Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Murdered Christian Man Suffered Sexual Abuse for Resisting Islam


Share/Save/Bookmark




Christian Man Raped, Murdered for Refusing to Convert to Islam, Family Says
Saturday , June 13, 2009
By Nora Zimmett


ADVERTISEMENTA young Christian man was raped and brutally murdered in Pakistan for refusing to convert to Islam, and police are doing nothing about it, the victim's brother and minister told FOXNews.com.

Pakistani police reportedly found the body of Tariq "Litto" Mashi Ghauri — a 28-year-old university student in Sargodha, Pakistan — lying dead in a canal outside a rural village in Punjab Province on May 15. He had been raped and stabbed at least five times.

"They have sexually abuse him, torture him with a knife on his testicle and genitals," Ghauri's brother, 24-year-old Salman Nabil Ghauri, said. "They have tortured him very badly, and after that they have stabbed five times with a knife and killed him."

The family believes Litto Ghauri was murdered by the brothers of his Muslim girlfriend, Shazi Cheema, after they found him in a compromising sexual position with their sister.

The Rev. Haroon Bhatti, a Christian clergyman in the village and a friend of the Ghauri family, said Cheema's three brothers came to Litto Ghauri's house on May 11 and gave him an ultimatum: Marry their sister and convert to Islam.

Ghauri agreed to the marriage but refused to accept Islam, and the brothers kidnapped him at gunpoint and drove him to a remote farmhouse, where they tortured and murdered him, the minister said.

"On that farmhouse — four days there — we all, Christians and family, were searching for him," the Rev. Bhatti said. "I was with him. I was searching for him."

After police discovered the body, Ghauri's death was declared a homicide and the family filed paperwork with the Atta Shaheed police station in their small village, Adda 44SB. But Ghauri's brother said police still have not arrested the alleged killers and have refused to meet with his family.

"They don't want to meet us, and the three of them who are murderers are outside," Salman Nabil Ghauri told FOXNews.com. "They are free. Nothing is happening to them. No investigation is running."

The Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C., told FOXNews.com that they knew nothing of the incident but were looking into it.

But one embassy official questioned the truth of the report.

"On the face of it, this appears to be exaggerated," said the Pakistani official who asked not to be named. "This does not happen over there."

The official said that minorities are very well represented in the Pakistani Parliament, and if someone in fact were murdered for not converting to Islam, "it would have been reported hugely."

The embassy official added, "if an incident of that nature happened over there, there would have to be an investigation."

Yet human rights watchdog groups say that what happened to Litto Ghauri is not uncommon because Christians in Pakistan are looked upon as the dregs of society. Pakistan's population is 97 percent Muslim, and Christians are only a very small part of the remaining 3 percent.

"What the Muslim society has done in Pakistan is just associate low caste with being Christian," said Jeremy Sewall, Advocacy Director of the International Christian Concern, which first reported the killing. "Many of these people, they clean human waste and that's their job, and that's what Christians are known for in Pakistan."

The Rev. Bhatti says that radical Muslims frequently try to trap Christian men into converting to Islam by using a woman as bait — and Ghauri suspects the involvement of his dead brother's girlfriend in trying to entrap him.

"It's common to offer things — money, women — to Christians to convert," Bhatti said.

Pakistan is one of the most hostile countries in the world for minority religions. The country still has blasphemy laws on the books that forbid saying or writing anything against Islam or the Koran. Punishment can include death.

"You basically have a situation where people can kind of act with impunity in the public," said Paula Schriefer, advocacy director at Freedom House, a human rights group. "They use these laws to sort of settle scores ... or, in situations like this, actually engage in kind of forced conversions."

The U.S. State Department's 2008 International Religious Freedom Report on Pakistan says, "Government policies do not afford equal protection to members of majority and minority religious groups."

The Ministry of Religious Affairs, which is supposed to protect religious freedom, has a verse from the Koran on its masthead, the report said: "Islam is the only religion acceptable to God."

While the U.S. government has provided millions of dollars in public outreach programs to help teach religious tolerance in Pakistan, human rights watchers say it's not sufficient.

"There's probably not enough that the U.S. government is doing to really talk about this issue because it's such an important issue in Pakistan because faith is so important to them," said Sewall.

The small Christian community is hoping that Ghauri's death will bring attention to the plight of minority religious groups in Pakistan.

"Several incidents of Christian persecution go unnoticed in Pakistan because they occur in the furthest parts of Pakistan," the Rev. Bhatti said. "This is Pakistan — predominantly Muslim. So they're the rulers. They rule us."

For Christian families like the Ghauris, living in a remote village in Pakistan, options are few. Because of their poverty they can neither leave nor help secure their own safety.

"We have very little family," said Salman Nabil Ghauri, whose mother died years ago and whose father worked as a day laborer until the killing. "My father was a daily worker. Now he is earning nothing. He is fully mad now. He cannot understand anything — he is still in the shock of death.

"My elder son is dead, and I am only one person. Where can I run? I cannot start my studies or run after my case. What should I do?"

Couple Beaten, then Shot Dead for Eloping...


Share/Save/Bookmark






Couple shot dead for eloping - policeArticle from: Agence France-PresseFont size: June 29, 2009 07:10pm


RELATIVES of a Pakistani teenager who eloped and married without parental consent shot her dead in a raid on her new home which also killed her husband and in-laws, police said.

Dressed in police uniforms, dozens of relatives attacked the bridegroom's house in the district of Charsadda, in North West Frontier Province.

"The assailants took the bridegroom out while some of the attackers climbed the wall and entered the house. They killed the bride, the mother and sister of the bridegroom,'' said Charsadda district police official Saleem Jan.

"They beat them first and then shot them dead,'' he told AFP.

The groom's father was also killed, another police official told AFP from Sardheri village in
Charsadda.

The bride was aged 18 to 19 and the groom 29 to 30.

Police said the teenager, from the deeply conservative Mardan district next to Charsadda, had run away and recently married without telling her parents.

"Both the girl and man married some weeks ago,'' the bridegroom's uncle Misal Khan told reporters at the scene.

"The attackers were headed by the (paternal) uncle, cousin and maternal uncle of the girl. One of the attackers left his police uniform at the site. They also left one mobile phone in a pocket of the uniform,'' he added.

Police said the main suspects were two uncles and a cousin.

"We have registered a case against three relatives of the girl and their unknown accomplices,'' police official Saleem Jan tsaid.

Human rights groups have strongly condemned the practice of honour killings in Pakistan, which claim the lives of hundreds of women each year.

Amnesty International says many killings are unreported and in almost all cases the perpetrators, who are often close family members, go unpunished.

In 2005, Pakistan's then president Pervez Musharraf introduced the death penalty for honour killings.

Number of Sharia Courts in Britain Climbs to 85...


Share/Save/Bookmark










June 29, 2009
Creeping Sharia = Civitas Finds 85 Sharia Courts Operating in Britain
Is anyone really surprised that the numbers of Sharia Courts - operating in Great Britain - was/is grossly underestimated?

Note the muslim reponse to this report (or any type of criticism) is to use their typical, vociferous accusation of (the Myth of) Islamophobia.

If you think that these courts only deal with "domestic, marital and business disputes" - I have a bridge to sell you in Lake Havasu City, Arizona, USA.

It will be interesting to see if Civitas will actually be able to stop this latest example of the Islamisation of Great Britain ----- I'm not optimistic.


