Gaza victims describe how Hamas used them as human shields

Gaza victims describe how Hamas used them as human shields

Gaza victims describe how Hamas used them as human shields
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Jan 29, 2009 22:48 Updated Jan 31, 2009 1:52
Gaza victims describe human shield use
By JPOST.COM STAFF

Members of a Gaza family whose farm was turned into a "fortress" by Hamas fighters have reported that they were helpless to stop Hamas from using them as human shields.

They told the official Palestinian Authority daily newspaper that for years Hamas had used their property and homes as military installations from which the group would launch rockets into Israel, dig tunnels and store arms. According to the victims, those who tried to object were shot in the legs by Hamas operatives.

Palestinian Media Watch quoted the official Palestinian Authority daily, Al-Hayat al-Jadida as reporting on January 27, "The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress. Right now they are waiting for the aid promised by the [Hamas] movement after Israel bombed the farm and turned it into ruins."

According to the report, the hill on which the Abd Rabbo family lives overlooks Sderot, making it an ideal military position for Hamas fighters.

The Abd Rabbo family members emphasized to the paper that they were not Hamas activists and that they were still loyal to the Fatah movement, but that they had been unable to prevent the armed squads from entering their neighborhood at night.

FCC commissioner warns against "Fairness Doctrine"

FCC commissioner warns against "Fairness Doctrine"

FCC commissioner warns against "Fairness Doctrine"
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Citing Obama Opposition, McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine
Reimposition Could Undermine Kids TV Regulations, Public Radio
John Eggerton -- Multichannel News, 1/28/2009 3:27:00 PM MT



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCC commissioner Robert McDowell had a message for Democrats, or anyone else contemplating trying to reimpose the fairness doctrine: The move could undermine the justification for existing localism and children's TV regulations, and could be used against public radio.



He also suggested it would not come back wearing a big sign saying, "it's me, the fairness doctrine," but would likely instead be rebranded.
Those were some of the observations McDowell provided Wednesday in a speech to The Media Institute in Washington, which is a strong opponent of the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine, which was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987, required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues.

In the speech, McDowell cited candidate Barack Obama's statement to B&C--through an aide--that he did not support the doctrine, adding that the new administration has a terrific opportunity to enunciate its strong opposition to anything resembling the fairness doctrine.
He spoke at length about the doctrine's origins and its use by both Democrats and Republicans against their opponents. He said he did not know whether recent calls for its return would bear fruit, felt it was a good time to talk to his audience--of media executives, lobbyists, journalists and others--about its creation, its historical abuses, and the legal difficulties involved with restoring it and trying to enforce it.
McDowell warned that if the doctrine were revived, it might not "wear the same label. That's just Marketing 101: if your brand is controversial, make a new brand," he told his audience.
He suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. "According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral," he said.
McDowell suggested that a stealth version of the doctrine may already be teed up at the FCC in the form of community advisory boards to help determine local programming. McDowell says he is fine with those boards if they are voluntary--some stations already seek such input. But that if they are required, as the FCC has proposed, "Would not such a policy be akin to re-imposition of the Doctrine, albeit under a different name and sales pitch?"
McDowell also said that efforts to reimpose the doctrine could stretch to cable, satellite, and even the Internet. "Certain legal commentators have suggested that a new corollary of the Doctrine should be fashioned for the Internet, on the theory that web surfers should be exposed to topics and views that they have not chosen for themselves," adding: "I am not making this up."
In a move obviously calculated to strike fear into the hearts of regulatory-minded Democrats, the same ones who have meen making noises about liking the fairness doctrine when it comes to reining in talk radio critics, McDowell had this:
"Actually, in a string of media cases stretching back over more than 20 years, various judges on the D.C. Circuit - both Democratic and Republican appointees - have suggested that it is time for the Supreme Court to rethink the concept of spectrum scarcity as a justification for limiting broadcasters' First Amendment rights. A revived Doctrine would provide a big, bright bulls-eye for those who wish to make that happen. That development would have implications far beyond the Doctrine itself. Much of our content regulation of broadcasters - including most of the FCC's existing localism rules and the regulations requiring three hours a week of children's programming - rest on the spectrum scarcity rationale. If that rationale is invalidated, serious legal challenges to all those other content rules may follow."
McDowell said he was hopeful that the Obama administration understood all this.
"As I watched his inaugural address last week," he said, "I was struck by the relevance of the debate over the Doctrine to a section of his speech where he said, 'To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history ....' 'I am encouraged that President Obama can, once and for all, end the speculation of whether something akin to the Doctrine will come back to life during his term."

Obama "friend": End of Israel "within reach"

Obama "friend": End of Israel "within reach"

Obama "friend": End of Israel "within reach"
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story


Obama 'friend': End of Israel 'within reach'
Activist boasts 'Western support, complicity' starting to crack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 30, 2009
12:20 am Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Ali Abunimah

JERUSALEM – Accusing the Jewish state of "genocide," an anti-Israel Palestinian activist once commended by President Obama has predicted the end of Israel, which, he boasted, is "within reach, in our lifetimes."

In a piece earlier this month titled, "Why Israel won't survive," Ali Abunimah, co-founder of Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian online publication, accused Israel of war crimes and gloated, "Now, the other pillar of Israeli power – Western support and complicity – is starting to crack. We must do all we can to push it over."

"It is Israel as a Zionist state, not Palestine or the Palestinian people, that cannot survive this attempted genocide. Its problem is legitimacy, or rather a profound and irreversible lack of it," wrote Abunimah.

Abunimah previously was described as close to Obama and has introduced the politician at pro-Palestinian events. Referring to a time period in the late 1990s, Abunimah said that "Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation."

Abunimah was quoted stating Obama was "quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel."

He noted Obama's unusual stance toward Israel, commenting "these were the kind of statements I'd never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere, rather than at the end of his career."

In his piece this month, Abunimah blasted Israel's three-week campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, accusing the Israel Defense Forces of "massacr[ing] civilians in the hope that the population would turn against those fighting the occupier."

"The death toll keeps rising as more bodies are pulled from carpet-bombed neighborhoods," Abunimah claimed.

Israel did not carpet-bomb any area in the Gaza Strip. It carried out surgical precision strikes against specific Hamas targets. The IDF regularly warned civilians of incoming attacks with phone calls or text messages. The IDF routinely employed what it terms "roof knocking" – just prior to a targeted bombing, the building in question would receive a telephone call in Arabic warning that the structure was going to be bombed.

Hamas, on the other hand, was widely condemned for utilizing civilians as human shields and storing weapons and military infrastructure in civilian zones, including apartment buildings.

But Abunimah asserted: "Israel simply cannot bomb its way to legitimacy. What choice will Israel make? In the absence of any political and moral legitimacy the only arguments it has left are bullets and bombs. Left to its own devices Israel will certainly keep trying – as it has for sixty years – to massacre Palestinians into submission."

He claimed "Israel's real goals (in Gaza) were to restore its 'deterrence' fatally damaged after its 2006 defeat in Lebanon (translation: its ability to massacre and terrorize entire populations into submission) and to destroy any Palestinian resistance to total Israeli-Jewish control over historic Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea."

Zionism, he asserted, is an ideology of "racial supremacy, extremism and hate, is a dying project, in retreat and failing to find new recruits. ... It is within reach, in our lifetimes."

