Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (45433)	9/3/2010 8:35:29 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Obama tells the U.N. how great he is Examiner Editorial August 30, 2010 Obama's administration recently submitted a report to the United Nations on human rights in America. The 29-page report shows the nation badly flawed but fortunate to have a Nobel Prize winner as its leader. The report is billed as "a partial snapshot of the current human rights situation in the United States, including some of the areas where problems persist in our society." Among the nation's shortcomings listed in the report: » Arizona has dared to try to enforce immigration laws that the federal government will not. But don't worry, Obama is suing them. » We incarcerate dangerous terrorists at a military prison in Guantanamo Bay. But don't worry -- Obama has signed three executive orders to protect them from the last administration's rough handling and he "remains committed to closure of the Guantanamo detention facility." » It's too hard to form a union, the document says -- either that or unions have just become less relevant. But don't worry, "there are several bills in our Congress that seek to strengthen workers' rights" -- bills like "card check," which will help institutionalize union intimidation and coercion by taking away a worker's right to a secret ballot. The report also notes that as bad as our human rights situation is, help is on the way -- all thanks to Obama: » America made "great strides" in human rights when "President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law." That's better known as Obamacare, the law that 60 percent of us want repealed. » Obama is trying to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" in the Department of Defense and the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects states' right to define marriage legislatively. » The report mentions that in recent months, "the Department of Justice has worked to strengthen enforcement of federal voting rights laws." (So, just pretend, at least for a moment, that the New Black Panther case never happened.) You get the picture: This is a self-serving political document that portrays Obama policies as great leaps forward, and things he opposes as steps backward. In the Bush years, America ignored the UN High Commission on Human Rights because the panel too often gave voice and sometimes positions of leadership to such human rights beacons as Cuba and China. Now, under Obama, our government is producing propaganda for world consumption at the expense of the American people. In other words, Obama has not merely joined Cuba and China on the commission, he is imitating their leaders' tactics, too. washingtonexaminer.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (45433)	9/5/2010 11:36:51 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

More mosque revelations Last Updated: 8:29 AM, September 3, 2010 So now it transpires that a key money- man behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque is a one-time supporter of a group shut down by the feds because it was a front for Hamas. No wonder the mosque's principal imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, refuses to discuss the project's finances. Or, for that matter, refuses to speak harshly of Hamas -- an Iranian cat's-paw that's long been one of the deadliest Islamist terrorist organizations operating in the Mideast. It was reported last night that Hisham Elzanaty -- an Egyptian-born businessman from Long Island -- provided a big chunk of the $4.8 million needed to buy the building that will be demolished to make way for the mosque. Among other things, Elzanaty runs a Bronx-based medicial supply company that had to refund more than $300,000 in Medicaid payments in 2004-2005. In 1999, he donated thousands to the Holy Land Foundation, later shuttered by the feds because of its Hamas ties. All of this is, as they say, enough to give one pause. But we doubt it will truly surprise any among the 71 percent of New Yorkers found this week by Quinnipiac University pollsters to oppose the mosque. Mayor Mike and others think they are bigots, but most seem to have asked -- and answered to their own satisfaction -- a fair question: How close to the scene of that deadly Islamist attack on America is too close to build a mosque? Answer: The proposed site was close enough to have been hit by a landing-gear assembly from one of the crashed airliners on 9/11 -- and that's way too close. They're also nervous about the project's backers -- even before Elzanaty popped up -- deciding that, with those folks involved, anywhere might be too close. As The Post reported yesterday, Rauf has been catching iffy tax breaks since 1998 for an organization run from his wife's Upper West Side apartment. How'd he do it? By telling the IRS the one-bedroom digs were actually a mosque where 500 people prayed daily. These are only the latest revelations about the mosque's backers, who've run up a cumulative record of petty crime, slumlording and tax-scamming. And that's being generous. Rauf, who's due back in New York this weekend after a long trip abroad, has plenty of explaining to do to the people he's been thumbing in the eye for weeks. First there is Elzanaty's role, of course. Then there's the elephant in the room: Whence the $100 million needed for the mosque? And then there is this. At a forum in Dubai on Tuesday, Rauf appeared to call the 71 percent of New Yorkers who oppose his project religious "extremists." "The battlefront . . . is not between Muslims and non-Muslims," he said. "It is between moderates [and] extremists and radicals of all faith traditions." We'd guess 71 percent of New Yorkers would include a representative cross-section of "all faith traditions." Are they "extremists" for opposing the mosque? New Yorkers hardly ever agree on any thing -- but they agree it's inappropriate. Are they "radicals?" If Rauf thinks so, then New York ain't the town for him. Nor is there room for his mosque at Ground Zero. nypost.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (45433)	9/14/2010 8:09:50 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

