently knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? —Daniel Estulin (P.318)—

NO DIFFERENT really, as a non-Moslem version of the Islamic Jihad to create a world caliphate obeying archaic Koranic rules and only loyal to Allah.

Daniel Estulin is a Madrid-based journalist and an investigative reporter who took on the daunting and dangerous task of researching the Bildeberg Group. Equally intriguing as his harrowing tales of being followed and nearly killed on a couple of occasions while working on the book, is the manner in which Estulin connects the dots between the Bilderberg Group, world events, notable politicians and corporate tycoons and the two other secretive monsters of the ruling elite, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC).

The project lasted fifteen years and was motivated by Estulin's curiosity about how it is that the mainstream media has never covered in depth the meetings of the Bilderberg Group whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of all U.S. citizens.

What Estulin's book makes clear is that the group, along with the CFR and TC, has become a shadow government whose top priority is to erase the sovereignty of all nation-states and supplant them with global corporate control of their economies under the surveillance of "an electronic global police state."

The author emphasizes that not all members of the group are "bad" people, and he implies that membership is structured somewhat like concentric circles in a target scheme within inner core and various levels of relationship between that core and the outer circles of membership.

Almost every famous player in politics and finance in the world is a member of one of the three organizations mentioned above, and their political affiliations range from liberal to conservative, for example, George W. Bush, George Soros, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter. Of this private club, Estulin says:

This parallel world remains unseen in the daily struggles of most of humanity, but, believe me, it is there:

a cesspool of duplicity and lies and double-speak and innuendo and blackmail and bribery. It is a surreal world of double and triple agents, of changing loyalties, of professional psychotic assassins, brainwashed black ops agents, soldiers of fortune and mercenaries, whose primary sources of income are the dirtiest and most despicable government-run subversive missions-the kind that can never be exposed.

In the final months of 2007 we are witnessing the stupendous success of the Big Three's strategy for planetary economic hegemony as the cacophony of their carefully engineered global economic cataclysm reverberates across America and around the world.

It was never about buyers who didn't read the fine print when taking out liar loans. It was always about silver-tongued, ruling elite politicians and central bankers, anointed by the shadow government, who ultimately and skillfully stole and continue to steal governments from people and replace them with transnational corporations.

No one could have said it better than David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderberg member and board member of the Council On Foreign Relations in his Memoirs:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group.

MASS-MURDERER AHMADI-NEJAD CAN SPEAK AT OUR UNIVERSITIES BUT NOT NETANYAHU

Imagine it's 1940, and picture Adolf Hitler speaking at a US university, receiving a polite reception, while Winston Churchill is barred from speaking because his safety cannot be guaranteed.

It's unthinkable, yet the very same pro-fascist dynamic is a reality in 21st Century America.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu comes to America knowing he is a second-class citizen who is denied the free-speech rights enjoyed even by prominent jihadists, having been violently prevented from speaking on campuses in the US and Canada in recent years.

Protestors at Berkeley, the campus once synonymous with the term "free speech," forced the cancellation of Netanyahu's speech there, as well as two subsequent speeches, in November 2000. The Jewish Bulletin of Northern California reported:

Hundreds of protesters shouting "Support the Palestinians, choose a side" and "No free speech for war criminals" blocked the gate leading to the Berkeley Community Theatre Tuesday evening, forcing the cancellation of a scheduled speech by former
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Additional talks by Netanyahu that were scheduled Wednesday and Thursday in San Mateo and San Rafael were subsequently cancelled.

Waving banners reading "Zionism=Nazism" and "End U.S. aid to Israel," the crowd was estimated at more than 500 by the Berkeley Police Department and at 200 to 250 by observers...

The vitriol that greeted Netanyahu at Berkeley only worsened in the ensuing years. Anneli Rufus of the East Bay Express recalled that in 2001:

...Students for Justice in Palestine had become large enough to stage a high-profile sit-in at UC's Wheeler Hall. The group had demanded that the regents divest from companies with significant holdings in Israel.