Obama, anti-Israel activist raised funds for Islamic causes

In the 1990s, Obama was a speaker at events in Chicago's large Palestinian immigrant community to raise funds for U.N. camps for the so-called Palestinian refugees. Abunimah recalls introducing Obama at one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for the Deheisha Palestinian camp in the West Bank.

"I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator – when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time," stated Abuminah during an interview last year with Democracy Now!, a nationally syndicated radio and television political program.

"I remember personally introducing [Obama] onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation," Abunimah said.

Abunimah previously described meeting with Obama at a fundraiser at the home of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, reportedly a former PLO activist.

"[Obama] came with his wife. That's where I had a chance to really talk to him," Abunimah recalled. "It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.

According to quotes obtained by Gulf News, Abunimah recalled a 2004 meeting in a Chicago neighborhood while Obama was running for his Senate seat. Abunimah quoted Obama telling him "warmly" he was sorry that "I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race."

"I'm hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front," Abunimah reportedly quoted the senator as saying.

Abunimah said Obama urged him to "keep up the good work" at the Chicago Tribune, where Abunimah contributed guest columns that were highly critical of Israel.

Abunimah serves on the board of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, a controversial Arab group founded by Khalidi's wife that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing driver's licenses and education to illegal aliens.

WND broke the story the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit on which Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist, provided $75,000 in grants to the AAAN.

'Very active terror apparatus'

Obama's 1999 fundraising for the Palestinian Deheisha camp raised the eyebrows of one senior Israeli security official who was contacted for comment on the issue. The official, who was not aware of Obama's fundraising, noted Deheisha, which is located near the city of Bethlehem, had a "very active" Palestinian terror apparatus in 1999, carrying out scores of deadly shootings against Israeli civilians that year.

Two of the most deadly suicide bombings in 2002 also were planned from Deheisha, where the suicide bombers originated, said the security official. In one such bombing, in March of that year, 11 people were killed and over 50 injured, four critically when a Deheisha bomber detonated his explosives next to a group of Jewish women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave a nearby synagogue.

The question of so-called Palestinian refugees is a sensitive one for supporters of Israel. All Israeli prime ministers have stated a final peace deal with the Palestinians cannot include the "return" of "refugees."

When Arab countries attacked the Jewish state after its creation in 1948, some 725,000 Arabs living within Israel's borders fled or were flushed out when the Jewish state pushed back attacking Arab armies. Also at that time, about 820,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries or fled following rampant persecution.

While most Jewish refugees were absorbed by Israel and other countries, the majority of Palestinian Arabs have been maintained in 59 U.N.-run camps that do not seek to settle the Arabs elsewhere.

There are currently about 4 million Arabs who claim Palestinian refugee status with the U.N., including children and grandchildren of the original fleeing Arabs; Arabs living full-time in Jordan; and Arabs who long ago emigrated throughout the Middle East and to the West.

Other cases of worldwide refugees aided by the U.N. are handled through the international body's High Commission for Refugees, which seeks to settle the refugees quickly, usually in countries other than those from which they fled.

The U.N. created a special agency – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA – specifically to handle registered Palestinian refugees. It's the only refugee case handled by the U.N. in which the declared refugees are housed and maintained in camps for generations instead of facilitating the refugees' resettlement elsewhere.

The U.N. officially restricts the definition of refugee status worldwide for nationalities outside the Palestinian arena to those who fled a country of nationality or habitual residence due to persecution, who are unable to return to their place of residence and who have not yet been resettled. Future generations of original refugees are not included in the U.N.'s definition of refugees.

But the U.N. uses a different set of criteria only when defining a Palestinian refugee – allowing future generations to be considered refugees; terming as refugees Arabs who have been resettled in other countries, such as hundreds of thousands in Jordan; removing the clause requiring persecution; and removing the clause requiring a refugee to be fleeing his or her "country of nationality or habitual residence."

Palestinian leaders, including Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, routinely refer to the "right of return," claiming it is mandated by the U.N. But the two U.N. resolutions dealing with the refugee issue recommend that Israel "achieve a just settlement" for the "refugee problem." The resolutions, which are not binding, do not speak of any "right of return" and leave open the possibility of monetary compensation or other kinds of settlements.

Obama' female staffers made 78% of males' pay

Obama' female staffers made 78% of males' pay

Obama' female staffers made 78% of males' pay
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Surrounded by members of Congress President Barack Obama hands out pens after signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act with Lilly Ledbetter, to the left of Obama, Jan. 29, 2009, in the East Room at the White House. Others are (l-r) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) (partially visible at top left), Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Ledbetter, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Senate Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

Obama Signs Fair Pay Act - His Female Staffers Made 78% of Males' Pay in SenateFriday,

January 30, 2009By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama, keeping a campaign pledge, signed a law Thursday to make it easier to sue employers for pay discrimination.

In a ceremony in the East Room of the White House flanked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, Obama spoke as Lilly Ledbetter – a former Goodyear Tire manager from Alabama, whose case inspired the new law – stood beside him.

“While this bill bears her name, Lilly knows this story isn’t just about her,” Obama said. “It is a story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every $1 men earn, women of color even less, which means that today in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income, and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime.”

Women who worked on Obama’s Senate staff last year, however, were themselves paid on average 78 cents for every dollar a man was paid, according to data last year from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.

The data, analyzed by CNSNews.com, showed that in the period from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, Obama paid women on his Senate staff an annual average salary of $44,953.21. That was $12,472 less than the $57,425 average annual salary that then-Sen. Obama paid men. (See Previous Story)

Obama’s Senate staff was comparable to other employers, according to the Census Bureau, which reported last year, “The median annual earnings of women 16 or older who worked year-round full time in 2006: Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men.”

The data from both the Census Bureau and the Secretary of the Senate are based on gender without regard to job position, experience, or education that could be factors in pay.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act applies to both the public and private sector, which would cover the executive and legislative branches of government, Aaron Albright, spokesman for the House Committee on Education and Labor, previously told CNSNews.com.

Specifically, the law moves the current statute of limitations for a discrimination suit from 180 days after the discrimination began to whenever the last paycheck was issued.

The legislation was named after Ledbetter, who was a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala., and sued for pay discrimination before retiring after 19 years because she had made $6,500 less per year than the lowest paid male supervisor.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out her case, saying she waited too long to file a complaint. The court said that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employee must sue within 180 days of a decision regarding pay, if alleged discrimination is involved. Ledbetter spoke at the Democratic National Convention in August.

Obama, before signing the bill into law, mentioned his grandmother and daughters and praised Ledbetter for continuing her fight that would help future generations. He said the legislations allowed the country to live up to its founding principles that all are created equal.

“Equal pay is by no means just a women’s issue,” Obama said. “It’s a family issue. It’s about parents who find themselves with less money for tuition and child care, couples who wind up with less to retire on, households where one breadwinner is paid less than she deserves. It’s the difference between affording the mortgage or not, between keeping the heat on or paying the doctor bills.”

Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo

Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo

Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Former USS Cole commander slams Obama on Guantanamo
By Carol Rosenberg Miami Herald

The former commander of the USS Cole, the American war ship that was struck by a suicide boat in Yemeni waters more than eight years ago, on Thursday slammed President Barack Obama's orders to close the Guantanamo detention center and reassess the prisoners being held there.

''We shouldn't make policy decisions based on human rights and legal advocacy groups,'' retired U.S. Navy Cmdr. Kurt Lippold said in a telephone interview. "We should consider what is best for the American people, which is not to jeopardize those who are fighting the war on terror — or even more adversely impact the families who have already suffered loses as a result of the war."