Article in full - emphasis mine:

At least 85 sharia courts' operating in Britain, says Civitas report

At least 85 separate sharia "courts" are now openly functioning in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed, a report by Civitas claims.

A study by the thinktank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques.

It led to claims of a "creeping" acceptance of sharia principles in British law, but the Muslim Council of Britain dismissed the report as "scaremongering".



The study follows the outcry over remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, last year that the adoption of aspects of Muslim law in Britain, such as in divorce proceedings, "seems inevitable".

Lord Phillips, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, attracted controversy by saying that there was "no reason why" sharia principles could not form the basis of mediation in disputes.

Some decisions of Islamic tribunals are already considered legally binding and could theoretically be enforced in civil courts in England and Wales.

Other officially recognised bodies can agree to grant Muslim "divorces" as part of a parallel system of religious law in Britain.

"This whole business is creeping up on us without anyone really noticing," said Dr David Green, director of Civitas.

The existence of a network of five court-like sharia bodies in London, Bradford, Birmingham, Coventry and Manchester, expanding to other cities under the umbrella of the Muslim Arbitration Tribual (MAT) has already been widely reported.

But Civitas estimates that the real number of Islamic "courts" operating in Britain is at least 85, as a result of scores of unofficial courts sitting in mosques in which imams make judgments on day-to-day disputes.

It argued that they are unlikely to treat women as equals and could even be against human rights law.

The organisation called for a change in the law to stop the decisions of such bodies being legally enforceable.

The MAT, which deals primarily with disputes between business partners or mosques, says that as a legally constituted arbitration body under the 1996 Arbitration Act, its decisions could be enforced in county courts.

That claim has yet to be challenged in a test case but a similar status for Jewish tribunals is already long established.

Another organisation, the Islamic Sharia Council, has a panel of seven judges based in London, dealing largely with divorce and issuing "fatwas" on issues such as how to bring up children.

Mufti Abdul Kadir Barkatulla, one of its judges, said that the organisation had been operating peacefully alongside the civil courts for 25 years without any major problems.

He also confirmed that dozens of informal sharia bodies sit across the country.

"Every imam, if they are qualified can have a hearings and make decisions according to sharia," he said.

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "To term them sharia courts is ridiculous, it's just scaremongering."

Qamar Bhatti, a member of the governing body of the MAT, said: "We don't have a court, it's an arbitration, we don't have a judge sitting with a gavel in his hand but that's the image that this report is creating."

Comedian wins Senate seat; Senate now filibuster-prooffor Socialist Party USA


Share/Save/Bookmark


Comedian wins Senate seat; Senate now filibuster-prooffor Socialist Party USA
michaelsavage.com

Link to the story




Franken: 'Thrilled' at Minn. Senate win
Republican Norm Coleman concedes the election after long court fight
The Associated Press
updated 7:41 p.m. ET, Tues., June 30, 2009


ST. PAUL, Minn. - Al Franken ascended Tuesday from the hallowed ranks of former "Saturday Night Live" comedians to an even more exclusive club, outlasting Republican Norm Coleman in an eight-month recount and courtroom saga to win a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Franken's victory gives Democrats control of 60 seats in the Senate — the critical number needed to overcome Republican filibusters. When Franken is seated, which could come as early as next week, his party will have a majority not reached on either side of the aisle in some three decades.

"When you win an election this close, you know not one bit of effort went to waste," Franken said. "The way I see it, I'm not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic senator, I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from Minnesota."

Coleman conceded the election hours after a unanimous state Supreme Court ruled that Franken — who transition into politics with books poking fun at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh — should be certified the winner. In doing so, he pulled the plug on a bitter election that was ultimately decided by 312 votes out of nearly 2.9 million cast.

"Franni and I are so thrilled that we can finally celebrate this victory," Franken told reporters outside his downtown Minneapolis town house, where he was accompanied by his wife. He added: "I can't wait to get started."

Months of intrigue
Coleman could have carried his fight into federal court, but it was unlikely to overturn the state Supreme Court's decision. The prospect created months of intrigue over whether Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty would sign an election certificate for Franken if Coleman was still pursing appeals, a possibility that became moot with Coleman's concession.

"The Supreme Court has made its decision and I will abide by the results," Coleman said outside his St. Paul home. Appearing relaxed and upbeat, Coleman said he had congratulated Franken, was at peace with the decision and had no regrets about the fight.

"Sure I wanted to win," said Coleman, who declined to talk about his future and brushed aside a question about whether he would run for governor in 2010. "I thought we had a better case. But the court has spoken."

After Coleman ended election night ahead by several hundred votes, he called on Franken to concede. The Democrat refused, and the thin margin triggered an automatic recount that ultimately put him ahead by 225 votes. Coleman challenged those results in January, but a review by a three-judge panel expanded Franken's lead to 312 votes by the time it ended in April.

Coleman appealed to the state's high court later that month, arguing election officials across Minnesota were inconsistent with rules on absentee ballots, unfairly robbing thousands of people of their votes. But the state's high court soundly rejected that reasoning, voting 5-0 that there was no reason to apply a more lenient standard in judging absentees, as Coleman wanted, than the law required.

"I think what you had was 12 judges look at this through the canvassing process, through the recount and throughout the trial, and all agreeing unanimously that I won more votes than anybody else in the election," Franken said. "I think that is conclusive, and I think that this has been as thorough, as painstaking, as transparent as possible."

Long way from 1980s 'SNL' skits
Franken has come a long way from the goofy 1980s "SNL" skits where he mocked politicians, portrayed the self-affirming Stuart Smalley and pranced around in little more than a Speedo. His career evolved in the 1990s with books harpooning Limbaugh and he later gained a liberal following as a radio show host on the "Air America" network.


Minnesota has elevated an entertainer to political office before, most notably when it elected ex-pro wrestler Jesse Ventura governor in 1998.

Franken declared his candidacy more than two years ago, and he and Coleman combined to spend $50 million in pursuit of the seat. That's more than double what was spent in 2002, when Coleman won the seat that had been held by the late Paul Wellstone.

For Democrats to exercise their newfound strength with Franken in office, they will need to be as united in support of a bill as Republicans are in opposition, regardless of regional differences, ideology, or political self-interest. .

The situation is further complicated by the illness of two senior Democrats who have been absent from the Capitol for weeks. West Virginia Sen. Robert C. Byrd was recently released from a hospital after undergoing treatment for a staph infection, and Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy is battling brain cancer. It is not known when, or whether, either will be able to return to the Capitol.

An early test could come next month, when health care legislation reaches the Senate floor. Democrats have been seeking agreement on a bipartisan plan with a handful of Republicans. But if those talks falter, they and the White House may end up in a situation where 60 votes would be needed to advance one of the administration's highest priorities.


In the months since Election Day, both Franken and Coleman kept low profiles. After Coleman's term expired in January, he took a job as a consultant and strategic adviser to the Republican Jewish Coalition, a group that advocates in Washington on Jewish issues.

Steps to ensure a quick transition
Franken has taken some steps to ensure a quick transition, appointing a staff in waiting that includes communications staffers, a chief of staff and a state director. He said Tuesday he had been told his assignments would include the Judiciary Committee, a role that would put him immediately in the thick of confirmation hearings over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Franken told her Tuesday he's "ready to get started immediately." The Democrat said Franken is expected to immediately dive into the health care debate.

