wow! just wow. Gates gets pwn3d playing the race card, and now he has to clean up that shady-ass "nonprofit" that he's been abusing. $6000 to his fiancee? Sweet. Dan Riehl gets results. Obama? Not so much. Expect Gates to go under the bus ASAP
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Turnabout is fair play. Liberals started investigating Sgt. Crowley to see what dirt they could dig up on him after he had the effrontery to dare to challenge a black man.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/28/2009 0:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Now the question is - how did she report it? If she did not report it as income - then I'll suspect it's not a 'simple mistake' but deliberate fraud.
[Bangla Daily Star] Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami has again refused to accept the plenary powers of parliament to make laws as it restored a controversial phrase in its ratified constitution, breaching its pledge not to revive it.
Jamaat deleted the phrase that "people must not accept anyone except Allah as the law-making authority" from its constitution last October in the face of Election Commission's objection. The EC, which had asked all political parties to register with it prior to the ninth parliamentary polls, found that the phrase in Jamaat's constitution undermines parliament's power to make laws bestowed by the country's constitution, the supreme law of the land.
So, to meet the registration criteria, Jamaat submitted an amended constitution of the party, omitting the phrase and its Legal Affairs Secretary Jasim Uddin Sarker validated the omission by signing it on October 23, 2008.
When contacted on Thursday over telephone, Jasim Uddin told The Daily Star that one or two words were changed in the party's provisional constitution in consultation with the EC when the commission sought clarification of some provisions. "We submitted the ratified constitution keeping the changes intact. If we do anything beyond that, it will be dishonesty," Jasim said, adding that he would again examine these phrases in both their provisional and ratified charters.
Jamaat's top policymaking body Majlish-e-Shoora submitted a resolution to the EC, promising that it would ratify the provisional changes within the July 24 deadline to conform to the provision in the Representation of the People Order (RPO). According to the RPO, a political party will be declared disqualified for being registered with the EC if any provision in its charter contradicts with the country's constitution. The EC registered Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami as a parliamentary political party on that written pledge, allowing it to contest the December 29 general election.
The party ratified other provisional changes but breached the pledge by reviving the deleted phrase and submitted its ratified charter to the EC on Wednesday.
When contacted, Election Commissioner Muhammed Sohul Hussain yesterday told The Daily Star that the EC would examine the constitutions of political parties submitted to it to see if they meet the registration criteria.
After submitting the party's ratified charter to the EC, Jamaat's Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed claimed on Wednesday that it now meets the RPO requirements. Officials of EC Secretariat, however, said Jamaat's ratified charter still contains many provisions that contradict the country's constitution. These provisions include section 5(3), which calls for organised efforts to end all types of repression, exploitation, corruption and injustice by establishing "just rule of Islam and of honest people".
But the country's constitution does not allow establishment of rule of Islam in the country, but the rule of law, even by amending the constitution as the preamble to the constitution cannot be amended, according to a Supreme Court verdict.
The preamble to the country's constitution reads: "It shall be a fundamental aim of the state to realise through the democratic process a socialist society, free from exploitation--a society in which the rule of law, fundamental human rights and freedom, equality and justice, political, economic and social, will be secured for all citizens."
Jamaat leader advocate Jasim Uddin said on Thursday if people of the country give them the mandate, Jamaat would bring necessary amendments to the constitution to establish the rule of Islam in the country.
An experts committee of the EC for reviewing constitutions of political parties has also observed that sections 6(4) and 3(1) of Jamaat's charter seek to chip away at the supreme authority of the country's constitution. These sections encourage efforts to bring about necessary changes to the state system to ensure complete observance of Islam and safeguard the country's independence and sovereignty through revival of Islamic values and national unity.
To remove discrimination regarding sex, religion and race, Jamaat in its revised charter had included a provision to allow non-Muslims to be its member. However, the party ultimately could not remove the discrimination as a non-Muslim cannot hold any party post. Similarly, Jamaat's constitution does not allow women to enjoy equal rights in the party.