Lippold was responding to the decision by a U.S. military judge in Guantanamo to reject a request by Pentagon lawyers to delay next week's scheduled arraignment of Abd el Rahim al Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian who's charged with helping orchestrate the October 2000 suicide bombing of the Cole. The bombing killed 17 U.S. sailors.

In his ruling, the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, said a delay in Nashiri's arraignment would deny the public's interest in a speedy trial. He also said nothing that took place at the arraignment would prevent the Obama administration from deciding to deal with Nashiri in a forum other than the military commission now set to hear his case.

Shortly after becoming president, Obama ordered the Pentagon to request delays in all trials pending at Guantanamo for 120 days so that his administration could study the cases against each of the 250 or so men held there as suspected terrorists and decide how to proceed in each case. Obama and his appointee to be the Pentagon's top legal officer have said they favor trials in civilian courts for terrorism suspects, if possible.

Other military judges granted the delay, including in the case of five men charged with plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Family members of the 9/11 victims who were in Guantanamo to witness proceedings in that case expressed outrage at the decision.

On Thursday, Lippold called Pohl's decision "a victory for the 17 families of the sailors who lost their lives on the USS Cole over eight years ago.''

The decision, however, stunned officials at the Department of Defense and White House, which had just begun to grapple with Obama's order to freeze the war court and empty the detention center within a year.

''The Department of Defense is currently reviewing Judge Pohl's ruling,'' said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon. "We will be in compliance with the president's orders regarding Guantanamo.''

Nashiri's Pentagon-appointed defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen Reyes, said the prosecutor could still dismiss the charges against his client to comply with the president's request for a freeze. The charges could later be reinstated.

''The only way they can give effect to the president's order is by dismissing the charges,'' Reyes said.

But Lippold also denounced suggestions that the Pentagon official who oversees the Guantanamo legal cases, Susan J. Crawford, could withdraw the charges, without prejudice, which would allow them to be reinstituted later, should the administration want.

That move, Lippold said, would be "a tragic, politically based mistake. We are now politicizing the war on terrorism . . . an order of magnitude worse than anything we've done."

"If she decides to drop all charges against detainees simply so that the president's executive order could be followed that smacks of undue command influence and politics," Lippold said.

Lippold said five survivors of the Cole attack or family members of those killed had been selected by the Pentagon to attend the Feb. 9 arraignment at Guantanamo, but that he did not know if the Pentagon still had plans to transport them to Guantanamo.

Lippold said that in any case the president's directive to close the island prison is misguided.

"I don't think we should close Guantanamo Bay until we have some process in place, until we understand the impact of closing it, until there is a much more robust review by the international community on how to deal with these detainees," he said. "To bring them to the U.S. and give them the same constitutional rights that we as American citizens have earned is an affront to the decency of these families and should absolutely not be allowed."

Nashiri's case could prove a particularly difficult one for the Obama administration. First turned over to the CIA in 2002, he was held until late 2006 in secret detention by the CIA, which has acknowledged that it subjected him to waterboarding during that time. Obama's attorney general-designate, Eric Holder, told Congress during his confirmation hearings that he considers waterboarding torture, which is illegal under U.S. and international law.

Nashiri told a military board reviewing his status as an enemy combatant in 2007 that he had confessed to involvement in the Cole attack only because he'd been tortured.

Under the current military commission structure, such a confession might be admissible, but it would certainly not be in a civilian or regular military court martial.

Lippold's own pronouncements in the case are ironic. A Navy inquiry questioned whether Lippold had taken appropriate measures to prevent an attack on the vessel. No one was in the ship's command center when the suicide boat rammed into the Cole's side, there were no lookouts on deck, and no planning had been undertaken for such an eventuality. Lippold, however, was not disciplined and was allowed to keep his command.

Pohl's decision to go forward with the Nashiri case was denounced by the head of the American Civil Liberties Union, which said the ruling smacked of Bush administration holdovers at the Pentagon trying to prevent President Barack Obama from fulfilling his promise to close Guantanamo.

The order, said ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, "raises serious questions about whether Secretary of Defense (Robert) Gates is the 'New Gates' or is the same old Gates under a new president. Gates certainly has the power to put a halt to these proceedings, and his lack of action demonstrates that we may have more of the same — rather than the change we were promised.''

Because the Pentagon sought military execution for Nashiri, the American Civil Liberties Union hired death penalty specialists to assist in his defense.

Change for the worst

Change for the worst

Change for the worst
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

CHANGE FOR THE WORSE

Last updated: 2:07 am
January 30, 2009
Posted: 1:39 am
January 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - Buried deep inside the massive spending orgy that Democrats jammed through the House this week lie five words that could drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms.

The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.

But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new "stimulus" bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.

"Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund," Democrats wrote in Section 2101 on Page 354 of the $819 billion bill. In other words, the only limit on welfare payments would be the Treasury itself.

"This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place," said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.

In addition to reopening the floodgates of dependency on federal welfare programs, the change once again deepens the dependency of state governments on the federal government.

President Obama won on promises of changing the way Washington works.

Gripped by perhaps the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Americans of every political stripe opted for "change."

Sick of reckless government, sleazy lobbyists, wild spending and deep borrowing that has scuttled America's great economic engine, voters embraced Obama's promise to be "post-partisan" and usher into the government a new era of responsibility and common sense.

But his presidency isn't two weeks old, and already warning flags have gone up.

Obama is wallpapering his administration with lobbyists, installed a tax cheat to run the Treasury Department and is pushing Congress to pass a massive, wildly unaffordable "stimulus" bill loaded with pork and reckless spending that plunges Americans even deeper into debt.

Even worse, the bill every day looks more like 15 years of pent-up big-government liberalism than an economic "stimulus" plan.

Ever since his election, many Americans have wondered which Barack Obama would show up at the White House: the most liberal member of the Senate or the post-partisan bearer of change we could all believe in.

One thing is clear: His "stimulus" bill is not change we can believe in. It's a return to big-government welfare that we will choke on.

churt@nypost.com

Republican aide: Stimulus aids illegals

Republican aide: Stimulus aids illegals

Republican aide: Stimulus aids illegals
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Republican claims stimulus would aid illegal immigrants

WASHINGTON: Illegal immigrants who lack Social Security numbers could not get tax credits under the $800 billion-plus economic stimulus package making its way through Congress.

Two senior GOP congressional officials expressed concern Thursday that the bill could steer government checks to undocumented workers, but in fact the measure indicates that Social Security numbers are needed to claim tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple. It also expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens.

The Republicans spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. But Democrats were quick to reject the notion.

"This legislation is directed toward people who are legal in our country. It is about time the Republicans got a different piece of reading material and get off this illegal immigrant stuff," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "This bill has nothing to do with anything illegal as far as immigration. It creates jobs for people who are lawfully in this country."

A revolt among GOP conservatives to provisions of last year's economic stimulus bill, which sent rebate checks to most wage earners, forced Democratic congressional leaders to add stricter eligibility requirements. That legislation, enacted in February 2008, required that people have valid Social Security numbers in order to get checks.

The current plan doesn't contain that requirement, but it imposes the same qualifications for the tax credit as are in place for the earned income tax credit, a program for low-income workers that is limited to people with Social Security numbers.

Douglas Rivlin, a spokesman for the National Immigration Forum, called the GOP criticism "a ploy to undermine the president's stimulus package."