"This victory was hard earned for Al Franken and his family," she said. "Franni Franken had a suitcase packed, ready to go to Washington at a moment's notice, like you do when you're waiting to have a baby. She had a toothbrush, clothes, all of that, ready to go."


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31667236/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Obama's disapproval rating climbs steeply


Share/Save/Bookmark







Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 31% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That matches the lowest level yet recorded (see trends).

Over the past two weeks, the Presidential Approval Index has stayed in a narrow range between +2 and -2. Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 60% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove.

Fifty percent (50%) favor passage of the health care reform proposal being crafted by Obama and Congressional Democrats. Forty-five percent (45%) are opposed.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

Overall, 54% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-six percent (46%) disapprove. Eighteen percent (18%) say that Congress is doing a good or an excellent job.

In Massachusetts, the 2010 Governor’s race is currently a toss-up.

As the Fourth of July approaches, 82% of American adults would rather live in the USA rather than anywhere else in the world. Most Americans (54%) believe the United States is truly a nation of liberty and justice for all.

The Daily Prediction Challenge gives you the chance to predict the results of upcoming polls.

Just 26% of Massachusetts voters rate that state’s health care reform a success while 37% say it’s been a failure. Only 10% say it’s improved the quality of health care.

Forty-two percent (42%) say that Obama’s response to the situation in Iran has been about right while 40% believe he should be more aggressive. Forty-nine percent (49%) say there’s no way to know who really won that country’s disputed election and another 20% are not sure.

For more Presidential barometers, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights.

When comparing Job Approval data from different firms, it’s important to keep in mind that polls of likely voters and polls of all adults will typically and consistently yield different results. In the case of President Obama, polls by all firms measuring all adults typically show significantly higher approval ratings than polls of likely voters. Polls of registered voters typically fall in the middle. Other factors are also important to consider when comparing Job Approval ratings from different polling firms.

If you’d like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott’s favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

A Fordham University professor has rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past four years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 40.1% Democrats, 33.1% Republicans , and 26.7% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.

Obama+Chavez+Castro+Hillary=?


Share/Save/Bookmark

Enemy of my enemy is my ... enemy?

The crisis in Honduras has once again made political bedfellows out of President Obama and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as each leader roundly condemned the expulsion of Honduras President Manuel Zelaya in the region's first successful post-Cold War coup.

Admittedly, Obama's response ("I am deeply concerned") had a bit less flair than Chavez's ("I have put the armed forces of Venezuela on alert").

But considering the fiery rhetoric that has marked Venezuela's past relationship with the United States (and vice versa) any kind of agreement between the two nations on a regional political crisis is remarkable.

Of course, the Obama administration has been working to close the gap with Caracas for some time now, extending a literal open hand to the Venezuelan President in April and, last week, announcing plans to restore full diplomatic relations with Venezuela after nearly a year.

Chavez, in return, has eased off on the sulfurous talk, inviting Obama to join his book club and offering to hop a plane to DC at the drop of an evite.

Chavez has not, however, eased up on his hegemonic efforts in Latin America -- case in point, Honduras, whose president, Manuel Zelaya, has been attracted by Venezuela's oil wealth and casual attitude toward term limits.

Little wonder that Chavez, then, would vow to do "whatever it takes" to defend his ally. But what of the U.S. response?

After all, it wasn't so long ago that the U.S. responded to a coup of a certain southern neighbor by saying, in effect, "Your problem," with a subtext of "Good riddance."

This time, the White House denounced the coup in Honduras as illegal and "a terrible precedent." In response, Honduras's interim president, Roberto Micheletti said that "nobody, not Barack Obama and much less Hugo Chavez, has any right to threaten this country."

Such plague-on-both-your-houses imagery has some analysts warning that Obama has picked the wrong horse in Honduras. The Heritage Foundation's Ray Walser writes that while Obama might wish to avoid the public diplomacy mess that followed U.S. support for the failed 2002 coup in Venezuela, he should nevertheless support Micheletti over Zelaya.

"Messy as it is, the Obama Administration should recognize the new interim government, as constitutional order has been preserved," Walser writes. "The U.S. can ill afford to open the door to a counter-intervention by Hugo Chavez, one that would deliver Honduras into the Chavez brand of 'democracy.'"

But other analysts I spoke with argued just the opposite, saying that by joining Chavez in condemning the coup as anti-democratic Obama has cut the rhetorical legs out from under the Venezuelan.

"It sends out a powerful message that the U.S. is siding with democracy -- even in a case when they might not neccessarily like the guy," said Kevin Casas-Zamora, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution whose essay on the crisis appears at Foreign Policy.

"It's not really about mending fences with Chavez," Casas-Zamora told me. "It takes away a rhetorical weapon ... just to make the point that the US reaction to a military coup in Latin America will not be the same reaction that the Bush administration had when the coup happened in Venezuela in 2002."

Stephen Haber, a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, sent me an e-mail with a similar conclusion.

"The U.S. government may not care very much for Manuel Zelaya, but no U.S. government that wishes to have good will in Latin America can afford not to condemn a military coup that every other government in the region has condemned," he said. "Doing anything else simply plays into the hands of demagogues like Chavez, who seek to turn every event in the region into an opportunity to portray the U.S. as the origin of all the region's problems."

The Obama administration has walked that line pretty well so far, Haber said. But the bleak reality is that there isn't a great deal else the White House can do, he said.

"My own view is that this is an internal Honduran affair. Just as coming out against the coup is important for all democratic governments in the region, respecting Honduran sovereignty is equally important."

Gee, why does that sound familiar?

Weigh in: Should the U.S. take sides in the Honduran coup? Whose side? And how?

Monday, June 29, 2009

Congress to OK funds to jail illegals


Share/Save/Bookmark



Senate panel OKs funds for jailing illegal immigrants
Compensation for state and local governments may be continued, despite Obama's call to end such payments. California could receive less money than last year.

By Richard Simon
10:41 PM PDT, June 25, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Congress appeared poised Thursday to continue compensating state and local governments for incarcerating illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, ignoring President Obama's call to eliminate such payments.

That would spare strapped California from another hit on its budget.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted to provide $228 million nationwide next year, acting a week after the House voted to allocate $400 million, the same as this year.

Once the full Senate acts, negotiators from both chambers will meet to reconcile their differences.

California, which receives about 40% of the money, still could end up with less than it received this year.


"That's better than nothing," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

The funds are included in the annual bill funding the Justice and Commerce departments and science programs.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will try to persuade congressional negotiators to provide the full $400 million, said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the California Department of Finance.

But Palmer said the governor still wanted to turn over some of the 19,000 illegal immigrants in state prisons to federal authorities for deportation to help close the state's budget gap.

California receives only a fraction of the nearly $1 billion it expects to spend imprisoning illegal immigrants this year. Los Angeles County alone spends about $100 million.

Officials from border states argue that taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of Washington's failure to control the border.

richard.simon@latimes.com

Ahmadinejad warns Obama:'You will regret, be ashamed'


Share/Save/Bookmark

Ahmadinejad swings back at US president


Ahmadinejad in fresh attack on Obama shuts door on multilateral nuclear diplomacy
June 28, 2009, 3:58 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad struck back Saturday, June 27, barely 24 hours after US president Barack Obama poured scorn on him and warned that "direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran" would be "affected by the events of the last several weeks."