'Bridge Building' and the WTC Mosque Feisal Abdul Rauf has suggested Americans could find themselves "under attack" if he doesn't get his way. By WILLIAM MCGURN SEPTEMBER 14, 2010. Perhaps Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf really is a moderate Muslim. Yet if his words yesterday to the Council on Foreign Relations are any guide, he adheres to an orthodoxy even more defining than his brand of Islam: American liberalism. Just before he spoke, Council President Richard Haass described Imam Rauf as a man "dedicated to building bridges between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds." The imam spoke accordingly. In a reassuring, National Public Radio sort of tone, he thanked Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg for their support, spoke of "interfaith dialogue," and called for American Muslims and non-Muslims to "break bread" together. In this spirit, we might ask: If this is about mutual understanding, what are the fruits of his effort? We see them all around us. An obscure Florida pastor announces he's going to burn the Quran and becomes a national figure. A group is videotaped ripping out pages of the Quran in front of the White House. On the 9/11 anniversary, Ground Zero becomes the site of angry marches between pro- and anti-Islamic Center crowds. In other words, a typical experiment in liberal bridge building. Start with an enterprise—an Islamic Center near Ground Zero—bound to upset some people. Lecture those with opposing views about tolerance and respect for the Constitution. Have the man at the center suggest on CNN that if he doesn't get his way, innocent Americans will find themselves "under attack." Finally, declare yourself shocked, shocked, to discover your plans have provoked large-scale public opposition and not a few crude rejoinders. For American liberals, that two out of three Americans oppose the construction of an Islamic center on its current cite occasions no second thoughts. To the contrary, it likely confirms a view of the American people as dangerous yahoos. In fact, it probably confirms the liberal view that the war on terror is less a war against radical Islamists than a more general battle between moderates and extremists of all varieties. Yesterday at the Council, Imam Rauf made this explicit. "The real battlefront, the real battle that we must wage together today," he said, "is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is between moderates of all faith traditions against the extremists of all faith traditions." Now, the world has its share of Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other religious extremists. Sometimes that extremism leads to violence. At least in America, however, to compare this to the sustained, organized international war crimes planned and carried out by Islamic extremists beggars belief. No one walks the streets of Manhattan fearing a Methodist may blow up his office, hijack his flight, or kill his son fighting in Afghanistan. Unless you are Angelina Jolie or the dean of Yale Law School, this is not only true but obvious. So where the Council on Foreign Relations may see in Imam Rauf the model of moderation, Americans may wonder whether a leader who cannot see what is uniquely threatening about Islamic extremism is the most effective spokesman for Muslim moderation. Maybe too his more troubling statements can be explained in context. But there sure are a lot of them, from his charge that the United States was an "accessory" to the September 11 attacks to his more recent declaration that we must build his center for "national security" reasons—or else. Yes, we have Republican politicos who have made cloddish efforts to capitalize on public sentiment, here vowing a government witch-hunt if elected, there saying no mosque near Ground Zero until we see a church in Saudi Arabia. Without the liberal hectoring, they would have no currency. For President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg and their allies like to sermonize about a proposition not in dispute—the legal right of the imam to build on the property he's bought—while imputing the lowest of motives to anyone who disagrees with them. How different their approach (not to mention their results) is from that of George W. Bush, who could visit a mosque while the ruins of the Twin Towers were still smoldering, remind us that Muslim-Americans are free and equal citizens, and talk about how ordinary Muslim moms and dads wanted for their children what we want for ours. Maybe it had something to do with his being clear about the fight. Whatever the reason, when this "cowboy" was in the Oval Office, we didn't have prominent politicians campaigning against mosques, Qurans being desecrated, or Gen. David Petraeus having to issue warnings about the consequences of such actions. So here we are, with the grievances on all sides more aggravated than assuaged by this latest experiment in liberal bridge-building. If the president and the mayor and the imam sound bitter about the 71% of New Yorkers who would like to see the Islamic Center moved, we shouldn't be surprised. It's what happens to folks who cling to their liberalism and their antipathy to people who aren't like them. Write to MainStreet@wsj.com online.wsj.com