"The boogieman of the week is the undocumented immigrant taxpayer and they're using it to delay or derail legislation to help the economy," Rivlin said.

Republicans have already criticized the economic recovery package for including what they contend is wasteful spending and omitting tax cuts for wealthier people and businesses they say are needed to jump-start the anemic economy.

Not a single Republican voted for an $819 billion version of the plan when it passed the House on Wednesday.

GOP senators voiced their concerns at a midday news conference.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., criticized the tax credit — which would go to millions of Americans who don't make enough money to pay federal income taxes — as insufficient to stimulate the economy.

"Calling a rebate to people who don't pay income taxes a tax cut doesn't make it a tax cut," Kyl said.

The House-passed economic recovery measure also requires that businesses that win contracts for projects funded by the plan use a federal Internet-enabled system to ensure they do not hire illegal immigrants.

The so-called E-Verify program, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's immigration policy, is currently voluntary. As of Jan. 24, 106,516 employers had agreed to use the database to confirm that new hires have valid Social Security numbers and are eligible for employment.

It has sparked controversy by business groups who say it's burdensome ,and civil libertarians who say it will lead to discrimination and job losses by U.S. citizens misidentified as illegal workers.

Last year, the Bush administration called for federal contractors to use E-Verify, a decision that business groups are challenging. The Obama administration has put the requirement for federal contractors on hold until May while it reviews the program.

The National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization, said Thursday it was concerned about the E-Verify provision.

"Given E-Verify's track record of discriminating against Latino workers — immigrant and U.S. citizen alike — this costly measure threatens to drive up Latino unemployment rates even further," the group said in a statement.

___

Associated Press Writers Eileen Sullivan and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Obama hides bailout recipients, refuses to disclsoe where $ went

Obama hides bailout recipients, refuses to disclsoe where $ went

Obama hides bailout recipients, refuses to disclsoe where $ went
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Obama Records Pledge Tested By Citigroup Guarantees (Update1)
By Mark Pittman and Alison Fitzgerald


Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. government guarantees on securities totaling $419 billion for bank bailouts provide an early test of President Barack Obama’s pledge to be open with taxpayers about what they have at risk in the credit crisis.

Bloomberg News asked the Treasury Department Jan. 26 to disclose what securities it backed over the past two months in a second round of actions to prop up Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. Department spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Jan. 27 she would seek an answer. None had been provided by the close of business yesterday.

As Congress debates an $875 billion economic stimulus bill, the guarantees represent a less publicized commitment. The public’s stake has grown along with assurances tying the Treasury to the fate of corporate loans and securities backed by home mortgages, car loans and credit card debt.

“Guarantees are only meaningful if there’s a real chance that someone will have to pay out for them,” said Representative Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat and a member of the House Financial Services committee that is reviewing the bailouts. “The conception that guarantees cost nothing is a misconception.”

Obama promised a new era of government openness as he took office last week, issuing a statement telling agencies “to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure” in responding to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, said they would emphasize accountability and transparency in using the second half of a $700 billion bank bailout fund.

New Disclosures

Late yesterday, Geithner’s office put hundreds of pages about the fund on the department’s Web site. They did not include documents describing the guaranteed assets.

Members of Congress from both parties have complained about the Bush administration’s lack of disclosure about the spending of the first $350 billion from the fund.

“We have requested information in the past three months and have been rebuffed by the administration,” said Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican and member of the House Financial Services Committee. “President Obama comes down the pike now, and maybe, in a week or a month, we’ll know.”

Last fall, the Federal Reserve declined to identify the recipients of about $2 trillion in emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers or the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Is Sued

Bloomberg News asked for details of the lending on May 21 and filed a federal lawsuit against the Fed Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure. The loans were made under the terms of what became 11 programs in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Arguments in the suit may be heard by a judge as soon as next month, according to the court docket.

Bloomberg filed a FOIA request yesterday for the list of what was covered by the Citigroup and Bank of America guarantees. Bloomberg asked for records on the fees paid by banks to the government, which securities were rejected for guarantees, as well as any contracts for data services and experts to assess the value of the securities.

Under the information law, passed by Congress in 1966, Treasury has 20 working days to respond to Bloomberg’s request. The measure allows nine exemptions, such as trade secrets or national security, for blocking disclosure.

During his confirmation, Geithner, the former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, didn’t directly answer a senator’s request for more information about Maiden Lane LLC, a special-purpose entity that holds assets from the takeover of Bear Stearns Cos. by JPMorgan Chase & Co.

‘Working With You’

“If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and with Chairman Bernanke on ways to respond to your suggestions and concerns,” Geithner said in a written response to the senator, Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican.

Geithner said it was important to keep details about loans in the portfolio confidential “in order to allow the asset manager the flexibility to manage the assets in a way that maximizes the value of portfolio and mitigates risk of loss to the taxpayer.”

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said “People are trying to get a handle on where the money went and how it’s being used. One would hope that we’ll get to see something. Personally, I want to know what my tax dollars are being used for.”

Consumer confidence fell in January to the lowest since records began in 1967, the Conference Board said Jan. 27. Home prices plunged 18.2 percent in November from a year earlier, the biggest drop since the data was started in 2001, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller index that covers 20 metropolitan areas.

$301 Billion Guarantee

Citigroup’s guarantee package, completed Jan. 16, totals $301 billion. It kicks in after the bank goes through its $9.5 billion in current loan loss reserves and the first $29 billion of losses. The government also gets $1 billion of the bank’s benefit from hedging contracts. The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Fed then assume 90 percent of losses from those assets.

Citigroup’s guarantees include $191 billion of consumer loans, with $55.2 billion of them second mortgages, according to a Jan. 16 news release from the bank. Securities backed by commercial real estate total $12.4 billion and corporate loans add $13.4 billion.

Citigroup has received $45 billion in cash from selling preferred securities to the government under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

$118 Billion

Bank of America’s agreement, announced the same day, is similar: $20 billion in cash aid, bringing the total to $45 billion, and $118 billion in asset guarantees. The government said the assets included securities backed by residential and commercial real estate loans and corporate debt and associated derivatives and hedges. Scott Silvestri, a spokesman for the Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank, declined comment.

Merrill Lynch & Co., which was bought by Bank of America, was the underwriter for $49.4 billion in defaulted collateralized debt obligations, the most of any bank, since October 2007, according to data compiled by Standard & Poor’s and Bloomberg.

Merrill was the biggest CDO underwriter from 2005 to 2007, with more than $102 billion, said Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. research analyst Brad Hintz.

Since October 2007, Bank of America underwrote under its name $15.1 billion in failed CDOs, according to S&P and Bloomberg. Banks have so far understated losses on such securities, and “the tsunami is on the horizon,” Hintz said.

‘Going to Be Huge’

Past sales of CDOs valued them at pennies on the dollar. In July, New York-based Merrill sold $30.6 billion of the securities to an affiliate of the Dallas-based investment firm Lone Star Funds for $6.7 billion. Merrill provided financing for about 75 percent of the purchase price, and the sale valued the CDOs at 22 cents on the dollar.

“By June, it’ll become clear that these guarantees are being drawn and they’re going to be huge,” said Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, a financial-services research company in Torrance, California. “Every day that goes by, Congress figures it out just a little more.”