When the regents failed to respond, dozens of group members chained shut nine of the building's twelve doors. They formed human chains to block two of the remaining doors and ushered students out of the building through the last door. Professor Gordon, who had an important class scheduled that day in Wheeler, burst through the chain of students only to be showered with spit and hit by a student...

Later that year, 23-year-old Aaron Schwartz was walking toward the Hillel building as part of an obviously Jewish group celebrating the annual holiday Simchas Torah.

According to accounts in The Daily Californian and the Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, one onlooker mocked the procession by goose-stepping in place, chanting "Heil Hitler," and performing the Nazi salute. After punching Schwartz in the face and knocking him to the ground, the man and his two companions strolled away.

But many remember spring 2002 as the season the screaming really started. On spring break, someone hurled the cinderblock through the front door of Berkeley's Hillel Center, scrawling the words F--- JEWS nearby...

The same mentality was on display in spring 2002 at San Francisco State University, where pro-Israel students and elderly Holocaust survivors trying to hold a rally were stopped by violent protestors screaming "F-- the Jews," "Jews, go back to Russia,"

"Too bad Hitler didn't finish the job," and "Get out or we'll kill you."

Threats of "we'll kill you" appear to have led to the logical next step in the recent violent death of 38-year-old pro-Israel activist Daniel J. Kliman in San Francisco.
It appears that present-day northern California is to Jews what Mississippi in the early 20th Century was to African-Americans-the epicenter of explosive hate-although the same bigotry permeates much of the academic world.

That would include Concordia University in Montreal, where Netanyahu was prevented from speaking about the war against terrorism. Daniel Pipes, writing in the New York Post on September 17, 2002, described the violent scene:

... he never made it onto the campus - because a thousand anti-Israel demonstrators staged a mini-riot with the intent of preventing him from speaking...

The anti-Israel forces physically assaulted the would-be audience... They smashed a plate-glass window and threw objects at the police inside. They hurled furniture at police from a mezzanine. As Toronto's Globe & Mail put it, "By lunchtime, the vestibule of Concordia's main downtown building was littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking aftereffects of pepper spray."

The police, saying they couldn't assure Netanyahu's safety, canceled the event...
Pipes noted a revealing contrast involving another speaker the same week:

On Thursday, Hanan Ashrawi, the former spokeswoman and colleague of Yasser Arafat, went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs to give a keynote speech at a symposium on "September 11: One Year Later."

Protestors noted that Ashrawi is smack on the side of America's enemies in the War on Terrorism. For example, while the U.S. government formally designates Hamas a terrorist group, Ashrawi states she doesn't "think of Hamas as a terrorist group." Also, she considers Israeli civilians living on the West Bank to be "legitimate . . . targets of Palestinian resistance" -- that is, legitimate targets for deadly violence.

Yet the protestors did not block the terrorist spokeswoman from expressing her opinions (a mere year after the 9/11 attacks), and she is just one of countless pro-terror speakers who are welcome on US campuses.

Sheikh Khalid Yasin, a convert to Islam, has been invited to numerous colleges to preach that terrorism is justified, homosexuals should be murdered, and Christian missionaries in Africa are injecting people with AIDS. Terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, of course, have never had to worry about efforts to shut them down at the universities where they teach.

Little wonder that when the genocide-espousing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University on September 24, 2007, the event did not seem out of the ordinary. His politely received speech was hailed by many observers as a fine display of one of the noblest ideals of institutions of higher learning -the free exchange of ideas.

Hardly anyone in the media noted that, the day before he departed for America, Ahmadinejad re-emphasized the two most heartfelt ideas to which he and his regime are dedicated--"Death to America" and "Death to Israel," emblazoned on signs in a military parade over which he presided.

Were the deaths of America and Israel debatable propositions? For many in the academic world, the answer apparently is yes. After all, they would tell us, that's what universities are for. Let all views be heard.

All views, that is, with certain exceptions, including the anti-terror message of the prime minister of Israel.

