Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

Battle Over Sotomayor Heats Up

As White House Gathers Backers, Conservatives Heighten Attacks on Judge's Record

The Wall Street Journal

FOXNews.com

Thursday, May 28, 2009


Both parties braced for a summertime confirmation battle over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, with the White House gathering a team to push her through, and conservative critics sharpening attacks on her past speeches and writings.

In the first wave of TV ads about the nomination, one paid for by a liberal group called Judge Sotomayor, nominated for a Supreme Court seat by President Barack Obama on Tuesday, a "tough prosecutor" and faithful to the Constitution, while a conservative spot on the Internet questioned whether she would deliver equal justice.

Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.' Wouldn't they have to withdraw?" asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. "New racism is no better than old racism."

White House aides said the comment was being taken out of context, and predicted it wouldn't put the nomination off course. Indeed, the White House believes the president is operating from a position of strength, and officials emphasized that a pitched confirmation fight isn't inevitable.

...

Ca aurait ete pendant le gouvernement Bush encore...

Iran Official: U.S. Hired Deadly Mosque Bombers

Friday, May 29, 2009
AP/IRNA

May 28: Blood is seen on the ceiling inside the mosque after a deadly explosion in Zahedan, Iran.

TEHRAN, Iran — A top Iranian official accused the U.S. of hiring the bombers who carried out a devastating attack on a Shiite mosque in the southeastern city of Zahedan, killing as many as 23, Fars news agency reported on Friday.

"Three people involved with the terrorist incident were arrested," Jalal Sayah, a deputy provincial governor told the agency. "According to the information obtained they were hired by America and the agents of the arrogance."

Ali Mohammad Azad, the governor general of the province, told the official IRNA news agency 23 people were killed and 125 others were wounded in the attack, which was carried out during evening prayers.

The bombing was the deadliest such incident in the Islamic Republic in more than a decade, according to Reuters.

The blast, which may been a homicide bombing, went off in Zahedan, the capital of a lawless province that frequently witnesses clashes between police and gangs involved in drug smuggling. It has also seen attacks by an Islamic militant group called Jundallah, which claims to be fighting for rights of Sunni Muslims in mainly Shiite Iran but is suspected of Al Qaeda links.

Alaeddin Mazari, a local journalist in Zahedan, told The Associated Press that the explosion occurred in the second biggest Shiite Muslim mosque in the city, some 1,000 miles southeast of the capital, Tehran.

...

Charges Against "new Black Panthers" Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.

Three men were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
FOXNews.com

Friday, May 29, 2009
Members of the New Black Panthers attend a rally outside the Lamar County Courthouse in Paris, Texas November 17, 2008.

Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."

He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

FOX News' Eric Shawn contributed to this report.

C'est pas beau, ca??

EDITORIAL:Protecting Black Panthers

The Obama administration ignores voter intimidation

By | Friday, May 29, 2009

Imagine if Ku Klux Klan members had stood menacingly in military uniforms, with nightsticks, in front of a polling place. Add to it that they had hurled racial threats and insults at voters who tried to enter.

Now suppose that the government, backed by a nationally televised video of the event, had won a court case against the Klansmen except for the perfunctory filing of a single, simple document - but that an incoming Republican administration had moved to voluntarily dismiss the already-won case.

Surely that would have been front-page news, with a number of firings at the Justice Department.

The flip side of this scenario is occurring right now. The culprits weren't Klansmen; they belonged to the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. One of the defendants, Jerry Jackson, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party when the violations occurred. Rather conveniently, the Obama administration has asked that the cases against Mr. Jackson, two other defendants and the party be dropped.

The Voting Rights Act is very clear. It prohibits any "attempt to intimidate, threaten or coerce" any voter or those aiding voters.

The explanation for moving to dismiss the case is shocking. According to the Department of Justice: "These same Defendants have made no appearance and have filed no pleadings with the Court. Nor have they otherwise raised any other defenses to this action. Therefore, the United States has the right ... to dismiss voluntarily this action against the Defendants." In other words, because the defendants haven't tried to defend themselves, the Justice Department won't punish them.