The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: January 29, 2009 12:10 EST

Obama letter to Iran assures U.S. won't topple Islamic regime

Obama letter to Iran assures U.S. won't topple Islamic regime

Obama letter to Iran assures U.S. won't topple Islamic regime
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Revealed: the letter Obama team hope will heal Iran rift
Symbolic gesture gives assurances that US does not want to topple Islamic regime
Robert Tait and Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 January 2009 01.44 GMT Article history

Officials of Barack Obama's administration have drafted a letter to Iran from the president aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks, the Guardian has learned.

The US state department has been working on drafts of the letter since Obama was elected on 4 November last year. It is in reply to a lengthy letter of congratulations sent by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on 6 November.

Julian Borger on US plan to send friendly letter to Iran Link to this audio

Diplomats said Obama's letter would be a symbolic gesture to mark a change in tone from the hostile one adopted by the Bush administration, which portrayed Iran as part of an "axis of evil".

It would be intended to allay the ­suspicions of Iran's leaders and pave the way for Obama to engage them directly, a break with past policy.

State department officials have composed at least three drafts of the letter, which gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Islamic regime, but merely seeks a change in its behaviour. The letter would be addressed to the Iranian people and sent directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or released as an open letter.

One draft proposal suggests that Iran should compare its relatively low standard of living with that of some of its more prosperous neighbours, and contemplate the benefits of losing its pariah status in the west. Although the tone is conciliatory, it also calls on Iran to end what the US calls state sponsorship of terrorism.

The letter is being considered by the new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as part of a sweeping review of US policy on Iran. A decision on sending it is not expected until the review is complete.

In an interview on Monday with the al-Arabiya television network, Obama hinted at a more friendly approach towards the Islamic Republic.

Ahmadinejad said yesterday that he was waiting patiently to see what the Obama administration would come up with. "We will listen to the statements closely, we will carefully study their actions, and, if there are real changes, we will welcome it," he said.

Ahmadinejad, who confirmed that he would stand for election again in June, said it was unclear whether the Obama administration was intent on just a shift in tactics or was seeking fundamental change. He called on Washington to apologise for its actions against Iran over the past 60 years, including US support for a 1953 coup that ousted the democratically elected government, and the US shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988.

The state department refused to comment yesterday on the draft letters.

US concern about Iran mainly centres on its uranium enrichment programme, which Washington claims is intended to provide the country with a nuclear weapons capability. Iran claims the programme is for civilian purposes.

The diplomatic moves are given increased urgency by fears that Israel might take unilateral action to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

The scale of the problem facing the new American president was reinforced yesterday when a senior aide to Ahmadinejad, Aliakbar Javanfekr, said that, despite the calls from the US, Iran had no intention of stopping its nuclear activities. When asked about a UN resolution calling for the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment, Javanfekr, the presidential adviser for press affairs, replied: "We are past that stage."

One of the chief Iranian concerns revolves around suspicion that the US is engaged in covert action aimed at regime change, including support for separatist groups in areas such as Kurdistan, Sistan-Baluchestan and Khuzestan.

The state department has repeatedly denied that there is any American support for such groups.

In its dying days, the Bush administration was planning to open a US interests section in the Iranian capital Tehran, one step down from an embassy. Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said that never happened because attention was diverted by the Russian invasion of Georgia. Others say that rightwingers in the Bush administration mounted a rearguard action to block it.

The idea has resurfaced, but if there are direct talks with Iran, it may be decided that a diplomatic presence would obviate the need for a diplomatic mission there, at least in the short term.

While Obama is taking the lead on policy towards Iran, the administration will soon announce that Dennis Ross will become a special envoy to the country, following the appointments last week of George Mitchell, the veteran US mediator, as special envoy to the Middle East, and Richard Holbrooke, who helped to broker the Bosnia peace agreement, as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Ross, who took a leading role in the Middle East peace talks in Bill Clinton's administration, will be responsible on a day-to-day basis for implementing policy towards Iran.

In a graphic sign of Iranian mistrust, the hardline newspaper Kayhan, which is considered close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has denounced Ross as a "Zionist lobbyist".

Saeed Leylaz, a Tehran-based analyst, said a US letter would have to be accompanied by security guarantees and an agreement to drop economic sanctions. "If they send such a letter it will be a very significant step towards better ties, but they should be careful in not thinking Tehran will respond immediately," he said.

"There will be disputes inside the system about such a letter. There are lot of radicals who don't want to see ordinary relations between Tehran and Washington. To convince Iran, they should send a very clear message that they are not going to try to destroy the regime."

Why CNBC promoted confirmation of tax cheat

Why CNBC promoted confirmation of tax cheat

Why CNBC promoted confirmation of tax cheat
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Friday, January 23, 2009
Conflict of interest: Why CNBC is promoting the confirmation of a tax cheat
By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

Art Cashin, one of the talking heads on CNBC, said early on Thursday morning that the stock market was going down in part because of a lack of confidence caused by the failure of the Senate to quickly confirm Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. This was the party line of the Wall Street insiders who have a special interest in getting Geithner confirmed. Later on that day, Geithner was endorsed 18-5 by the Senate Finance Committee. A full Senate vote on the nomination may be held on Monday.

The American people can’t be blamed for worrying that if a tax cheat inspires confidence on Wall Street and can get an overwhelmingly positive vote in a Senate committee, the nation may be headed for financial ruin.
But Geithner not only got caught cheating on his taxes, he is now being accused of lying about his cheating during his confirmation hearing when he attempted to blame the problem on his TurboTax computer software program. But don’t expect this to be a major issue for business cable network CNBC.

In a major conflict of interest, General Electric’s media properties, which include CNBC, NBC News and MSNBC, are indirectly benefitting from the Wall Street bailout through a federal loan guarantee of $139 billion extended to GE Capital, the lending arm of GE.
What’s more, GE chairman Jeffrey Immelt is a member of the board of the New York Federal Reserve, headed by one Timothy Geithner. In fact, Immelt may be involved in finding a successor to Geithner as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

When GE Capital got its federal loan guarantee, the story was covered on CNBC by reporter Steve Liesman. A transcript includes the obligatory notation that “GE is the parent company of CNBC” but the video of Liesman breaking the story didn’t mention that.

The mantra, “GE is the parent company of CNBC,” is supposed to protect GE’s media property from any charges of conflict of interest in its coverage of the financial meltdown.

One of CNBC’s most famous and outspoken talking heads, Jim Cramer, did an amazing turnaround, first opposing Geithner and then supporting him. “I’ve given up fighting this,” he blurted out. “Obama loves him.” Cramer said that “the guy got a free pass” and “everybody on Wall Street — all my buddies who lost billions for you, for the American people, told me, ‘Jim, he’s the greatest.’”

“Well, now, everybody has discovered the truth,” he added, alluding to the tax cheating. Cramer said that if he had committed similar offenses, he would be going to jail.

On Capitol Hill, some senators were listening to their constituents, thousands of whom were phoning in protest over the Geithner pick, rather than to CNBC.

“I cannot vote to confirm the nomination based on the record and the need to foster greater accountability in both big government and our financial institutions,” declared Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the committee, in making a point that should have been obvious to other members. He quoted a constituent as saying, “If the man cannot handle his own finances, how is he going to handle the country’s?”

Nevertheless, only four members joined with Grassley in voting against Geithner. They were Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Pat Roberts of Kansas, and Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming.

“I cannot even believe we are voting on this nomination today,” is how Enzi described the situation. He couldn’t believe a person with tax problems like Geithner could even be considered for the position.