Courtesy American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/ahmadinejad_can_speak_on_a_us.html

H.I.H. REZA PAHLAVI SPEECH MAY 06, 2009

ADDRESS GIVEN BY Reza Pahlavi of Iran

ON"Iran-US Relations At a New Cross Roads" University of California – IrvineWednesday, May 6th, 2009


Members of the faculty, students, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

I am very happy to be back at UCI today. It is a special privilege for me to have the opportunityof addressing you at this important crossroad in the relationship between our two countries, and the significance it has for the future of peace and stability in the Middle East.

Let me begin by saying that a good university where one can study in peace and freedom may seem common place to you. But not so for many thousands of students in my homeland whose eager young minds remain constrained and constantly shackled by a closed and dogmatic atmosphere that has been ruthlessly imposed on them by an unpopular dictatorship.

Consequently, universities in my country are not places for critical learning, and students are not given the kind of opportunities that they need to freely debate contemporary issues or contemplate the shape of the future in the manner that is common practice here in the West.

But having said that, I would like to inform you that students in Iranian universities have refused to accept the imposition of the fate prescribed for them by the state as fait accompli, and have, through their resistance, remained a major thorn in the eyes of the regime.

Their stubborn defiance and their continuing struggle for the promotion of secular democratic values, even from the confines of their “intellectual prison”, has been a source of great inspiration across Iranian society.

Indeed, many in Iran credit the robust movement of Iranian students for freedom, justice and human rights, for being a major impetus behind the kind of similar demands that are now being made by Iranian women, labor unions and ethnic groups throughout the country.

Yet, students in Iran continue to remain quite savvy and realistic about their prospects for the future. They are aware of the challenges that lie ahead in the hazardous road which they have chosen to take for the promotion of their aspirations. They know at the same time that their cause is just while recognizing that there is a battle at hand for the future that belongs to them.

Dear Friends,

My cause is to ensure that they emerge victorious in this battle so that our people may ultimately shrug off the combined yoke of religious fanaticism and political despotism that has brought havoc to the lives of ordinary people, and to the standing of our country in the international community.

However, I have no illusions about the obstacles that lie before us, and the difficulties that we continue to face on a daily basis. But it is my solemn conviction that this is a battle we can win!

The clerical regime is a detested and unpopular tyranny that has done nothing in the last 30-years to safeguard or enhance the welfare, peace of mind and the prosperity of the Iranian people, despite having had access to more than $800 billion of oil revenues!

After coming to power, it did not take the ruling clerics much time to squander the good will of the Iranian people and the international community, and particularly those of our neighbors.

Looking back over time, it is hard to imagine any other outcome, since those who had taken power in Tehran were part and parcel of a revolutionary, revisionist regime that was bent on changing the status quo, not just in the region or in the Islamic world, but everywhere else as well.

However, so long as the regime had not alienated the majority of the population at home, their ambitions for actually implementing the export of their radical ideals and religious extremism were largely confined to senseless ranting and sloganeering.

With the exception of adopting a foreign policy based on militant anti-Americanism that came into full view following the seizure of American diplomats in Tehran and which has continued to remain with us to this day, the regime never saw the need to indulge beyond a war of words to demonize states like Israel for violating the rights of the Palestinians, or some Arab states as being subservient lackeys of the US, and in the case of Saudi Arabia and its leadership, which were the prime source of Khomeini’s personal venom and hatred, the un-rightful and usurping custodians of Islam’s holiest shrines in Mecca and Medina.

But as the initial euphoria that had come about in the aftermath of the revolution started giving way to a more sober understanding of realities at home, things began to change. First and foremost, the prolonged war with Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives were needlessly sacrificed, was used as a vehicle for consolidating fundamentalist rule across the country and brutally crushing every trace of opposition.

Moreover, as the regime’s ineptitude became more apparent with the way in which our nation was being so grossly mismanaged, the need to rely on other factors – for example, the construction of a “forward line of defense” for the protection and the preservation of the Islamic Republic – became more urgent; hence, the range of various controversial Iranian policies which we have seen in the course of the last twenty somewhat years, starting with the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon as far back as the early 1980s, to the financial and other support that isgiven to radical groups like Hamas in Palestine, or the meddling that have gone on with hardline Shiite groups in Iraq, Afghanistan or Bahrain… and the list can go on.