By that logic, if a murderer doesn't respond to the charges, he should be let free. That's crazy.

The Obama Justice Department did take one action against one of the four defendants: It forbade him from again "displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location" in Philadelphia. Given that it already was illegal to display a weapon at a polling place and that he was not even enjoined from carrying a weapon at polling places outside of Philadelphia, it is hard to see what this order accomplished.

We asked the Justice Department if it was unable to provide any explanation for dropping the case. Justice press aide Alejandro Miyar merely said: "That is correct." Multiple times we asked both the department and the White House to comment on charges that the dismissals represented political bias. We received no substantive response.

Hans Von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation and a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, tells us, "In my experience, I have never heard of the department refusing to take a default judgment... . If a Republican administration had done this, it would be front-page news and every civil rights group in the country would be screaming about it."

Consider that the behavior of the defendants was so bad that witness Bartle Bull, a former Robert F. Kennedy organizer who did extensive legal work on behalf of black voters in Mississippi, testified it was "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."

Eric Eversole, a former litigation attorney with the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, told us: "It is truly unprecedented for the Voting Section to voluntarily dismiss a case of such blatant intimidation. The video speaks for itself."

We couldn't agree more. After the 2000 Presidential election, Democrats complained about voter intimidation in Florida by pointing to a police car that had been two miles away from a polling place. The police didn't do anything to anyone, but their presence was deemed sufficient to vaguely intimidate people en route to the polls. In this case, the New Black Panther Party actually blocked access to a poll.

Unlike the Florida incident, this case involving the New Black Panthers screams out for tough justice. Instead, the Obama administration looks the other way. This all but invites racial violence at future elections.

La nouvelle justice du CHANGEment

de l'Iran. Ahmadinejad donne des pommes-de-terre aux pauvres pour qu'ils votent pour lui, alors qu'aux US, le gouvernement en place relache les Black Panthers qui ont menace les electeurs dans des bureaux de vote.

Ahmadinejad Suspected of Giving the Poor Potatoes for Votes

Thursday, May 28, 2009

TABRIZ, Iran — In two weeks, Iran’s presidential election will determine whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains in office and whether his country continues its drive to become a nuclear power.

The stakes could scarcely be higher, but it is the lowly potato that has been grabbing attention.

The Iranian government is handing out 400,000 tons of free spuds in rural towns. It says that it is merely distributing the surplus from a bumper crop, but Ahmadinejad’s opponents accuse it of bribing the poor. “Death to potatoes,” they chant at rallies.

The spat is instructive. To much of the world, the election is about the nuclear ambitions of a pariah state. To most Iranians, the economy is the main issue. Ahmadinejad’s rivals are savaging the record of a president who took office promising to give all Iranians a share of the oil wealth.

...

Un peu utilise par NP, mais bon...

d'un monstre surtout lorsque la justice lui avait donne un laisser-passer.

Pro-Life Groups Fear Backlash After Tiller Murder

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kansas. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

NEW YORK -- Anti-abortion leaders voiced concern Sunday that the Obama administration and other Democrats may try to capitalize on the murder of Dr. George Tiller to defuse the abortion issue in upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kansas. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

They also worried that there would now be an effort to stifle anti-abortion viewpoints during questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Her exact views on abortion aren't known, but conservatives fear she supports abortion rights.

Said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, an anti-abortion activist: "No one should use this tragedy for political gain."

Tiller, one the few American doctors specializing in late-term abortions, had been the target of repeated protests and harassment for many years, and he was wounded by gunfire from an anti-abortion activist in 1993.

"It is abhorrent that once again, individuals who oppose the right to choose have used violence to try to advance their extreme anti-choice agenda," said Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation.

"We condemn this lawless act of violence. The foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone. Whoever is responsible for this reprehensible violence must be brought to justice under the law," said Americans United for Life President and CEO, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, in a statement.

While many anti-abortion leaders swiftly issued statements condemning the shooting, their expressions of dismay were not echoed by Randall Terry, a veteran anti-abortion activist whose protests have often targeted Tiller.