Enzi, the Senate’s only accountant, announced his opposition to Geithner by asking, “How do I explain to my constituents that I voted to confirm someone who will make them pay taxes, but sometimes does not pay his own taxes?”

Enzi called Geithner’s handling of his taxes “negligent behavior” that “deserves more than a simple slap on the wrist or half-hearted apology before a Senate committee.” He explained, “In previous years, nominees for positions that do not oversee tax reporting and collection have been forced to withdraw their nomination” because of similar issues.

All 13 Democrats on the committee voted for him. Five Republicans — Hatch, Snowe, Crapo, Ensign and Cornyn — did so as well.

Sen. John Ensign, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, which is composed of GOP Senate leaders and the chairmen of the Senate’s standing committees, voted for Geithner despite being quoted by the BBC as saying that his switchboard had lit up with calls from constituents asking how someone who’d failed to pay their taxes could be put in charge of the IRS.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, once considered a conservative, said he would vote for Geithner because his tax cheating was nothing more than a series of “honest mistakes.”

The Hatch rationale for confirming Geithner reflected the influence of what Politico.com reported was a document of “talking points” originally prepared by the Obama transition office and “distributed to Capitol Hill, K Street and congressional reporters.” The “talking points” were designed to portray Geithner’s problems as “simple mistakes or oversights.”

In his confirmation hearing, however, Geithner dug a deeper hole by falsely suggesting that some of his tax dodging may have stemmed from use of the TurboTax computer software program that helps an individual file his tax returns.

While insisting that “these are my responsibilities, not the tax software’s responsibilities,” he was specifically asked by Grassley, “Did the software prompt you to report income and pay self-employment taxes on your IMF income?” He answered, “Not to my recollection, Senator.”

CNBC reported that shares of TurboTax-maker Intuit “fell to their low on the day on strong volume” after Geithner’s claims but did not include a rebuttal from TurboTax. But officials of the company flatly denied the allegation that their software could or should be blamed for his failure to pay taxes.

Dan Maurer, senior vice president and general manager of TurboTax, issued a statement saying that “Each year, millions of Americans use TurboTax to accurately prepare and file their federal and state tax returns. The software helps taxpayers report their income and find the deductions and credits they’re entitled to claim. TurboTax, and all software and in-person tax preparation services, base their calculations on the information users provide when completing their returns. TurboTax also has built-in error-checking tools that routinely catch common taxpayer mistakes.”

The headline, “Treasury Pick Misfiled Using Off-the-Shelf Tax Software,” over a story by business reporter Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post, suggested that the software was to blame. But inside the article Ahrens quoted an official of an international agency who handles these matters and understands the software as saying that TurboTax sends up a “red flag” in order to catch the “mistakes” that Geithner claims he made.

NSF -- National Sex Fdtn wants another $3 billion fromtaxpayers to play with porn

NSF -- National Sex Fdtn wants another $3 billion fromtaxpayers to play with porn

NSF -- National Sex Fdtn wants another $3 billion fromtaxpayers to play with porn
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Tuesday fired off a letter to the NSF’s inspector general requesting all documents related to the “numerous reports” and seven investigations into “Abuse of NSF IT Resources” cited in the foundation’s 68-page semiannual report

Grassley launches porn inquiry
By ANDIE COLLER 1/28/09 4:11 AM EST Updated: 1/28/09 12:05 PM EST


Chuck Grassley knows it when he sees it.

The “it,” of course, is pornography. And Grassley has seen it deep in a demurely titled section of a report from the National Science Foundation — a report that says NSF employees have been spending significant amounts of company time on smut sites and in other explicit pursuits.

Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, on Tuesday fired off a letter to the NSF’s inspector general requesting all documents related to the “numerous reports” and seven investigations into “Abuse of NSF IT Resources” cited in the foundation’s 68-page semiannual report.

Despite the less-than-lurid sound of the probes, the employees in question weren’t just logging onto their Facebook accounts or buying birthday gifts on Amazon.com. The report says they were watching, downloading and e-mailing porn, sometimes for significant portions of their workdays, and over periods of months or even years.

In one particularly egregious case, the report says one NSF “senior official” was discovered to have spent as much as 20 percent of his working hours over a two-year interval “viewing sexually explicit images and engaging in sexually explicit online ‘chats’ with various women.”

Investigators calculated the value of the time lost at more than $58,000 — for that employee alone.

Following an initial wave of incidents, the grant-making agency — which has an annual budget of $6.06 billion, and was created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science; advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; secure the national defense — reveals that probers then “selectively sampled” a single internal server and found even more workers harboring everything from software that can allow users to set up camera-to-camera connections to hard-core images and titillatingly titled bookmarks.

Committee investigators also learned from sources that one employee even had camera-to-camera software to facilitate his on-the-job sexcapades – and that the employee had complained to the IT specialist that his camera was working too slowly.

The foundation has since installed filtering software to prevent employees from accessing inappropriate websites and is currently trying to address the fallout from the agency’s adult-entertainment problem. This includes finding ways to support staffers who were “acutely embarrassed” by the filth-filled environment — like the employee who learned of a co-worker’s adventures in porn via sounds overheard from said co-worker’s computer speakers.

Grassley’s office has asked the foundation to turn over all “specific reports of investigations, audit reports, evaluations and information supporting the examination of the NSF network drive” by Thursday in an effort to “ensure that NSF properly fulfills its mission to strengthen scientific and engineering research, and makes responsible use of the public funding provided for these research disciplines.”

“The semiannual report raises real questions about how the National Science Foundation manages its resources, and Congress ought to demand a full accounting before it gives the agency another $3 billion in the stimulus bill,” Grassley said.

An NSF spokeswoman said the agency had no comment on the report or its content.

Hamas urges Obama to correct "mistakes" of predecessor

Hamas urges Obama to correct "mistakes" of predecessor

Hamas urges Obama to correct "mistakes" of predecessor
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Hamas urges Obama to correct 'mistakes' of predecessor
11 hours ago

GAZA CITY (AFP) — Hamas premier Ismail Haniya urged US President Barack Obama to correct the "mistakes" of his predecessor George W. Bush, the Islamists said on Wednesday as the new US Middle East envoy arrived in Israel.

"Given that you are a man who incarnates victory after a long struggle, we hope that you will rectify the errors of the previous administration," Haniya wrote in a letter.

"Today we join you in the march toward change, change that will bring justice for all," he said.

"Palestine is the door to the Muslim world," Haniya wrote, in an apparent reference to Obama's comments reaching out to the Muslim world following his inauguration.

"Justice and freedom for Palestinians is the key that will open this door."

The text of the letter was posted on a Hamas website, which did not say how the message, which also congratulated Obama on his inauguration, was sent to the US president.

Washington considers Hamas a terrorist organisation.

Suddenly Obama has Muslim roots

Suddenly Obama has Muslim roots

Suddenly Obama has Muslim roots
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Steven Edwards: Suddenly Obama has Muslim roots
Posted: January 28, 2009, 10:45 AM by Kelly McParland
Full Comment, U.S. Politics, Steven Edwards

During the U.S presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s handlers vigourously pointed out his Christian faith whenever the misconception arose he may be Muslim (even though the politically correct response should have been his religion doesn’t matter).

The handlers also roundly denounced any conservative commentator who might mention (mischievously, admittedly) his Arabic middle name, Hussein.

They charged that such usage was "fear mongering."

Once elected, however, he personally insisted on his middle name being spoken at his swearing-in ceremony.