Clearly the Iranian president will not let Obama have the last word in their slanging match. This time he included Europe in his verbal offensive.

The Iranian president repeated his allegation that Obama and leaders of European countries had "insulted the Iranian nations with interference in internal matters" and went on to threaten: From now on we will push to a court of justice in every international meeting. This time the reply by the Iranian nation will be decisive and harsh and make you regret and be ashamed."

This is taken by DEBKAfile's sources as a hostile rejoinder to Obama's statement Friday, June 26, alongside German chancellor Angela Merkel, that direct dialogue would be delayed, but the talks "compered by the P5-plus-1 group on Iran's nuclear program would likely continue." The world, said the US president, needs to recognize that the prospect of Iran with nuclear weapons was a "big problem."

Tehran appears to be preparing to downgrade its ties - not only with the UK - but with other European states such as France and Germany for criticizing the June 12 election - which reelected Ahmadinejad by a wide margin - after both Obama and Merkel condemned the regime's crackdown on the protest movement as "outrageous."

Both the Guardian Council and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini have rejected allegation of voter fraud. A senior Iranian cleric Ahmad Khatami, at a Friday sermon in Tehran, accused Iranian demonstrators of waging war against God, a crime punishable by death.

The official death toll from post-election violence is 17, but witnesses say it is much higher.

Iran's crackdown has included heavy restrictions on reporting and the arrest of university professors, journalists and ordinary citizens. The street rallies against the regime subsided towards the end of the week.

Supreme Court reverses Sotomayor


Share/Save/Bookmark


michaelsavage.com











Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Case

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance.

In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.

"The city's action in discarding the tests violated (federal law)," the Supreme Court majority wrote Monday, adding that the city's "race-based rejection of the test results" could not be justified.

The city argued its action was prompted by concern that disgruntled black firefighters would sue. But that reasoning didn't hold sway with the court's majority.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance of race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," the court ruled.

This decision, like many of the close cases before the high court, divided along its familiar ideological lines. Kennedy was joined by the four conservatives on the court in issuing the majority decision.

The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."

The firefighters are expected to hold a press conference Monday afternoon in New Haven.

The 20 firefighters — 19 white and one Hispanic — who were denied promotions claimed city officials discriminated against them because they were more concerned about potential complaints of Civil Rights Act violations than their performance on advancement exams. The white firefighters argued discrimination is discrimination no matter what color it takes, and therefore, the city did violate the Civil Rights Act in not promoting them.

Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who earlier ruled that New Haven officials acted properly.

The reversal could be used as ammunition by some senators who don't want to see Sotomayor confirmed. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill swiftly issued statements on the ruling Monday and scheduled media appearances to discuss it.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, applauded the decision and suggested trouble ahead for Sotomayor.

"The Supreme Court today reminded all courts and governments that equal justice under the law means refusing to tip the scale in favor of one race over another," he said in a written statement. "The Senate Judiciary Committee should carefully examine Judge Sotomayor’s role in the Second Circuit’s opinion on this case. Discrimination and racial preferences have no place in our courts, let alone on the highest court in the land.”

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said "it would be wrong" to use the decision to criticize Sotomayor and that her panel's decision exhibited "judicial restraint."

He said the Supreme Court's ruling is "likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families."

"This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces," Leahy said in a statement.

Sotomayor's views on race have been the focal point of criticism as she seeks a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. She has also been scrutinized for her statement outside the court that a "wise, Latina woman" would come to better conclusions more often than a white man.

Sotomayor's confirmation hearing is currently scheduled to begin on July 13. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told "FOX News Sunday" that her nomination must have a full airing before a vote, and that could mean delaying the hearing scheduled by Democratic senators, a scenario that is unlikely to happen.

"Just a day or so ago, we discovered that there are 300 boxes of additional material that has just been discovered from her time working with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund," McConnell said. "The committee needs to have access to that material and time to work through it ... so we know all the facts before we vote on a person who's up for a lifetime job."

If confirmed, Sotomayor will replace Justice David Souter, whose retirement coincides with the end of the court's session on Monday. In April's oral argument of the firefighter case, Souter described it as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Souter joined the minority in Monday's decision.

Souter said he'd retire when the court rises for the summer recess. He was named to the court in 1990.

As Souter retires to New Hampshire, four justices are heading to Europe for summer teaching jobs, including in Austria, Ireland and Italy.

FOX News' Lee Ross and Caroline Shively and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Obama a hypocrite on health care?


Share/Save/Bookmark


Obama a hypocrite on health care? (MichaelSavage.com)

Link to the story




EXCLUSIVE: President Obama Defends Right to Choose Best Care
In ABC News Health Care Forum, President Answers Questions About Reform
By JAKE TAPPER and KAREN TRAVERS
June 24, 2009—


President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people -- like the president himself -- wouldn't face.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News' special on health care reform, "Questions for the President: Prescription for America," anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it's not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn't seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he's proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if "it's my family member, if it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.

"There's a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, that every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier," he said.

Gibson interjected that often patients don't know what will work until they get every test they can.

"Oftentimes we know what makes sense and what doesn't," the president responded, making a push for evidence-based medicine.

Gibson asked the president if it doesn't make sense to decide what the limitations will be on options in any health care reform proposal before voting on it.

"That's what people are afraid of," Gibson said.

The president said he understood the American people "know they're living with the devil, but the devil they know instead of the devil they don't."


Obama: GOP Senators Are Wrong on Public Option
On the "Nightline" edition of the health care forum, Gibson read the president a letter from Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee expressing concern about the creation of a government-run health care plan.

"At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long-term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice," the senators wrote.

"The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy."

"They're wrong," the president said, arguing that in a Health Insurance Exchange, the public plan would be "one option among multiple options."

The concern, Gibson articulated, is that such a plan wouldn't be offered on a level playing field.

The president rebuffed that, arguing that "we can set up a public option where they're collecting premiums just like any private insurer and doctors can collect rates," but because the public plan will have lower administrative costs "we can keep them [private insurance companies] honest."

Obama said he didn't understand those advocates of the free market who constantly say the private sector can do things better and are yet worried about this plan.

"If that's the case, no one will choose the public option," the president said. He also suggested, however, that the private sector might not necessarily be better, point out that users of Medicare and Veterans Administration hospitals constantly rate "pretty high satisfaction."



Views on Government-Funded Health Insurance
According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 62 percent of Americans support creating a government-funded entity to offer health insurance to those who don't get it elsewhere. But if that caused many private insurers to go out of business because they couldn't compete, support plummets to 37 percent.
The White House has shown some flexibility about a government-run plan. In a meeting with a bipartisan group of governors today, the possibility was raised of states offering public plans of their own instead of just one federally administered plan, according to a source with knowledge of the meeting. And White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told Democratic senators Tuesday night that the president was open to "alternatives" to the public plan.

Sawyer asked Ron Williams, the CEO of Aetna Insurance, "Is the president right that you need to be kept honest?"

Williams said he disagreed with the notion of a public plan.

"It's difficult to compete against a player who's also the person refereeing the game," Williams said. He proposed working to "solve the problem as opposed to introduce a new competitor who has rule-making ability."