While registering it, the EC did not compel Jamaat to make these sections conforming to the country's constitution and rather overlooked them to wrap up the registration procedure smoothly for holding the ninth parliamentary election, officials of the EC Secretariat said.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Islami
#1
The same government that allows these extremists to do their thing in London still won't allow American talk show host Michael Savage into their country. In fact, over the weekend it was found that Savage was placed on Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's banned list precisely because he is non-Muslim. There was no other reason than to make it appear that the government was not singling out Muslims. Weak kneed, feeble minded cowards.
#2
If they think that allowing Savage into their country will cause violence, then that just means their country is on the brink of violence at any given moment.
Zelaya's removal from office was a triumph for the rule of law. By Roberto Micheletti
One of America's most loyal Latin American allies--Honduras--has been in the midst of a constitutional crisis that threatens its democracy. Sadly, key undisputed facts regarding the crisis have often been ignored by America's leaders, at least during the earliest days of the crisis.
In recent days, the rhetoric from allies of former President Manuel Zelaya has also dominated media reporting in the U.S. The worst distortion is the repetition of the false statement that Mr. Zelaya was removed from office by the military and for being a "reformer." The truth is that he was removed by a democratically elected civilian government because the independent judicial and legislative branches of our government found that he had violated our laws and constitution.
Let's review some fundamental facts that cannot be disputed:
The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional "referendum," and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.
Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya's own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya's own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya's arrest was at the instigation of Honduran's constitutional and civilian authorities--not the military.
The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya's Liberal Party.
Independent government and religious leaders and institutions--including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras's Catholic Cardinal--all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.
The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court's unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer--as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned--president of Honduras.
Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.
A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan government.
I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution's order of succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.
Regarding the decision to expel Mr. Zelaya from the country the evening of June 28 without a trial, reasonable people can believe the situation could have been handled differently. But it is also necessary to understand the decision in the context of genuine fear of Mr. Zelaya's proven willingness to violate the law and to engage in mob-led violence.
The way forward is to work with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. He is proposing ways to ensure that Mr. Zelaya complies with Honduras's laws and its constitution and allows the people of Honduras to elect a new president in the regularly scheduled Nov. 29 elections (or perhaps earlier, if the date is moved up as President Arias has suggested and as Honduran law allows).
If all parties reach agreement to allow Mr. Zelaya to return to Honduras--a big "if"--we believe that he cannot be trusted to comply with the law and therefore it is our position that he must be prosecuted with full due process.
President Arias's proposal for a moratorium on prosecution of all parties may be considered, but our Supreme Court has indicated that such a proposal presents serious legal problems under our constitution.
Like America, our constitutional democracy has three co-equal and independent branches of government--a fact that Mr. Zelaya ignored when he openly defied the positions of both the Supreme Court and Congress. But we are ready to continue discussions once the Supreme Court, the attorney general and Congress analyze President Arias's proposal. That proposal has been turned over to them so that they can review provisions that impact their legal authority. Once we know their legal positions we will proceed accordingly.
The Honduran people must have confidence that their Congress is a co-equal branch of government. They must be assured that the rule of law in Honduras applies to everyone, even their president, and that their Supreme Court's orders will not be dismissed and swept aside by other nations as inconvenient obstacles.
Meanwhile, the other elements of the Arias proposal, especially the establishment of a Truth Commission to make findings of fact and international enforcement mechanisms to ensure Mr. Zelaya complies with the agreement, are worthy of serious consideration.
Mr. Zelaya's irresponsible attempt on Friday afternoon to cross the border into Honduras before President Arias has obtained agreement from all parties--an attempt that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appropriately described as "reckless"--was just another example of why Mr. Zelaya cannot be trusted to keep his word.