"George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that," Terry said. "He was an evil man -- his hands were covered with blood."

Terry said he was now concerned that the Obama administration "will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions."

A month ago, Terry was arrested protesting President Obama's appearance at the University of Notre Dame commencement. The president's graduation speech was dominated by abortion issue -- and an appeal for the nation to seek common ground instead of vitriol.

Mahoney said he had been conferring with other anti-abortion leaders about how to deal with any backlash to the Tiller killing that might undercut their cause at a time when they are trying to challenge Obama's support for abortion rights.

"I'd hope they wouldn't try to broad-brush the entire pro-life movement as some sort of extremist movement because of what happened in Wichita," Mahoney said. "That's really important -- don't use this personal loss for a political gain."

....

Je vous suis.... je vous suis.... je vous suis très dévoué....

et j'en suis tres flattee.

ben maintenant, va falloir expliquer en quoi se distingue l'assassinat de ce médecin d'un acte de terrorisme
parce que d'un point de vue purement objectif, tous les ingrédients du terrorisme sont présents

jam a écrit:

ben maintenant, va falloir expliquer en quoi se distingue l'assassinat de ce médecin d'un acte de terrorisme
parce que d'un point de vue purement objectif, tous les ingrédients du terrorisme sont présents

Je suis personellement tout a fait contre l'avortement tardif mais ce n'est pas une raison de recourir a l'assassinat. Je rigole doucement en voyant que ceux qui ont l'air de se rejouir du meurtre de ce medecin sont les memes qui crient a l'atteinte aux libertes individuelles quand on parle de demander a un medecin de pratiquer l'avortement alors que ses convictions religieuses se mettent en travers.
Jolie lecon.

Bonne journee a tous.

...

rigole doucement en voyant que ceux qui ont l'air de se rejouir du meurtre de ce medecin sont les memes qui crient a l'atteinte aux libertes individuelles quand on parle de demander a un medecin de pratiquer l'avortement alors que ses convictions religieuses se mettent en travers.
Jolie lecon.

J'espere qu'il n'y a ici ni amalgame ni mauvaise interpretation concernant ceux qui ont crie a "l'atteinte aux libertes individuelles quand on parle de demander a un medecin de pratiquer l'avortement alors que ses convictions religieuses se mettent en travers.

Sinon, ce serait une fois de plus la preuve que l'extremisme se retrouve a gauche comme a droite.

Sainte Ségolène va devoir encore présenter des excuses au nom de la France à Madame la Reine

marieden a écrit:

Madame la Reine

Monsieur Obama se charge de réparer l’erreur de la France en lançant lui-même l’invitation à votre encontre pour samedi sur les côtes Françaises .

Mais, de quoi se mêle t il lui au fait ??

Bon, personnellement, je n’ai jamais fait attention, mais les années précédentes, étiez vous invitée ?

Il faut dire que nous sommes en crise chez nous comme chez vous et comme partout et je suis certaine que vous n’accepteriez pas le petit routier du coin pour dormir, alors si vous venez quand même, pensez à apporter votre duvet, une bonne petite nuit à la belle étoile sur la plage ça vous changerait ! parce que vous ramenez jusqu’à Versailles, ça nous ferait énormément de frais, vous savez ce que c’est, un truc en entraînant un autre on arrive vite au repas de gala, il faudrait allumer toutes les ampoules, c’est mauvais pour la planète et aussi pour la facture d’électricité !

Obama, c’est pas pareil, lui, il vient avec toute sa nourriture ça fait moins de frais.

Au fait, Monsieur Obama, si vous pouviez vous occupez de vos oignons ça serait pas mal.

Tout-a-fait d'accord!

Quelques chiffres:
Sa pratique: plus de 35 annees
Le nombre total d'avortements selon the Washington Times: a peu pres 60,000
Celui d'avortements tardifs: 250 rien qu'en 2003
Ses revenus: 1 millions dollars a year
Le nombre de cliniques specialisees dans les avortements tardifs dans le pays: 3

Tous les avortements etaient legaux au Kansas.