Gibson pointed out that the president constantly makes the argument that if you like your insurance you won't have to change it. And yet from the audience, John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a health care policy research and management consulting firm, estimated that up to 70 percent of those with private insurance would end up on the public plan.

"There are a whole series of ways that we could design this," the president said, arguing that employers would be given a "disincentive" to shift their employees to the public plan.

Another neurologist, Dr. John Corboy of the University of Colorado Health Science Center, asked the president, "What can you do to convince the American public that there actually are limits to what we can pay for with our American health care system and if there are going to be limits, who's going to design the system and who's going to enforce the rules for a system like that?"

Obama, however, didn't directly answer the question.

"If we are smart, we should be able to design a system in which people still have choices of doctors and choices of plans that make sure that necessary treatment is provided but we don't have a huge amount of waste in the system," he said.

He said he had "great confidence" that physicians "are going to always want to do right thing" if they have the right information and a payment structure that focuses on evidence and results and not tests and referrals.

"We should change those incentive structures," the president said. "Our job this summer and this fall," he said, is to "identify the best ways to achieve the best possible care."

The president cited the Mayo Clinic as an example of a medical center where experts had figured out the most effective treatments and eliminated waste and unnecessary procedures.

Sawyer said that e-mails ABC News had received argued that "the Mayo Clinic is exactly the point," indicating that private companies are solving this problem, and raising the question as to why the government needs to get involved.

"And, unfortunately, government, whether you like it or not, is going to already be involved," Obama said, citing Medicare and Medicaid.

One questioner -- Marisa Milton, vice president of health care policy for the HR Policy Association, a public policy advocate for human resource executives -- said that "other industrialized nations provide coverage for all their residents" with "high quality care" without spending more money.

"A lot of those countries employ a different system than we do," the president said. "Almost all of them have what would be considered a single-payer system in which the government operates what is essentially a Medicare for all."

The president said he didn't think it wise to attempt to "completely change our system root and branch" since health care is one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It "would be hugely disruptive," he said, arguing that citizens would be forced to change their doctors and insurance plans "in a way I'm not prepared to go."

End-of-life issues were raised as well; right now it is estimated that nearly 30 percent of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget is spent on patients in their final year of life.

Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

"Outside the medical criteria," Sturm asked, "is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit ... and quality of life?"

"I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit," Obama said. "That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.

"We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end of life," he said. "Ultimately that's going to be between physicians and patients."



Who Will Pay for All of This?
"How and who will pay for national health care system," asked Christopher Bean, who said he has good insurance with his job at Allint Tech Systems and worries about government interference.

"We will have some up-front costs," the president acknowledged. "And the estimates ... have been anywhere from a trillion to $2 trillion. But what I have said is whatever it is we do, we pay for."

The president criticized the Congressional Budget Office, which recently analyzed the cost of two Democratic Senate draft bills as costing between $1 and $1.6 trillion.

The president said the CBO "doesn't count all of the savings that may come from prevention, may come from eliminating all of the paperwork and bureaucracy because we have put forward health IT. It doesn't come from the evidence-based care and changes in reimbursement ... they're not willing to credit us with those savings. They say, 'That may be nice, that may save a lot of money, but we can't be certain.'

"We spend $177 billion over 10 years in providing subsidies for insurers," the president said as an example of the latter.

About a third of the costs will come from new revenue," the president said, pushing his proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year through a change in the itemized deduction in the tax code.

Gail Wilensky, a senior fellow at Project HOPE who ran Medicare during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, pushed the president for more specifics on how he expects to pay for the plan.

"This is not an easy problem," the president acknowledged. "And it's especially not an easy problem when the economy is going through a difficult phase."

But the president suggested the stars were aligning for reform, citing efforts being made such as the pharmaceutical industry's recent pledge to help defray the costs of prescription drugs for seniors, and argued that now was the time for reform.

"We have to have the courage and the willingness to cooperate and compromise in order to make this happen," the president said. "And if we do, it's not going to be a completely smooth ride, there's going to be times over the next several months where we think health care is dead, it's not going to happen but if we keep our eye on the prize ... then I'm absolutely convinced that we can get it done this time."

Earlier in the day at the White House, Obama told a bipartisan group of governors he wants them to be kept in the loop as health care reform legislation develops on Capitol Hill.

"We're committed to working with them in the weeks and months to come to make sure that when we get health reform done it is in partnership with the states, where the rubber so often hits the road," the president told reporters.

But Obama acknowledged the thorny issues they're all facing -- including whether there should be a government-run public plan, who will pay for it, and how to achieve universal coverage.

"There's no perfect unanimity across the table in terms of every single aspect of reform," the president said.

The biggest bone of contention may be how to pay for reform.

"Anything that we do on health care we have to have a long-term plan to pay the bills," said South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, a Republican, who attended the meeting.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Diane Sawyer that aired today on "Good Morning America," Obama indicated that there was a breaking point in the balance sheets where he would say that the cost of reforming the system is too great for the federal government to handle, but he did not put a price tag on it.

"I think that if any reform that we get is not driving down costs in a serious way ... if people say, 'We're just going to add more people onto a hugely inefficient system,' then I will say no. Because -- we can't afford it," he said.



Taxing Health Care Benefits?
One option being considered on Capitol Hill is taxing health care benefits, which are currently tax exempt.

Today, a key Democratic senator indicated that may be inevitable.

"It is hard for me to see how you have a package that is paid for that doesn't include reducing the tax subsidy for health care," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, who is regarded among Democrats as something of a deficit hawk.

Conrad sees the potential for a significant source of revenue.

"Tax subsidies for health care. They're huge. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year," he said.

Obama said he opposes that approach, instead wanting to pay for the bill partly by reducing the tax deductions wealthier people can take when donating to charity.

"We would raise enough money to actually make sure this thing is paid for," Obama said in the ABC interview. "Now members of Congress may have other ideas about how best to do this. I'm happy to listen to them."

Conrad said that limiting deductions is "still on the table" in the committee's discussions.

While the details are hammered out on Capitol Hill, there is a legislative push and pull and shifting positions at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

As a candidate, then-Sen. Obama bashed his rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, for proposing that Americans be mandated to have health insurance.

"She'd have the government force you to buy health insurance," he said Feb. 23, 2008. "I disagree with that approach. I believe that the reason Americans don't have health care isn't because no one's forced them to buy it, it's because no one's made it affordable."

But now the president is acknowledging that his thinking on the issue has "evolved" and he could support a law mandating that individuals purchase health care coverage, with fines for those who do not.

Obama stressed that there must be some kind of waiver for those who are simply unable to afford it.

"People have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we've got to have healthier people not opt out of the system," the president told ABC News.

Earlier this month in a letter to congressional leaders working on the reform legislation, Obama said he would consider supporting such a measure, if it has room for exemptions for small businesses and individuals who cannot afford the premiums.


Obama's Approval Ratings on Health Care Slip
With the health care debate ramping up, with Republicans assailing Democrats for the high price tag and a public option plan, Obama's ratings on the subject slipped slightly in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Only 53 percent of Americans approve of Obama's handling of health care while 39 percent disapprove of it, up from 29 percent who disapproved in April, according to the poll.

Concluding the health care forum, Obama expressed optimism that reform is possible.

"If the American people get behind this, this is going to happen," the president said.