Regardless of what happens, the worst thing the U.S. can do is to impose economic sanctions that would primarily hurt the poorest people in Honduras. Rather than impose sanctions, the U.S. should continue the wise policies of Mrs. Clinton. She is supporting President Arias's efforts to mediate the issues. The goal is a peaceful solution that is consistent with Honduran law in a civil society where even the president is not above the law.
Mr. Micheletti, previously the president of the Honduran Congress, became president of Honduras upon the departure of Manuel Zelaya. He is a member of the Liberal Party, the same party as Mr. Zelaya.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/28/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They must be assured that the rule of law in Honduras applies to everyone, even their president
Perhaps this is what has Obama upset, it sets a precedent against crooks like him.
#2
Impeccable logic shown by the Hondurand branches of government....zayala is a pawn of bobo the wanna be leader of the international. the same international that provided cover for kim, and stalin, and mao, and pol pot...these guys have a record, its theirs alone and from where all of us sit...it taint worth a damn.
venezuelan people should have the courage to ferret out the ballots bobo falsified to win his own referrendum.
#3
But the referendum never happened, Grerelet Bucket6078. The Honduran Supreme Court sent the army to arrest President Zelaya to prevent exactly that eventuality. I can't remember if the ballots -- already loaded in the voting machines -- were found in the presidential palace or were still in Hugo's warehouses across the border.
Why did Islamic establishments and publics let go of the Xinjiang violence so lightly, with barely a murmur or two? The answer lies in the complicated construction of enemies by Islamists. The "West", as a category, has been blamed by radical Muslims as the bane which ruined former Islamic political and cultural glory. So, when atrocities or slights are seen to be committed against Islam and its adherents in a European or North American country, they confirm the pre-existing prejudices and hatreds nursed by the Muslim street and its instigators in positions of power.
Sometimes, the "West" is also extended to include countries like Russia, Israel and India - all of whom are viewed by Islamists and their followers to be oppressing Muslims in their respective disputed territories. But China's image as a staunch rival of Western powers and which does not intervene in the Middle East confuses hardline Muslims, who place it in a nebulous mental space.
China does not fit neatly into the binary jihadist classification of the world into dar-ul-Islam (a land where Islamic laws are followed and the ruler is a Muslim) and dar-ul-Harb (a land ruled by infidels and where Muslims suffer).
That China has so far escaped major jihadist attacks on its soil or its overseas representations in spite of its harshness towards Uyghurs is not a function of its superior counter-terrorism strategies but rather of the label fixation among Islamists. The West, however geographically and politically incongruous a concept, continues to be the favorite dartboard for fiery Muslims.
It is a fixation that absorbs the Islamist heat and allows China a free hand to deal severely with the Uyghurs.
#1
Why did Islamic establishments and publics let go of the Xinjiang violence so lightly, with barely a murmur or two?
Because Chinese cannot be manipulated via a combination of terrorist intimidation + exploitation of the Judeo-Christian guilt complex. You push them, and they push back with a bulldozer.
And they say you don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off an 'ole Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with the Chin
#3
I think the perception is that these aren't real (radical) Muslims. How Islamic can you be when the leader of your movement is a woman who used to be a member of the Chinese Communist Party? There's also China's willingness to retaliate via trade sanctions and denial of aid against countries that cross it. If Pakistan screws with China, the Chinese could end all of their substantial military and economic aid to Pakistan. Heck - it could invade Pakistan to create a buffer zone (or simply to kill* hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis), and mine that whole region. Bottom line is that unlike the West, China doesn't take crap from anyone.
* Punitive expeditions have been used by the Chinese for thousands of years. The most recent ones are merely two decades old - against Vietnam.
The racial-grievance industry wont learn anything from the Gates affair.
A teachable moment. Have you noticed how the phrase, so redolent of reasonable and sober reflection, gets hauled out by the mainstream media every time liberals get into a serious fix involving race? So its no surprise that the Henry Louis Gates affair, like last years revelation that Barack Obamas spiritual mentor spouts the vilest kind of hateful tripe, has been cast as a teachable moment. What are we meant to be taught? Well, what else? That for all of the progress we seem to have made on race, black people understand, in ways whites can never fathom, that racism is alive and well in America.