Par Newt Gingrich: Speaker, il avait ete responsable du retour des Republicains alors que Bill etait a la Maison Blanche. Une indiscretion personnelle suivie d'une vendetta Democrate lui avait coute son poste. (contrairement a Bill, lui, n'a jamais menti sous serment raison lors d'une deposition )

June 3, 2009 | Vol. 4, No. 22

Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor
by Newt Gingrich


Shortly after President Obama nominated her to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I read Judge Sonia Sotomayor's now famous words:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

My initial reaction was strong and direct - perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word "racist" should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).


So it is to her words - the ones quoted above and others - to which we should turn, for they show that the issue here is not racial identity politics. Sotomayor's words reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system - that everyone is equal before the law.
The Central Question: Is American Justice No Longer Blindfolded?


The fundamental issue at stake in the Sotomayor discussion or nomination is not her background or her gender but an issue that has implications far beyond this judge and this nomination: Is judicial impartiality no longer a quality we can and should demand from our Supreme Court Justices?

President Obama apparently thinks so. Other presidents, Republican and Democrat, have considered race and gender in making judicial appointments in the past. But none have explicitly advocated the notion that judges should substitute their personal experiences for impartiality in deciding cases. And certainly none have asserted that their ethnicity, race or gender would make them a better judge over a judge from a different background.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
No Group Has Benefited More From Impartial Justice Than the Less Fortunate


With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality - of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all - that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice - that can't be predetermined by wealth or privilege - as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn't seem to grasp that, by weakening judges' adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.
The "Court of Appeals is Where Policy Is Made"


How does Judge Sotomayor come down on the issue of a judge's fidelity to the law?

Here is what she told a Duke University Law School audience in 2005 (emphasis mine):

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is - Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating."

Is Judge Sotomayor Being Quoted Out of Context? You Read, You Decide


If Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, believes the judge's bench is "where policy is made," what kind of law can we expect her to make as a Supreme Court Justice?

The Berkeley Law School speech in which Judge Sotomayor made the comments that I quoted at the outset of this newsletter - that a "wise Latina" would make a better judge than a white male - has been widely cited.

The White House is now claiming that critics are taking Judge Sotomayor's comments in that speech out of context. So in the spirit of "you read, you decide" I am linking here to Judge Sotomayor's speech in full.

As you read it, see if you agree with those respected legal scholars who have concluded that the speech as a whole isn't as damaging as the Judge's "wise Latina" comment - it's worse.
"Our Gender and National Origins May and
Will Make a Difference in Our Judging"


Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis mine):

• "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."
  
• "Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
  
• "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
  

Again, you read, you decide. Read Judge Sotomayor's speech in full here. Then let me know what you think at Newt.org.
"Equal Justice Under Law" Is Chiseled in Stone on the Supreme Court


The central principle of American justice - and perhaps the single, great idea of America - is equal justice before the law.

This idea is expressed in the words "all men (and today we would say all men and women) are created equal." It means that Americans stand before the law, not as members of groups, but as individuals.

"Equal justice under law" is in fact chiseled in stone on the front of the Supreme Court building - and for good reason.

When a judge disregards the rule of law and applies a different standard to certain groups - or, as the President would say, shows "empathy" - he or she violates this central American principle.
One Group's "Empathy" is Another Group's Injustice. Ask Frank Ricci.


When a judge views Americans as members of groups and not individuals, one group's "empathy" becomes another group's injustice.


Nowhere is the injustice that results from judging Americans as members of groups and not as individuals more evident than in Judge Sotomayor's ruling in the case involving Frank Ricci, a New Haven, Conn., firefighter.

Ricci quit his second job and studied 13 hours a day in 2003 for a civil service exam he hoped would earn him a promotion to lieutenant in the New Haven Fire Department. And when Ricci took the exam, all his hard work seemed to pay off. He got one of the highest scores. But because no African-Americans scored high enough on the exam to be promoted, the city of New Haven threw out the results of the test and promoted no one.