It is ironic that this whole notion of the Islamic government’s quest for a “forward line of defense” should be confirmed and validated by none other than Mohammad Khatami, a former President of the regime.

In response to a question posed to him by a senior US diplomat who testified before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year, suggesting that Iran’s arming of Hezbollah and Hamas could potentiality spark a terrible conflict between Israel andothers in that region, Khatami had responded by reminding that “Iran planned its line of defense from external lines”.

In other words, promoting regional conflict and instability is perceived by the regime as a key consideration of its survival! So, contrary to the opinion of some who continue harping on how strong the Islamic regime has become as a result of various American policies here and there, my response is to say:

Nonsense!

I say this because no government with a strong popular base sacrifices the peace of mind and prosperity of its people in order to exhibit lines of “forward defense” in the manner I just described.

In the case of the regime’s nuclear ambitions which has now become the centrepiece of Iran’s dispute with the international community, what kind of government that sits on some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, would subject its own citizens to undue and damaging economic sanctions or potential war through a lack of transparency, if its only real intent was to pursue a peaceful nuclear program for creating electricity?

Therefore, my suggestion is that, far from being either self assured or strong, the kind of costly aggressive policies which the clerical regime has pursued – whether in support of their surrogates in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan, or those which they have pursued in defiance of the UN Security Council in their dangerous search for nuclear weapons – are clear manifestations of the kind of insecurity that any unpopular regime feels when it knows that is hated by a vast majority of its own people.

I now wish to turn to the all important issue of Iran-US relations at this critical juncture.

Despite President Obama’s personal popularity and the new momentum which his administration has been able to generate since taking office earlier this year, it is foolish to think that a serious breakthrough with Iran can be achieved, as if the factors that have exacerbated Iran-US relations in the course of the past 30 years have miraculously disappeared!

Since its inception in 1979, the ruling clerics in Iran have pursued ideologically -based policies aiming at the ascendancy of a doctrinaire Shiite state.

Enmity with the United States has been a central part of that doctrine. The regime perceives the US as a pillaging force, anchored in the Islamic heartland through the state of Israel, and a corrupting cultural beacon for the Islamic youth. Moreover, the US is seen as the main obstacle that stands in the way of the geo-strategic goals and hegemonic ambitions of the clerical regime in the region.

In the course of the last 30 years, five U.S. presidents have sought to meet this challenge, using to no avail a range of policy tools – from containment to appeasement to plain threat of force.

To no little extent this failure has been due to a flawed understanding of the nature of the adversity as well as random and haphazard use of these tools.

Today, the new US administration, in its hope for ending the gridlock that has stifled both parties in the last three decades, has indicated that it privileges engagement over confrontation. But if the objective of the dialogue is to dissuade the Islamic regime from pursuing its current policies, a first question to ask is: what leverage does President Obama have for ensuring a different outcome?

If this leverage is predicated on America’s restored world standing and Mr. Obama’s own personal prestige and popularity, the US government may still be in for more frustrations and disappointments. It is quite possible that the Islamic leadership will respond to a call for engagement in order to gain the moral legitimacy it lacks by becoming a dialogue partner to the US President and his western allies, without any willingness to compromise on the kind of key issues that are critical for both the US and its Western allies.

If President Obama’s objective from direct engagementwith Iran is to use diplomatic channels to persuade the Iranian regime to change some of its key controversial policies such as its nuclear ambitions or its various negative regional interferences, then as we have already witnessed in recent weeks, he is in for a big surprise.

In fact, it is the Iranian leadership which is calling the shots and asking for the US to change its behavior, before they sit down to talk!

My primary concern here is that, at the end of the day, millions of nameless freedom loving Iranians who are the West’s only real natural friends and allies in Iran, should not bear the brunt of any mishap as a consequence of any possible misperception.

Here it is most pertinent that I say something about President Obama’s much publicized Iranian New Year message that was widely distributed on March 21st.