With each such incident, however, fewer and fewer of us are playing along. This time, more than ever, were learning other lessons. One of them: for all the talk from his starry-eyed acolytes, in the media and elsewhere, about Obamas being post-racial, the president clings to the discredited and deeply damaging view of America as fundamentally racist, seeing his fellow blacks as perpetual victims justifiably suspicious of cops and other establishment authority figures. So when it comes to race, its facts be damned. Indeed, while Obama is so famously cautious and deliberative it took him months to decide on the family dog, his now-infamous off-the-cuff comment on the stupidity of the Cambridge police made it clear that on this issue, the former community organizer wholeheartedly embraces the black victim/racist cop trope.
Were also learning that race hustlers come in all kinds of packages. Henry Louis Gates, notwithstanding his success and prestige, is every bit as ready as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to wield the race card, and even less apt to take responsibility for his own mistakes and shortcomings. Lest we forget, the supposed Bull Connor he reflexively pegged as a racist operates in the politically correct wonderland of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Gates and his fans would tell you that the incident just proves that racism can rear its ugly head anywhere. By contrast, any rational soul would tell you that instantly jumping to such a conclusion is prima facie evidence of a distorted worldview.
Weve learned, too, that a professorship at Harvard isnt all its cracked up to be. As a scholar in the trendy field of black studies, Gates has built a career on being deferred to by cowed liberal colleagues, and hes obviously unaccustomed to anyones calling him out on anything. In the midst of the current episode, the estimable Mark Steyn recalled Gatess courtroom appearance some time back on behalf of the rap group 2 Live Crew, in which the professor testified that one of the groups lyrics was similar to Shakespeares My love is like a red, red rose. As it happens, noted Steyn, My luvs like a red, red rose was written by Robbie Burns, a couple of centuries after Shakespeare. Oh, well. Sixteenth-century English playwright, 18th-century Scottish poet: Whats the diff? Evidently being within the same quarter-millennium and right general patch of the North-East Atlantic is close enough for a professor of English and Afro-American Studies appearing as an expert witness in a court case. Certainly no journalist reporting Gatess testimony was boorish enough to point out the misattribution. As one anonymous online commentator observed about the current controversy: Why wouldnt Gates expect preferential treatment? Hes been getting it his whole life.
Weve also been reminded, once again, that the media are to be trusted even less on race than on other contentious issues. The New York Times, for one, seems always to have a racial-profiling feature prewritten and ready to slap onto the front page. Yet somehow these features never seem to include the vast store of documentary evidence contradicting the fervently held view of minorities as victims of racist cops. Perhaps the most telling media moment during the Gates brouhaha was the observation by an NPR anchoronly slight paraphrasing herethat opinion was divided over whether the police were to blame or there was fault on both sides.
Teachable moments never teach these people anything.
#3
This past March 29th, Professor Henry Louis Gates was being interviewed in front of a small group by Walter Isaacson on C-SPAN's Book TV. Thirty-three minutes into the discussion about his new book on Lincoln, Professor Gates began a detailed account of his own genealogy. He said that in doing so he had discovered he was about "50% white". He said that this was quote, "To my astonishment and horror...".
He continued by saying that he had subsequently sent his DNA off to be tested. This time, upon finding out he was "57% white", he said again, "to my horror .... I was becoming more white by the minute". To this Gates, Isaacson and everyone else there chuckled.
#5
"Race Hustlers Comin in all Kinds of Packages" including POTUS?
Posted by: regular joe ||
07/28/2009 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I won't call Gates any racist names, since I believe we are all human beings and the color of our skin is only the result of the human body's amazing ability to adapt to its environment and he is every bit as human as I am.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