Frank Ricci, 16 other white firefighters, and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city, claiming they were denied promotions on the basis of their race. A district judge dismissed the case, and a three- judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. One of those judges was Judge Sotomayor.
An Opportunity to Have a Debate About
Equal Justice for Americans Like Frank Ricci


The Supreme Court is currently hearing the Ricci case, and a ruling is expected next month, likely in the midst of hearings on Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

Legal experts expect the Supreme Court to reverse Judge Sotomayor's ruling. But however the high court rules, this is a moment for America to have a full, honest and open debate, not just about the impartiality of our judges, but about equal justice before the law for Americans like Frank Ricci.
Which Judge Sotomayor Will Show Up on the Supreme Court?


In fairness to the judge, many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.

So the question we need to ask ourselves in considering Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is this: Which judge will show up on the Supreme Court, the radical from her speeches or the convention liberal from her rulings?

It's no small question. Judge Sotomayor is 54 years old. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is 89. Judge Sotomayor has the potential to spend more than 30 years on the Supreme Court. There, unlike on the court of appeals, she will have no reason to show caution. On the high court, Judge Sotomayor will not have to worry about a higher court overturning her rulings. As a Supreme Court Justice, she will do the overturning.

The stakes are very high with this nomination. Has President Obama nominated a conventionally liberal judge to a lifetime tenure on our highest court? Or a radical liberal activist who will cast aside the rule of law in favor of the narrow, divisive politics of race and gender identity?

The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 3, 2009; 9:09 AM


CAIRO -- Osama bin Laden has threatened Americans in a new audio tape, saying President Barack Obama inflamed hatred toward the U.S. by ordering Pakistan to crack down on militants in Swat Valley and block Islamic law in the area.
Bin Laden claimed U.S. pressure led to a campaign of "killing, fighting, bombing and destruction" that prompted the exodus of a million Muslims from Swat Valley in northwest Pakistan.

The message was broadcast for the first time Wednesday on pan-Arab Al-Jazeera Television at almost the same moment Obama touched down in Saudi Arabia at the start of a Mideast visit aimed at repairing frayed U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

-------

also:

Al-Qaida criticizes Obama's upcoming Cairo speech
By MAAMOUN YOUSSEF

The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 3, 2009; 1:27 AM


CAIRO -- Al-Qaida's deputy leader criticized President Barack Obama's upcoming speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, saying it will not change the "bloody messages" the U.S. military is sending Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida has repeatedly lashed out at Obama since he was elected, a move some analysts believe indicates the terrorist organization is worried he will be effective in improving the U.S. image in the Muslim world. Obama has pitched his speech at Cairo University on Thursday as a key part of that process.

"His bloody messages were received and are still being received by Muslims, and they will not be concealed by public relations campaigns or by farcical visits or elegant words," said Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's No. 2, in a new audio message posted Tuesday on militant Web sites.

Al-Zawahri said the Egyptian officials who will welcome Obama are U.S. "slaves" and have turned the country into an "international station of torture in America's war on Islam." He was likely referring to suspected Islamic militants who have been captured by the U.S. and sent to Egypt for interrogation, a process known as rendition.

Al-Zawahri urged Egyptians to reject Obama when he makes his speech, calling him "that criminal who came seeking, with deception, to obtain what he failed to achieve in the field after the mujahideen ruined the project of the crusader America in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia."

He said Obama's decision to come to Cairo showed the U.S. had not given up its alliances with dictatorial and corrupt Mideast governments.

...

comme ca avait ete le cas pour celui de dr. Tiller.

Contrairement a l'insistance par la gauche apres le 11 Septembre qu'un amalgame Musulmans/Terroristes etaient inacceptable (la droite etait d'ailleurs du meme avis meme si elle etait parfois surprise de voir des gens danser dans les rues de certains pays du Moyen Orient a l'annonce de la destruction des tours), l'extreme gauche (dont le prof. Churchill) allant jusqu'a defendre cet acte: Les Americains n'ayant pas vole ce qui leur etait arrive... Les gens qui travaillaient dans la tour etant des petits Eichmann, etc...