And now – in a gesture to the Muslim world – he has not only granted the first sit-down interview of his presidency to a pan-Arab television network, but uses the occasion to gush about his Muslim ties.

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries," Obama tells Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief of Saudi-owned Al Arabiya, which is based in Dubai.

Indeed, Obama’s Kenyan father, Barack Sr., was born into a Muslim family – though he became an atheist before arriving in Hawaii, where Obama Jr. was later born.

Obama also famously spent four years as a boy in Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim country.

All that’s fine, except why was no one allowed to talk much about it before he snagged the Electoral College majority?

Obama’s unprecedented decision to shun American domestic networks over his first sit-down appeared aimed at sending a signal to the Muslim world that his administration marks a distinct break with that of George W. Bush.

Like we didn’t get that message from his pledge to close the detention camps at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba without so much as a plan for where he’ll transfer its terror suspects.

But much of the interview, broadcast Tuesday, offered troubling stuff for anyone who believes the West isn’t to blame for the Islamic world’s wrath.

Obama agreed with Melhem’s inference that Bush’s use of terms like "war on terror" and "Islamic fascism" demonized all Muslims.

"I think you’re making a very important point, and that is the language we use matters …" Obama said.

"We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name."

True. But there was nothing particularly Bushist about the "war on terror" term, and a helpful Wikipedia entry explains how it dates at least to the 19th century.

Obama confirmed he intends to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital during the first 100 days of his presidency, but resisted Melhem’s bid to know which one.

Of course, the smart money is on the Indonesian capital of Jakarta, while you can pretty much rule out Baghdad.

"You're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility," he said.

Obama explained he is going to educate people in both the United States and the Muslim world on how to get along.

"My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives," he said.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

So that’s the simple formula we’ve been we’ve been missing. Stay tuned to the new president for a couple of deftly worded, and theatrically delivered speeches – and centuries of Western-Islamic division will miraculously disappear.

Citing Iran’s threats towards Israel, and its "pursuit of a nuclear weapon," Obama said the Islamic republic had "acted in ways that [were] not conducive to peace and prosperity."

"But I do think it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran," he added.

Better hurry. Iran will have enough uranium to make a single nuclear weapon later this year, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies said Tuesday at the launch of its annual global review of military powers.

The fact is there have been plenty of talks, incentive packages and UN Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions.

After the interview was broadcast Tuesday, Iran responded to the "extended hand" Obama said he was offering the Islamic republic.

"We are awaiting concrete changes from new U.S. statesmen," said an Iranian government spokesman. "On several occasions our president has defined Iran’s views and the need for a change in U.S. policies."

Even by Obama’s account, there will be no effective "change in U.S. policies." Washington and the West will still want to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Hence, don’t expect Tehran to see the offer of "more diplomacy" to be anything more than a gift of the time they still need to perfect the nuclear process.

Key parts of Obama’s interview to the Muslim world were a collective mea culpa.

"We sometimes make mistakes; we have not been perfect," he said as one explanation as to why there is so much hate in the Muslim world for the United States.

In other words, it’s America’s and, by extension, the West’s fault we’ve been under attack these past years.

He offered a similar apology when explaining his instruction to George Mitchell, the former Senator he appointed to begin seeking a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating …" he said. "So let’s listen."

Oddly, the interviewer Melhem came across as the most honest of the pair when he admitted that, throughout the Muslim world, there was a "demonization of America" that’s become "like a new religion" – complete with "converts and high priests."

That’s the sort of reality Obama needs to get his head around – instead of saying the equivalent of: "We’re wrong, you’re right."

National Post

Steven Edwards is New York correspondent for Canwest News

Drunk on his power?

Drunk on his power?

Drunk on his power?
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

OBAMA TO HOST COCKTAIL PARTY FOR LAWMAKERS

Last updated: 8:45 pm
January 28, 2009
Posted: 2:02 pm
January 28, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama has invited Republican and Democratic lawmakers for drinks at the White House as they consider his economic recovery bill that still faces opposition.

House OKs $819B Stimulus Bill

White House aides say about two dozen key members of Congress were invited to the Executive Mansion Wednesday evening. The guest list includes six House Democrats, six House Republicans and five senators from each party.

The event is expected to start after the House considers Obama's $825 billion economic recovery bill that he has championed virtually daily in his young presidency.

Obama went to Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with Republicans, some of whom have called some parts of his plan "insane."

After meeting with leaders, he said the nation is at a "perilous moment" requiring swift and decisive action.

"We don't have a moment to spare," Obama said in the East Room of the White House, just hours before a crucial House roll call vote. The measure intended to steady the ricocheting economy was expected to pass, but likely with little of the bipartisan support that Obama wanted. The issue then goes to the Senate where the new president hopes to draw more GOP backing.

Obama tempered the sense of urgency in his voice with his observation that he and corporate leaders "left our meeting confident that we can still turn our economy around."

His brief remarks were designed to put his stamp on the debate while the action was taking place at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Former Gitmo detainee described as fomenter of war

Former Gitmo detainee described as fomenter of war

Former Gitmo detainee described as fomenter of war
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Former Gitmo detainee described as fomenter of war
By ANDREW O. SELSKY – 4 hours ago

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Before he was released from Guantanamo, a Saudi detainee insisted he had only wanted to help refugees and was not a fighter. Now, as an al-Qaida field commander sporting a bandolier of bullets, he is threatening the United States and has been hailed by a militant Web site as a veteran guerrilla and "a fomenter of war."

The story of Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi underscores the dilemma Barack Obama's administration finds itself in: Keeping men locked up without trials invites global criticism but releasing them without a fair and diligent process to distinguish enemies from noncombatants exposes the U.S. and its allies to danger. It also shows how hard it is to separate truth from lies.

Al-Oufi was one of two former Saudi detainees at Guantanamo, the U.S. military prison in Cuba, who resurfaced last week in video clips as al-Qaida fighters in Yemen. Their identities were confirmed in recent days by a U.S. counterterror official. Al-Oufi was detainee number 333 at Guantanamo.

On Wednesday, the SITE Intelligence Group, an organization that monitors extremist Web sites, provided a translation of al-Oufi's biography contained in an online militant forum. The personal history was completely at odds with how al-Oufi had characterized himself as he tried to convince a panel of U.S. military officers at Guantanamo that he was an innocent man who had been swept up in Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I was on my way to Quetta, Pakistan, to help people, the refugees," al-Oufi told a military panel at Guantanamo, according to a transcripts reviewed by The Associated Press. He explained that he was arrested along with many other Arabs and sold to U.S. forces for bounties. Al-Oufi insisted he had never set foot in Afghanistan.

But the biography said he had fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kashmir before he was captured, and had narrowly escaped death when "an American rocket" hit a house in Afghanistan where he and 13 other mujahedeen were sleeping. Al-Oufi was the only survivor and "was not hit by even one piece of shrapnel."

The biography tries to present al-Oufi in a heroic light, using flowery language.

"He continued fighting until Afghanistan fell into the hands of the Americans," said the biography. "He could not help but go to Pakistan and wait there until the Taliban started anew, and then he would return. But Allah determined for our lion to be imprisoned."

Adam Raisman, a senior analyst at SITE, said al-Faloja, where al-Oufi's biography was posted, is a jihadist forum. He said the entry was the user's first posting so its authenticity could not be ascertained, but noted that it was not deleted by the forum administrators or questioned by it members. SITE, which has provided accurate information in the past, thought it was reliable enough to e-mail the contents to its subscribers.

