PoliticsFormerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: FUBHO who wrote (647996)3/15/2012 9:16:15 AM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 1074442
Under Oath, Alamoudi Ties MAS To Muslim Brotherhood

IPT News March 14, 2012

The Muslim American Society (MAS) was created as a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, and continues to serve that function today, a man who once was one of the most influential Muslim political leaders testified in a Virginia courtroom Wednesday.

"Everyone knows that MAS is the Muslim Brotherhood," Abdurrahman Alamoudi told federal investigators in a January interview from a federal correctional facility. On the witness stand, Alamoudi claimed not to remember everything he said, but accepted that he had made the statement after government lawyers showed him records of the interview.

Alamoudi promised "to testify truthfully and completely at any grand juries, trials or other proceedings in the United States" as part of a 2004 guilty plea. He admitted engaging in illegal transactions with Libya and facilitating a Libyan plot to assassinate then-Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

His testimony Wednesday came as part of a civil suit brought by Jamal Abusamhadaneh against the government demanding he be naturalized as an American citizen. His application was denied after officials learned he lied about being associated with the Muslim American Society, failing to disclose the association on his naturalization application. In a subsequent interview, an immigration official further pressed him to reveal his connection to MAS or the Brotherhood, but he repeatedly denied ties to each.

Alamoudi, who had signed a work visa for Abusamhadaneh, was the original source for information about the plaintiff's Brotherhood ties. Abusamhadaneh claims he was following the advice of his attorney at the time, Ashraf Nubani, who told him affiliations with religious organizations do not need to be disclosed to the government. He also says he never was a dues paying MAS member, although he acknowledges attending many of the organization's events.

Nubani testified that neither the Muslim Brotherhood nor MAS were political organizations, so he didn't think his client had any reason to disclose such ties, were they to exist. Rather, he claimed that both organizations were simply non-violent religious organizations that believed "Islam should not be confined to one aspect of life" and "in Islam church and state aren't separate."

Alamoudi at times appeared reluctant to answer questions during his testimony, despite his cooperation pledge. Last summer, a judge reduced his 23-year prison sentence by six years, apparently due to cooperation Alamoudi previously provided. Court papers related to that sentencing reduction remain under seal.

He nodded and waved at members of the Muslim community in the courtroom gallery who were supporting Abusamhadaneh. As he left the courtroom, he called out "As-Salaam Aleikum," or "Peace be unto you." Some in the gallery responded, "Wa-Alaikum-Salaam," or "Wa-Alaikum-Salaam."

His disclosure about MAS is not new. Some MAS officials admitted as much in a 2004 Chicago Tribune article. And prosecutors wrote in 2008 that "MAS was founded as the overt arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in America."

In the Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, investigators found a telephone book listing the names and numbers of the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States. "Members of the Board of Directors" appeared on the first page with 15 names. Among those names are Ahmad Elkadi, Jamal Badawi, and Omar Soubani: MAS's founding incorporators.

But Alamoudi's testimony is significant because he acknowledges being part of the Brotherhood and was active when MAS was formed in 1993. In addition, MAS officials have claimed that they may have had roots in the Brotherhood, but those dissipated over time.

It is believed to be his first courtroom testimony since promising to cooperate, although he was brought to Tampa in 2005 during the prosecution of Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami Al-Arian. Alamoudi was not called during the case.

He apparently told prosecutors that Al-Arian's prominent role in Islamic Jihad was common knowledge in Islamist circles.

Alamoudi led the American Muslim Council and enjoyed political clout that led him to be courted by Democrats and Republicans in Washington, including the White House. But his support for jihad was on public display in 2000. During a rally in Lafayette Park across the street from the White House, he defiantly expressed his support for Hamas and Hizballah.

Four years earlier, he told a conference that Arabs in the United States should not pray for Allah to destroy the country. Rather, they needed to be less confrontational. "There is nowhere for Muslims to be violent in America, no where at all. We have other means to do it. You can be violent anywhere else but in America."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (648032)3/15/2012 9:21:45 AM
From: joseffy
1 Recommendation   of 1074442
Obama Invites Trig Palin Birther Andrew Sullivan For Dinner

by Ben Shapiro

According to the Washington Post, the Obama White House invited 362 people to its state dinner for the United Kingdom. One familiar face will be gracing the red carpet: Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Beast.

For those who don’t remember, Andrew Sullivan is the once-conservative columnist who shifted dramatically to the left over the past few years – and reserved a special hatred in his heart for Sarah Palin and her special needs son Trig.