Apres le meurtre de Tiller, la meme gauche saute sur l'occasion ("on ne laisse jamais passe une crise serieuse" dirait Rahm Emmanuel, le bras droit de NP) et met dans le meme sac, la droite, l'extreme droite, les pro-life, tous sont responsables de la mort du "bon" docteur. Il a meme ete dit: "si vous avez dit que la clinique etait une usine a meurtres ou si vous avez repete que Tiller etait un tueur (tiens ca marche meme en Francais) vous etes coupable par association! Hencricks

(... However, the motive for the crime we can all surmise in light of the vitriolic campaign that has been waged against Tiller for more than two decades by anti-abortion groups. And if we're right about that, then we already know the identities of his accomplices. They include every one who has ever called Tiller's late term abortion clinic a murder mill. Who ever called Tiller "Tiller the Killer." - ....., the same bullet that killed George Tiller also shattered the moral underpinnings of the movement that inspired its firing.

=======

Ici un article ou il est en autre question de la haine d'O'Reilly. Une fois de plus, comme avec Dieudonne, avec la gauche et les extremistes: une seule possibilite etre de leur avis ou se taire.



Maggie Mahar, Author, Century Foundation HealthBeat blog:

How the killing of Dr. Tiller changes the debate for President Obama

The murder of Dr. Tiller changes the terms of the debate for at least one person: President Barack Obama. Not long ago, the president expressed his hope that pro-life advocates would find a "common ground" with those who support choice. As we noted yesterday on HealthBeat, the killing underscores just how far apart the two sides are.

Of course, the vast majority of pro-life advocates do not support violence. But the response to the murder by advocates like Bill O'Reilly reminds us just how much hatred the debate has generated. Waving photos of bloody fetuses, denouncing doctors who dare to perform legal abortions, and pushing for laws that subject women to cruel and unusual punishment, those who oppose abortion have brought emotions to a fever pitch.

...


======

et le meurtre de WIlliam Long dans tout ca? Bof...

That bad, hein?

If Obama Had Carter's Courage

Lessons from setting the freight railroads free.

Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. The latter really did face the unraveling of an indispensable industry. Mr. Obama faces not a collapse of the domestic auto industry, but collapse of two companies miserable enough to have been extant in the 1930s when the Wagner Act was foisted upon the industry.

We have a second auto industry, founded after the political and legal system had thought better of mandatory unionization, born of foreign parents, mostly in the South. It's surviving the recession without extraordinary help.

In Mr. Carter's day, bankruptcies were scything through the railroad sector, hurtling toward a rendezvous with nationalization. Conrail, an amalgam of failed Northeastern lines, had already been taken over and analysts foresaw a $300 billion bill (in today's dollars) in the likely prospect that Washington would soon have to operate the rest of the nation's freight railroads.

A disaster must be truly sizable before Congress will correct its own errors -- and the railroads were such a case.

Barbara Kelley

Rail executives and economists had been arguing since the 1920s, when competition from trucks and planes began to emerge, that comprehensive federal regulation had only distorted the industry's pricing, driven away investment, and made competitive adaptation impossible. But the argument had a new ring now that Washington would have to bear the political risk of operating and subsidizing the nation's rail services.

It still took some doing on Mr. Carter's part. When the bill stalled, a hundred phone calls went from the White House to congressmen, including 10 by Mr. Carter in a single evening. The bill essentially no longer required railroads to provide services at a loss to please certain constituencies. It meant going up against farmers, labor, utilities, mining interests, and even some railroads -- whereas Mr. Obama's auto bailout tries to appease key lobbies like labor and greens, which is why it can't work.

In his message to Congress, Mr. Carter warned of a "catastrophic series of bankruptcies" and "massive federal expenditure" unless deregulation was allowed to "overhaul our nation's rail system, leading to higher labor productivity and more efficient use of plant and equipment."

Involving Congress meant the plan had to be explained and rationally coherent -- features missing from Mr. Obama's contradictory auto policies.

In 1980, Congress passed the Staggers Act, ending a century of federal regulation and leading to the railroad industry's renaissance. Leo Mullin, then a young Conrail veep, would later look back and praise all involved for having the fortitude to recognize that salvaging the taxpayer's investment in Conrail meant more than fixing a single broken company -- it meant fixing a defective regulatory environment.