Unlike his predecessor, in a message that was deliberately addressed to both the Iranian people and the Iranian government, President Obama made specific reference to the words of one of Iran’s most eminent and revered poets, Saadi, who lived in the 13th Century.

As a matter of fact, the very same poem also graces the entrance to the Hall of Nations of the United Nations building in New York, with this call for breaking all barriers:

Human beings are members of a whole,
In creation of one essence and soul.
If one member is afflicted with pain,
Other members uneasy will remain.
If you have no sympathy for human pain,
The name of human you cannot retain.

My country’s rich history of culture and civilization has ingrained Saadi’s words into the subconscious of the overwhelming majority of our people who are today the main victims of their brutal and bloodstained rulers.

While I applaud President Obama for his courage and initiative in wanting to advance a new agenda, I am not at all sure about the wisdom of putting a suffering people on the same footing as an oppressive government.

By highlighting this point, my aim is to draw your attention to the responsibility that we all have, as human beings, for showing care and compassion for those most in need of our understanding.

In the case of Iran, I assure you that it is the people and not their ruthless government that needs to be assured of this understanding. It is they who need your support and solidarity, and not their oppressive government.

I do not object to the new US administration’s call for engagement and dialogue with the Islamic Republic, if that should serve the higher interests of world peace.

But if a sober assessment should bring us to conclude that the Islamic regime is unlikely to deviate from its ideological line and enmity towards the United States, then it may be worth recalling that the real Iran has little in common with those who have usurped power and face the world with a clenched fist.

This is a good juncture to tell you why the debate between idealists and adherents of realpolitik has not led to a solution for dealing with the Islamic Republic effectively. Idealists emphasize democracy and human rights over security and economic interests, while realpolitik does the reverse.

But in the case of Iran this is a false dichotomy. Here, idealism is realism! The history of nuclear diplomacy with Iran provides ample proof that external economic and diplomatic pressures are not enough to make the clerical regime change course.

One must look at support for democracy and human rights as the means of increasing internal popular pressure on the regime for it to yield. It is not that diplomats should add human rights and democracy to their list of demands, adding to their burden.

I argue that policies that strengthen the voices of Iranian people will be the most important instrument of pressure available to diplomats. That is why I say: “here idealism is realism.

”Ladies and Gentlemen,

Prior to concluding my remarks, I want to just say a few words regarding the so-called presidential elections in Iran.

To all the hype that is being given to this upcoming event that is scheduled for June 12th, I just want to remind you of the following:

Today, Iran is not a democracy, and the election process does not in any shape or form reflect the will and aspirations of the Iranian people!

Thus any submission to the propaganda put forth by Iranian lobbyists and apologist who harpon the fact that, contrary to some other countries in the Middle East, “at least some form of elections are conducted in Iran!” is highly misleading.

In simple terms, all the candidates are closely vetted by the state, and irrespective of the kind of differences that they may have in style or presentation, they all adhere to the same agenda when it comes to most issues of consequence to ordinary people in the country or the international community.

At the end of the day, whoever is elected must carry out in full whatever decision or policy that is prescribed for him by the country’s Supreme Leader. In short, whether Ahmadinejad is re-elected or not will not make much of a difference.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In closing, let me reiterate that my compatriots’ hopes and aspirations for a promising future in a free and prospering society should not be compromised for the sake of certain ploys that will in all probability come to nothing.

It should never be forgotten that beneath the unpleasant face ofpeople like Khamenei or Ahmadinejad, there exists another Iran; an Iran which yearns for change.

Female activists, restless youths, unionists, teachers and academics, writers and artists, ethnic and religious minorities, and disenfranchised citizens have been part of a nation-wide struggle for change.

These are the true voice of Iran! These are the people that risk all for a better tomorrow…

And I implore you: do not deny my valiant compatriots, your support. You must let the youth of Iran know that they are not alone, that you have heard their cry for freedom.

You must not, you cannot, in all conscience, turn your back on them in their hour of need; for THEY…ARE…THE FUTURE!