Early on in the campaign, Sullivan suggested that Trig was not actually Sarah Palin’s son – he was Bristol’s son, and Sarah had claimed him as her own to cover up Bristol's pregnancy. Her oft-recounted labor drama, said Sullivan, was possibly nonsense; it was more likely that she had made it up. As Sullivan wrote in August 2008, “the noise around this story is now deafening, and the weirdness of the chronology sufficient to rise to the level of good faith questions.” Actually, the noise wasn’t deafening – it was just that Sullivan was tone-deaf.

But Sullivan didn’t drop his crusade against Palin and Trig.

In February 2010, Sullivan wrote that he believed that Palin had named her son Trig after the “medical term for Down Syndrome … Trisomy-21 or Trisomy-g. It is often shortened in medical slang to Tri-G.”

In June 2011, Sullivan continued the “Trig isn’t Sarah’s child” meme, writing:

It's possible that Palin simply made up her drama of labor, or exaggerated it for effect, when in fact it was a routine, if rare, pregnancy, and she had mild warnings that the birth may be premature, and she gussied that up into a tall tale of her pioneer spirit, guided by her doctor, who refused to take the NYT's calls as soon as Palin hit the big time. I think that's the likeliest explanation, given the sheer world-historical weirdness of the alternative.

But it's also possible that she never had that baby at all.

Sullivan has justified his Palin obsession by writing:

She has made speech after speech citing her infant son – just as her teenage daughter has been pushed into every public arena imaginable. There is nothing private about Palin’s story about her child with Down Syndrome. Nothing. To examine the details of a story already told in such detail in the public sphere as a core campaign platform is violating no one’s privacy. It is asking relevant questions of a narrative plainly and publicly provided by Palin herself. I have used no facts except those already in the public domain.

Sullivan is a hateful bully. There are no two ways about it. Doubting the parentage of someone’s son based on sheer, nasty speculation in the face of all available evidence sinks to the reprehensible. It’s a hell of a lot worse than the absurd leftist narrative about Slut-gate. It’s White House-backed lunacy. And it’s the latest in a series. If, as we reported yesterday, Louis C.K. did indeed visit the White House, this is just the most recent example of an Administration far too comfortable with nasty bullies – and deeply hypocritical when it comes to its pursuit of so-called incivility on the other side of the aisle.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Brumar89 who wrote (648032)3/15/2012 9:34:09 AM
From: joseffy
2 Recommendations   of 1074442
On a scale of 1 to 10, Watergate is a 1, and Obama is a 10.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (648023)3/15/2012 9:41:11 AM
From: Alighieri
   of 1074442
Al, maybe you can come up with an explanation for why Chevy is calling the Volt an "electric vehicle."

I don't have to come up with an explanation...the background and history are there for the not among them. You might note that the car was conceived and demonstrated in concept car during bush's now I as you...did bush create the climate for the car's marketing scheme?


The Chevrolet Volt
concept car was unveiled at the January 2007 North American International Auto Show, becoming the first-ever series plug-in hybrid concept car shown by a major manufacturer. [13] [14]

Then General Motors' Vice Chairman
Robert Lutz has told publicly that the two-seat sports car being developed by Tesla Motors, the Roadster, and the rapid advancement of lithium-ion battery technology inspired him to push the carmaker to develop the Volt after the 2006 Detroit Auto Show. [16] [17] [18] Lutz's initial idea was to develop an all-electric car, but Jon Lauckner, General Motors Vice President for Global Vehicle Development, convinced him that to avoid an expensive battery, range anxiety concerns, and lack of public charging infrastructure, they could use a smaller battery pack with a small gasoline engine driving a generator acting as a backup to extend the range, but without a mechanical connection between the gasoline engine and the drive wheels, so it would be a pure electrically driven vehicle without many of the limitations General Motors learned from the EV1 experience. [17]

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Alighieri who wrote (648046)3/15/2012 9:45:02 AM
From: joseffy
   of 1074442
After Investing $400M in Peugeot, GM Might Close Euro Plants

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (647955)3/15/2012 9:53:42 AM
From: Alighieri
   of 1074442
After Condom Remarks, Vatican Confirms Shift

Osservatore Romano, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Pope Benedict XVI with the journalist Peter Seewald, who wrote “Light of the World” based on six hours of interviews.

It was a significant and stunning personal pronouncement from the conservative pope after more than two decades of heated debate inside the Roman Catholic Church and condemnation by health workers who said the church’s ban on prophylactics was morally indefensible during the AIDS crisis. The Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s spokesman, said that for Benedict, the use of condoms by people infected with H.I.V. could be “the first step of responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk to the life of the person with whom there are relations.”

“Whether it’s a man or woman or a transsexual,” he added.