That fortitude is exactly what's missing today, as it was missing from Mr. Obama's statement on Monday, which attributed GM's failure to sins by everyone but Washington.

We're still waiting for the brave, original thinking that we were told Mr. Obama represented. Like Washington circa 1978, he has landed for once in a situation where something more than symbolism is required of him. He has finally glided into the land of the real, where the key measurable outcome is no longer whether an audience is glowing with self-approval when he leaves the room.

To wit, will GM become self-sustaining and profitable, as he promises, or a bottomless drain for taxpayer subsidies? (The same question applies to Chrysler and, likely, Ford, which may have only prolonged the Ford family's run at the top by mortgaging the company to the hilt just before the lending markets closed down.)

Nothing really will be solved, even by GM's bankruptcy, until Washington recognizes its own policy incoherence -- namely the impossibility of reconciling stiff fuel mileage mandates with gasoline prices set by the market, with a domestic labor monopoly, with a high degree of openness to international trade. (You can have three, but not four.)
It took 103 years after the Interstate Commerce Act for Congress to junk the regulatory apparatus that destroyed the railroads. To get rid of CAFE after only 34 years would be some kind of record -- if Mr. Obama had Mr. Carter's courage.

Let's face it: CAFE has done nothing to reduce gasoline usage or oil imports (car owners just end up driving more miles). In 34 years, not a whisper of testimony has come from any quarter that the policy actually works. It only causes U.S. manufacturers to make small cars and dump them at a loss on the public, subsidized with the profits of pickups and SUVs.

Detroit doesn't have to match the transplants in wages and benefits, but CAFE distorted what would have been the Big Three's natural path of adaptation to the natural fact of growing diversity in the marketplace with the arrival of foreign manufacturers. Detroit would have focused on market segments where it could compete profitably even with its higher labor cost -- on bigger, pricier vehicles where labor cost is a lower share of value added.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama, that freethinker, took to the CAFE fraud like a bat to a belfry. He signaled his arrival on the presidential stage by sternly demanding higher mileage standards early in his campaign. The "change" candidate who might have broken with a generation of political cant about CAFE instead appropriated the fraud for his own careerist purposes.

That tangled web now catches him in a fatal contradiction as he pours tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into the failed business model that CAFE foisted on Detroit.

In Cairo, president says no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, adding that America and Islam share common principles of justice, progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Dans la theorie peut-etre mais dans la pratique...

Alors, ou il est complement inculte en la matiere ou alors c'est vraiment un fieffe farceur - je suis diplomate, la, hein (entre autres: Il ne fait pas bon etre de sa couleur dans la pluspart des pays du Moyen Orient)

Obama: equality should be a woman's choice

Published:

06.04.09, 13:58 / Israel News

</SPAN>

President Barack Obama says women should have the right to choose whether they want to be equal with men. He discussed women's rights in a speech about America's relationship with the Muslim world.

The US president says doesn't believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And he says he respects women who choose traditional roles. But he says women should have that choice. So, Obama is promising that the United States will partner with Muslim countries to support expanded literacy for girls and will help young women pursue jobs through a micro-financing program. (AP)
----------------

Là, il a manqué une grosse occasion de se taire... Attendons la réaction des groupes de défense des droits de la femme...
S'il assume pleinement cette position, je l'enjoins à remplacer le mot "femme" par le mot "noir" (afro-américain ou africain).
Je trouve que le parlement bruxellois devrait faire voter une motion condamnant ses propos, comme il le fit pour certains propos récents du Pape. La prise de position publique d'Obama s'apparente à un soutien à toutes les injustices, violences et crimes subies par les femmes de par le monde sous prétexte de leur "infériorité" (qu'elles acceptent ce statut ou non) ? Non ?

President Obama's speech at Cairo University
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world - tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam - at places like Al-Azhar University - that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson - kept in his personal library.

.../...

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders.

That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean.

And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

.../...