The adolescent angst of Barack Obama


Share/Save/Bookmark







The adolescent angst of Barack Obama
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
06/23/09 7:22 PM EDT


There is a tendency for newly installed presidents, like adolescents suddenly liberated from adult supervision, to do the exact opposite of what their predecessors did. Presidents of both parties indulge in this behavior, though Democrats who campaign as candidates of hope and change are more likely to do so.

Some of this is a legitimate response to the political process: Voters tend to elect presidents who seem to possess qualities and views they thought lacking in their predecessors. But some of it, and especially in the case of Barack Obama, seems to come from an adolescentlike confidence that everything done by those who came before is (insert your own generation’s expletive here).

We have seen this spectacularly in the dozen days since the June 12 Iranian election. Back in July 2007, Obama said that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and other tyrants without preconditions. Grown-up squares like George W. Bush wouldn’t talk to these guys, so as the avatar of the generation of hope and change, Obama would. Obama figured he was cool enough to get the mullahs to agree to renounce nuclear weapons and all that hate stuff.

Obama has held to this ever since. Before June 12 he said he would give the Iranian leaders till the end of the year to be enchanted. When millions of Iranians started demonstrating in the streets, denouncing the obvious election fraud and in some cases calling for an end to the regime, his initial responses verged on stony indifference.

He expressed “deep concern” but said he didn’t want to “meddle.” He issued a statement on June 20 calling on the Iranian government “to stop all violent and unjust actions.” Finally, in a hastily called news conference Tuesday he for the first time uttered the verb “condemn” and said he was moved by the video of YouTube martyr Neda Soltan being shot down by the mullahs’ gunmen.

But he clearly hasn’t abandoned his policy of seeking the good opinion of tyrants. He didn’t even rescind the State Department’s invitations of Iranian diplomats to attend U.S. embassy Fourth of July celebrations (halal hot dogs, anyone?). If Bush refused to entertain the emissaries of the Iranian theocrats, it must be right to do the opposite. But even anonymous State Department officials are saying that the chances are dismal for fruitful negotiations with Ahmedinejad or the tyrant Obama insists on calling “the supreme leader” by Obama’s deadline —something that seemed obvious to me and many others well before June 12. A regime of tyrants dedicated to hatred of America, Britain and Israel is not going to be persuaded to abandon a central goal by even the most dazzling display of adolescent charm.

The other example of adolescent rejection of a policy has come on missile defense. Back in the 1970s and 1980s Democratic politicians opposed missile defense on the grounds — mistaken in my view, but arguable at the time — that it would destabilize the balance of nuclear terror between the United States and the Soviet Union. Democrats have clung to that position even after the fall of the Soviet Union and Obama, as a senator and presidential candidate, joined them, routinely expressing doubts that missile defense could ever work.

As president, he has singled out missile defense for cuts, even in the face of missile launches by North Korea and evidence of continuing missile development by Iran. Bush abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and pushed ahead on missile defense, so it must be bad even if there’s no U.S.-Soviet balance of terror to destabilize any more.

Fortunately there has been some adult supervision: Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in anticipation of a North Korean launch, has activated missile defense operations in Hawaii.

Obama has not taken an adolescent approach across the board. Despite the yearning of many Democrats for American defeat in Iraq and withdrawal from Afghanistan, he has pushed for something like victory in those theaters.

But he is persistent in seeking negotiations with the mullahs and obviously disinclined to increase the small chance of the far more promising outcome of regime change. Plus, Obama shows a continued distaste for missile defense when tyrants are aiming missiles at us and our friends.

These moves show an adolescent determination to renounce the policies of those who came before, no matter what. As parents know, it takes time for an adolescent to grow up.

NYC spends at least $36,000/year to house homeless - medical - legal


Share/Save/Bookmark


Kirsten Luce for The New York Times
Tina Rodriguez, 23, has been in a shelter with her son since September. The number of families in city shelters has increased in recent years.

City Seeks New Powers in Its Stalled Fight Against Homelessness

In June 2004, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made a lofty promise to address one of the city’s most intractable problems: he would reduce the homeless population of 38,000 by two-thirds in five years.

Today, with the total homeless population down only slightly, and with more families in shelters than five years ago, the administration is seeking state approval for a new set of policies designed to move families out more quickly, applying the same market-driven, incentive-based philosophy to homeless shelters that it has used in schools and antipoverty programs.

Under the new rules, nonprofit agencies that provide shelter beds under contract with the city would be paid more than the usual rate, which is roughly $100 a day, for each family that arrives. But after six months, if the agency has not been able to get the family into stable housing, the city would begin paying it less than the standard rate.

And city officials are trying to toughen rules and consequences for homeless families, forcing them to follow a strict code of conduct or risk being ejected from the shelter.

“The thing that we have been trying to introduce is a greater expectation of accountability, both by the providers and by the clients themselves,” Linda I. Gibbs, the deputy mayor for health and human services, said in an interview. “We want them to overcome homelessness more quickly. We believe they are in shelter far longer than they need to be.”

Shelter providers say that they are doing the best they can, and that the proposed payment structure could achieve the opposite of its intended result, especially since the city just imposed a 4 percent budget cut as part of reductions in virtually every city agency.

Christy Parque, the executive director of Homeless Services United, a coalition of more than 60 providers, said that further reductions “could result in an increased length of stay in shelter, because there will be fewer staff and resources to help clients address their problems and return to the community quickly.”

Advocates for the homeless called the city’s plans mean-spirited, and warned that they would threaten the safety of families, especially children, forced to leave the shelter with no place to go.

“It’s an extraordinary change in what has been city policy for nearly three decades,” said Steven Banks, the attorney in chief of the Legal Aid Society. “It’s striking that the current city administration and the current state administration would be returning to these shelter-termination regulations, which are really a relic of another, harsher era.”

The attempt to evict families from shelters began under Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, an effort that was blocked by the courts. The Bloomberg administration has been no more successful. In 2002, the city pursued a policy that would allow it to eject families it deemed uncooperative, but backed down and agreed to reserve the right to eject single adults, but not families.

Ms. Gibbs said that an ejection could result from a homeless family “refusing to look for housing, refusing to seek employment, anything that is an unreasonable refusal to participate in the steps they need to take to overcome their homelessness.”

“The families need to understand that they can’t just thumb their nose at the rules and have no consequences,” she said.

One thing is indisputable: While the population of homeless single adults has gone down significantly in the last five years, the number of families sleeping in shelters is near an all-time high. According to the Web site for the Department of Homeless Services, there were 34,774 people in shelters last week, including 9,361 families — often single mothers with children.

About 150 organizations that hold contracts with the city operate most of the homeless shelters. (The city runs a small handful of its own shelters.)

The cost of providing shelter has risen. The city estimates that it costs roughly $36,000 a year to house a homeless family, up from $31,656 in 2004. The average stay in a shelter is about nine months.

City officials have privately expressed frustration at their inability to get a handle on the problem, despite efforts to expand homelessness prevention and introduce rental subsidy programs.

The new policies reflect the administration’s determination to rid the system of families who stay in shelters for long stretches, sometimes rejecting apartments offered to them, while giving the shelter providers an incentive to get them out.

Under the new rules, which would take effect in January, the city would pay the agencies a 10 percent premium for the first six months that it houses a family. During that time, the agency is expected to push the family toward economic independence and permanent housing. But if the family stayed longer, the agencies would be paid 20 percent less than the standard rate.