Prisoner number 333 was released from Guantanamo on Nov. 11, 2007, according to the Pentagon. The military had listed his name as Muhamad Attik al-Harbi. The difference in names has been attributed to the common Arab practice of referring to men by an honorific, like the name of a son. Al-Harbi is a tribal designation.

In the video, al-Oufi wore a dark cap and camouflage shirt with a leather bandolier of bullets draped over a shoulder. He had a thick black beard and jabbed a finger into the air as he spoke.

"In the end, we say to the countries of the cross that are garrisoned on the land of (Saudi Arabia) and which support the crusader war against Muslims: By Allah, we are coming. By Allah, we are coming," he said.

He railed against a Saudi government program to rehabilitate former Guantanamo detainees and other militants, saying it aims "to drive us away from our Islam" and said a Saudi "psychological investigation team" had gone to Guantanamo "to obtain our confessions under duress."

Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on the purported visit to Guantanamo. He said various countries have sent officials to Guantanamo but added that it is military policy not to describe specific cases.

al-Qaeda-Endorsed Bomb-Making Manual for Sale on Amazon...

al-Qaeda-Endorsed Bomb-Making Manual for Sale on Amazon...

al-Qaeda-Endorsed Bomb-Making Manual for Sale on Amazon...
thereligionofpeace.com

Link to the story

Al-QAEDA Endorsed BOMB-MAKING Guide for sale on Amazon
Money quote: An Amazon spokesman said the firm stood by their decision to sell the book.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

“We do not dictate to our customers what they can or cannot kill buy.”

Bare Naked Islam has the exclusive here: (hat tip Jane)

Do-It-Yourself BOMB GUIDE FOR SALE ON WEB
Terrorists can make bombs like this one using the guide pictured below
A DIY bomb-making guide recommended as a “must-own” by al-Qaida supporters is available from web store Amazon.


The Daily Star (UK) can reveal the lethal book contains step-by-step instructions on how to make explosives and detonators. A shocked MP described the book as a “terrorist’s dream” and called for it to be banned.

The cover of The Preparatory Manual Of Explosives, Third Edition boasts “574 pages – 166 explosives” alongside photos of blasts. It starts by explaining basic science such as the periodic table, how elements react with each other and how to mix them in test tubes. It tells readers in minute detail how to make deadly devices including fertiliser bombs, Semtex and TNT and, crucially for would-be bomb nuts, their “overall value as an explosive”.


The £37.49 book is available to any customer on the online store. And it adds: “The book will enlighten the reader in the art of explosives chemistry and science.”

The book, compiled by author Jared Ledgard, has become so useful to wannabe terrorists that it is listed on Islamic websites as a “must-own”.

One fanatics’ site features it alongside pro-Taliban propaganda and information from “Holy Warriors in Afghanistan”.

However, on Amazon the book is listed under the encyclopaedias category alongside books for children of school age.

Last night an Amazon spokesman said the firm stood by their decision to sell the book. He added: “We do not dictate to our customers what they can or cannot buy.”

Islamists Chop Off Hand over $300 Theft...

Islamists Chop Off Hand over $300 Theft...

Islamists Chop Off Hand over $300 Theft...
thereligionofpeace.com

Link to the story

Islamic Militants Cut Off Convicted Thief's Hand
Wednesday, January 28, 2009


E-Mail Print Share MOGADISHU, Somalia — Islamic militants who are on Washington's list of terror groups have cut off the hand of a man convicted of stealing fishing nets, officials said Wednesday.

The Islamic group, al-Shabab, is imposing a strict form of Islam with punishments including lashings and stonings that have drawn fear and trepidation in this Muslim country. In one case, the group stoned a 13-year-old girl to death for adultery even though her parents said she was a rape victim.

Mohamed Sahal Iidle, a judge in the port town of Kismayo, said Wednesday that a 26-year-old man had his hand cut off late Tuesday for stealing three sacks full of fishing nets worth $300 from a businesswoman.

"He screamed once after his hand was cut off," said witness Ibrahim Yare. "Then nurses whisked him away."

Al-Shabab has been gaining ground as Somalia's Western-backed government crumbles.

The arid, impoverished Horn of Africa nation has not had a functioning government since 1991, when clan-based warlords overthrew a socialist dictator. Pirates operate off its lawless coastline and analysts fear the failed state is a harbor for international terrorists.

OOPS!!! President tries to walk through window...

OOPS!!! President tries to walk through window...

OOPS!!! President tries to walk through window...

drudgereport.com

Link to the story

Hey Bam, that's not the door!
By LIISA O'NEILL
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, January 28th 2009, 3:07 PM


It looks like President Obama hasn't gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right.

Doors didn't open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush's lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama's rookie mistake.

Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans' icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support.

Obama wants $ for ACORN & other street groups

Obama wants $ for ACORN & other street groups

Obama wants $ for ACORN & other street groups
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Republicans Object to Stimulus Dollars for ACORN
Republicans say voter registration and community groups like ACORN could be eligible for funding under the Democrats' economic stimulus bill.
FOXNews.com -Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House.

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as "payoff" for groups' political activities in the last election. ACORN generally supports Democratic candidates and actively backed President Obama last year.

But he said the funding is just one example of frivolous spending items in the $825 billion package.

"It's just a long list of spending items. Not a real economic stimulus job creation bill," Vitter said. "It's line after line after line of favorite liberal spending programs, and it amounts to a big government bill -- not a job creation bill."

Democratic leaders in the House have already dropped federal funding from the bill for new contraceptive services and ongoing programs to stop sexually transmitted diseases after Obama told them that it did not fit in with the job-creating objectives of the package.

Obama plans to meet with Republican leaders on Capitol Hill Tuesday to hear some their input on the package. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama is open to suggestions.

"If there are good ideas -- and I think he assumes there will be -- we will look at those ideas," he said Monday.

Obama's appeasement talk stirs Iran's Hitler

Obama's appeasement talk stirs Iran's Hitler

Obama's appeasement talk stirs Iran's Hitler
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story

Ahmadinejad Demands Apology for U.S. 'Crimes'
Wednesday, January 28, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for "profound changes" in U.S. foreign policy on Wednesday, including giving up support for Israel, during an address to thousands of people in the western city of Kermanshah.

President Obama on Tuesday, in an interview with Arabic television, called for more dialogue with Iran to express difference and see "where there are potential avenues for progress."

Without mentioning President Barack Obama by name, Ahmadinejad Wednesday repeatedly referred to those who want to bring "change," a word used often in Obama's election campaign, and indicated that Iran would be looking to see if there would be substantive differences in U.S. policy.

"We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track," Ahmadinejad said. "When they say 'we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad also demanded the U.S. apologize for 'crimes' committed against Iran; specifically, criticizing and trying to block their nuclear program.

"Those who say they want to make change, this is the change they should make: they should apologize to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said.

Later Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that the U.S. administration is undertaking a wide-ranging and comprehensive survey of U.S. foreign policy options toward Iran.

Clinton also said Iran had a "clear opportunity" to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari, speaking in Athens, Greece, said Tuesday that it was too early to say whether relations with the United States would improve with Obama as president.

Washington is at odds with Tehran over Iran's nuclear program and its Mideast policy that seeks to destroy Israel and supports the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies the charge and refuses to give up uranium enrichment, saying it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to produce nuclear fuel.

"Who has asked them (the United States) to come and interfere in the affairs of nations?" Ahmadinejad said.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.