But advocates for the homeless questioned the city’s ability to avoid bureaucratic mistakes that could result in a family being wrongly ejected.

In May, a state-mandated program to charge rent to the working homeless was quickly suspended after it began with a dizzying series of errors from both state and city agencies. (City officials say the program is being revamped.)

State approval is required to make changes to social service policies. Anthony Farmer, a spokesman for the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, said the state commissioner was considering the proposals.

Robert V. Hess, the city’s commissioner of homeless services, said that the new policies would be put in place after a long rollout, staff training and orientation, and that ejections would occur only after a thorough review.

“At the end of the day, we’re not putting policies in place that are intended, or will result in, people just arbitrarily having their shelter rights terminated,” Mr. Hess said. “That’s not what we’re about.”

Bonnie Stone, the executive director of Women in Need, a shelter for women and children, praised the city for its ability to house an ever-increasing number of people who needed help.

But the notion of ejecting a family, she said, made her uneasy.

“I believe that you only do that under huge, huge safety and due process, and not for small things,” she said, pausing. “I think it is not what we do.”

At the moment, shelter residents who resist following rules are frequently subject to another form of punishment: transfer to a shelter seen as less desirable.

Tina Rodriguez, a pink-haired 23-year-old with a silver stud in her lip, said she and her toddler son, Damonie, had been living in a shelter in Hell’s Kitchen since September, and lately workers there had threatened that if she did not move out soon, she would be transferred to a so-called Next Step shelter. The city says such shelters offer more intensive case management, but among families, they are known for stricter rules and more crowded conditions.

Still, when Ms. Rodriguez was recently offered a studio apartment in Harlem, she rejected it. “I was scared to tell my worker that I didn’t want it,” she said, standing outside the Hell’s Kitchen shelter as Damonie slept in a stroller. “But there was no living room. I can’t live with a 2-year-old in an apartment like that. They’re trying to force me into somewhere that I’m not comfortable.”

Amanda Hayes, 24, said she entered the shelter system with her toddler, Xavier, in April after growing fed up with her living arrangements in the Bronx: sharing a one-bedroom apartment with her mother, adult brother and Xavier.

She needs no additional pressure from shelter workers to persuade her to move out, she said.

“I’ve been looking for work every day,” Ms. Hayes said. “I don’t need to be threatened about it at every turn.”

Saturday, June 20, 2009

11-Year-Old Christian Boy Shot in the Head by the Taliban...


Share/Save/Bookmark







June 14, 2009
Taliban shoots 11 year-old Christian boy in head

www.jihadwatch.org


Meanwhile, the Pakistani embassy in D.C. considers such stories "exaggerated." "Pakistan: Christians ready to die for their faith," from Spero News, June 14:

An 11-year-old boy was shot in the head while attending church near Karachi. Christians live in dread of the Taliban, which is demanding conversion to Islam or death.

‘I am sorry I could not speak to you then because we were just about to begin the funeral service for Irfan, an 11 year-old boy who was shot in the head. He passed away yesterday. ‘

That was the opening line of the e-mail from Fr Mario Rodriguez, National Director for the Pontifical Mission Societies in Pakistan. Several hours later, Fr Mario was able to give a few more details as we spoke over the phone.

‘Irfan was shot in the head a few days ago when the Taliban attacked the church in Tiasar Town near Karachi, where 300 of the 700 local Christian families are Catholic. He had massive brain injuries and was on life-support when I visited him in the hospital on Friday. He died on Monday and was buried today, Tuesday. His parents are devastated and his mother hasn’t eaten or drunk since the incident.’...

Christian Brutally Clubbed to Death for Drinking Tea at 'Muslim-Only' Establishment...


Share/Save/Bookmark


thereligionofpeace.com







Christian Murdered for Drinking Tea from a Muslim Cup
Contact: Jeremy Sewall, Advocacy Director, International Christian Concern, 800-422-5441

WASHINGTON, June 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- International Christian Concern (www.persecution.org) has learned that radical Muslims running a tea stall beat a Christian man to death for using a cup designated for Muslims on May 9. The young man, Ishtiaq Masih, had ordered tea at a roadside stall in Machharkay village, Punjab, Pakistan, after his bus made a rest stop.

When Ishtiaq went to pay for his tea, the owner noticed that he was wearing a necklace with a cross and grabbed him, calling for his employees to bring anything available to beat him for violating a sign posted on the stall warning non-Muslims to declare their religion before being served. Ishtiaq had not noticed the warning sign before ordering his tea.

The owner and 14 of his employees beat Ishtiaq with stones, iron rods and clubs, and stabbed him multiple times with kitchen knives as Ishtiaq pleaded for mercy.

The other bus passengers and other passers-by finally intervened and took Ishtiaq to the Rural Health Center in the village. The doctor who took Ishtiaq's case told ICC that Ishtiaq had died due to excessive internal and external bleeding, a fractured skull, and brain injuries.

Makah Tea Stall is located on the Sukheki-Lahore highway and is owned by Mubarak Ali, a 42-year-old radical Muslim. ICC's correspondent visited the tea stall and observed that a large red warning sign with a death's head symbol was posted which read, "All non-Muslims should introduce their faith prior to ordering tea. This tea stall serves Muslims only." The warning also threatened anyone who violated the rule with "dire consequences."

A neighboring shopkeeper told ICC on condition of anonymity that all Ali's employees are former students of radical Muslim madrassas (seminaries).

Ishtiaq's family said that they immediately reported the incident to the police and filed a case against Ali. However, the murderers are still freely operating the tea stall.

When ICC asked the Pindi Bhatian Saddar police station about the murder, the police chief said that investigations were underway and they are treating it as a faith-based murder by biased Muslims. When asked about Ali's warning sign, police chief Muhammad Iftikhar Bajwa claimed that he could not take it down. However, the constitution of Pakistan explicitly prohibits such discrimination.

The public is encouraged to call the Pakistani embassy of their country to protest this heinous crime?

Pakistan Embassies:

USA: (202) 243-6500, info@embassyofpakistanusa.org
Canada: (613) 238-7881, parepottawa@rogers.com
UK: 0870-005-6967, hoc@phclondon.org

Children Purchased by the Taliban for Suicide Bombings...


Share/Save/Bookmark


Kidnapped children being used for suicide bombing in Pakistan -- Minister
Society 6/15/2009 3:03:00 PM

ISLAMABAD, June 15 (KUNA) -- A Pakistani Federal Minister Monday said that militants were using kidnapped children as suicide bombers across the country.
Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik talking to newsmen here said that the militants were buying innocent children for few hundred thousand rupees and using them to carry out suicide attacks.
He further said that the militants are getting weapons and ammunition from Afghanistan, adding that the government of Pakistan has taken up the matter with Afghan President Hamid Karazai.
Also, the minister said, the Chinese government will provide security gadgets worth USD 280 million to Pakistan for capacity building of law enforcement agencies.
He said the Chinese government made this commitment during his recent visit to China, adding that the gadgets include vehicle scanners, mobile scanners and other equipment. (end) amn.rk KUNA 151503 Jun 09NNNN

Woman Strangled by Brother in Front of Family (for Honor)...


Share/Save/Bookmark





Man kills sister in the name of ‘honour’
Staff Report

LAHORE: A man from Sabzazar has been arrested for allegedly killing his sister in yet another honour killing case on Thursday.

According to police, Iqbal strangled his 22-year-old sister Adeeba – in the presence of family members – for having illicit relations with a boy from their neighbourhood. The alleged murderer later asked his family members not to disclose the incident. The victim’s family planned to bury her in their native city of Khoshab, but locals informed the police and Iqbal was arrested. Police have recovered the body and shifted it to the city morgue for autopsy. Police said the girl was strangled to death with a piece of cloth, which had also been confiscated as evidence. A first information report (FIR) has been registered against Iqbal and investigations are underway.

Islamists Enter Afghan School, Cut Off Student's Head...


Share/Save/Bookmark


thereligionofpeace.com





Militants behead Afghan university student
www.chinaview.cn 2009-06-19 21:17:26 Print

KABUL, June 19 (Xinhua) -- Several armed militants entered the compound of Kandahar University in south Afghanistan Friday and after beheading a student took away another.

"The gruesome incident occurred at 11:00 a.m. local time when several unknown armed militants entered the compound while students were enjoying weekly holiday (Friday) in the garden of university and horribly beheaded Mushtaq Ahmad and took away another," Ahmad Shah a student of the university told Xinhua.

The terrified Shah added that Mushtaq was a student of grade fourth of medical faculty of Kandahar university.

This is the first time that militants attack higher educational institutions in the country.

Police officials at the site did not put finger at any particular groups, saying the enemies of peace a term used against Taliban militants are behind such barbaric acts.

Taliban fighters who have vowed to intensify activities this year in Afghanistan have not made comment so far.

Obama nominee failed to file taxes 2 years


Share/Save/Bookmark






Pick for Protocol Post Corrects Failure to File Taxes in 2 Years
By ALISON LEIGH COWAN
Published: June 18, 2009


President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November.

The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.

Ms. Marshall, who was the social secretary in the Clinton White House, notified the Obama administration about the late filings before she was nominated on May 14. She has since provided written answers to questions about the matter from Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will hold a hearing on the appointment next Wednesday. The post requires Senate confirmation.

Tax issues have bedeviled several high-level Obama appointees and cost the administration at least two of its picks.

Ms. Marshall may fare better because, after ultimately filing the 2005 and 2006 federal and local paperwork, she was entitled to $37,259 in refunds, according to data she provided to Mr. Lugar.

The nominee and her husband, Dr. Robert Marshall, a Washington cardiologist, did not return calls seeking comment, nor did a White House spokesman.

Besides the president’s support, Ms. Marshall appears to enjoy the strong endorsement of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, having worked on their campaigns.

An aide to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said, “In the end, only two American taxpayers were adversely impacted by this inadvertent lapse.”

In her written answers and in accounts she gave to government officials, Ms. Marshall has said the errors were unintentional. She has said that her husband failed to recognize that the couple’s accountant had included the tax returns for 2005 in a binder he provided with copies of the returns, and that the actual paperwork was never mailed.

The couple learned something was awry, Ms. Marshall has said, when the Internal Revenue Service notified them last fall that their 2006 return had never arrived. She wrote that an agent “advised us that there were a large number of tax returns misplaced by the D.C. post office for the 2006 tax year.”

That call led the couple to the discovery that the authorities had no record of their returns for 2005 and 2006. No late fees or penalties were assessed when they later submitted the returns.

The protocol chief customarily helps plan events for visiting leaders and helps oversee protocol matters for the president and vice president abroad.

Mark Landler contributed reporting, and Alain Delaquérière contributed research.

Obama promises immigration 'reform' to Hispanics


Share/Save/Bookmark


michaelsavage.com

Link to the story



Obama calls for immigration reform at prayer breakfast
By Christina Bellantoni (Contact) Friday, June 19, 2009

President Obama on Friday told a prayer breakfast for U.S. Hispanics he remains committed to an immigration reform bill, but once again would not commit himself for a legislative deadline for action.

The nation's first black president also told the Esperanza National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast and Conference that one day there would be a Hispanic president, and lauded his Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who if confirmed would be the first Hispanic on the high court.

Mr. Obama said the basic promise of the country is that "America will let you go as far as your dreams and your hard work will carry you."

As he has done frequently when speaking to predominantly Hispanic audiences, Mr. Obama repeated his broad promise to sign an immigration reform bill, offering general principles that he wants to see but not specifying when he hopes to see a bill from Congress.

He said the nation's borders must be strengthened first, but that he does support a pathway to citizenship for some illegal immigrants living in the country as long as they pay penalties for breaking the law and learn English. He also decried worker exploitation and said he was "committed to passing comprehensive immigration reform."

Hispanics strongly backed Mr. Obama in last year's election, and a number of Latino lawmakers have pressed for action on immigration reform this year.

Mr. Obama received some pressure to move more quickly at Friday's gathering from Esperanza's Rev. Jose Eugenio Hoyos, who said, "We want to see change in immigration reform, today and not tomorrow."

Mr. Obama told the prayer breakfast, held in Washington, that the Bible's command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" crosses all religions and applies with special force in today's troubled economy. He spoke for about 12 minutes about the importance of Americans working together to build the nation's future.

During tough times, "it's even more important to step back and give thanks and to seek guidance from each other but most importantly from God," he said.

He added that, thanks to the Founding Fathers, Americans' freedom to worship or to be non-believers "makes our nation stronger."

The event opened with a prayer for the Obama family. Mr. Obama also has a series of events celebrating fatherhood ahead of Sunday's Father's Day.

Media lap dogs eat up Obama's tepid jokes


Share/Save/Bookmark






Obama draws guffaws after cracking wise at correspondents dinner
BY Leo Standora DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, June 20th 2009, 4:00 AM

President Obama turned jokemaster-in-chief at the 65th Annual Radio and Television Correspondents Association Dinner last night and had them in stitches.

He poked fun at other politicians, the economy, health care reform and other big problems facing the nation, and even his own White House team during the Washington, D.C. affair.

Referring to a picture of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel riding a camel in Egypt, he said, "I admit, I was a little nervous about the whole situation. I said at the time, "This is a wild animal known to bite, kick and spit. And who knows what the camel could do?"

Of the effort to reform health care, he announced, "I have gained the support of the American Medical Association."

He then added, "It proves true the old expression that it's easier to catch flies with honey. And if honey doesn't work, feel free to use an open palm and a swift, downward wrist motion."

He told the audience he had been working to get the financial institutions and auto companies back on their feet.

"But you probably wouldn't understand the concept of troubled industries, working as you do in radio and television." He got more groans than laughs with this one.

Realizing he had touch a nerve, the President grinned and looked out at the audience and said "W-h-a-a-t! I can't joke about that."

Perhaps the funniest bit began with Obama declaring, "I have no ambition to run an auto company." He then went into a mock sales pitch for the Buick Enclave, exhorting the gathering, "C'mon, work with me here."

Obama also said he had a plan to jump-start the auto industry from his close friend, Oprah Winfrey.

The President said, "If each of you will look under your seat you will find that you get a car company." He added, "and Fox, you get AIG!"

Obama even managed to get laughs out of Secretary of State Clinton's broken elbow, saying the "Secret Service spotted Richard Holbrooke spraying WD40" all over the driveway where his boss fell.

"Now on top of the cost of health care and the recovery plan we have another fiscal problem. "Fortunately, the lawyers tell me Hillary is ready to settle."