Though Benedict did not endorse the general use of condoms or change official church teaching — which still strongly opposes contraceptives — his words ricocheted around the globe, greeted with anger from some conservative Catholics and enthusiasm from clerics and health workers in Africa, where the AIDS problem is worst. The pope also considers the continent to be a major area of growth for the church.

“We’re in a new world,” said the Rev. Jon Fuller, a Jesuit priest and a physician at the Center for H.I.V./AIDS Care and Research at Boston Medical Center. The pope is “implicitly” saying, he said, “that you cannot anymore raise the objection that any use of the condom is an intrinsic evil.”

Catholic conservatives who believed Catholic teaching against contraception to be inviolable were reeling. “This is really shaking things up big time,” said Dr. John M. Haas, the president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, who serves on the governing council of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life.

Dr. Haas, a moral theologian, said he had seen an embargoed copy of a new book in which the pope conceded there might be extreme cases in which there were grounds for the use of condoms. “I told the publisher, ‘Don’t publish this; it’s going to create such a mess,’ ” he added.

In the book, “Light of the World,” which was released on Tuesday, Benedict said that condoms were not “a real or moral solution,” but that in some cases they could be used as “a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility.”

But his words left room for ambiguity. In the book’s German and English editions, the text cited the example of a male prostitute, implying homosexual sex, in which a condom would not be a form of contraception. The church opposes contraception on the grounds that every sexual act should be open to procreation.

But questions emerged when the book’s Italian edition, excerpted by the Vatican newspaper on Saturday, used the feminine form of prostitute.

On Tuesday, Father Lombardi said that the Italian translation was an error, but that the pope had specifically told him that the issue was not procreation but rather disease prevention — regardless of gender.

“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,” Father Lombardi said. “He told me no.” Father Lombardi said that he had spoken directly with the pope at least twice since Sunday and that Benedict had personally approved a statement he released on the condom question, indicating how adamant the pope was.

Benedict’s papacy has suffered from frequent communications missteps. But this time, it appeared that the pope was sending an intentional message. Father Lombardi said he had asked Benedict if he had recognized the risk in publishing a book of interviews in a complex media landscape where his words might be “misunderstood.”

“The pope smiled,” Father Lombardi said.

Benedict’s comments on condoms seem in some ways to be a profound provocation, indicating that although he is not changing church doctrine, he is insisting that condoms can be a responsible option in preventing disease.

In the book, which is a wide-ranging series of interviews with the German journalist Peter Seewald, the pope was responding to a question about a controversy last year, when while on his way to Africa, he said that condoms worsened the spread of AIDS. The disease, he added, could be prevented only by abstinence and responsibility.

In expressing his views on the male-prostitute scenario — words remarkable in themselves coming from a pope — Benedict showed himself to be at once strictly doctrinaire but never entirely predictable.

“What the pope said about the use of condoms to prevent illness certainly is significant and helps the comprehensive fight against AIDS in Africa,” said Mario Marazziti, the spokesman for the Community of Sant’Egidio, a Catholic group in Rome that runs 40 AIDS clinics in 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

During the decades of debate about condoms, the chorus of voices from inside the church challenging its position had grown increasingly louder — especially in Africa.

When a committee of American bishops issued a document in 1987 arguing that public AIDS-prevention programs could include information on condoms, they were roundly criticized by several conservative American cardinals and by Vatican officials, including Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, who was then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s doctrinal office.

In 2001, the Southern African Bishops Conference issued a landmark pastoral letter, which said that in a case of a married couple in which one spouse was H.I.V.-positive and the other was not, the use of “appropriate” protection to prevent the spread of H.I.V. was acceptable.

“The church accepts that everyone has the right to defend one’s life against mortal danger,” said the letter, which the Vatican never repudiated.

That notion had gained wider acceptance in the church, as became clear in 2004 when a priest from the conservative Opus Dei movement wrote an article in the British publication The Tablet that also supported the concept.

Lisa Sowle Cahill, a professor of theology at Boston College, said the pope’s new openness about condoms was significant even if it did not change church teaching.

“I see it as a shift in attention, so that the politics of AIDS is larger on the radar screen than the politics of contraception, and to me that is a needed and appropriate shift,” she said.

She added that the church had held firm against the use of condoms even to prevent AIDS because the birth-control issue took so much precedence politically.

Indeed, Dr. Haas, of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, could barely countenance Father Lombardi’s comments that broadened the debate to include women. “I don’t think it’s a clarification; it’s a muddying of the waters,” he said. “My opinion is that the pope purposely chose a male prostitute to avoid that particular debate.”

And if Benedict was in fact opening that debate? “I think the pope’s wrong,” Dr. Haas added.

Rachel Donadio reported from Vatican City, and Laurie Goodstein from New York.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (647950)3/15/2012 9:56:39 AM
From: Alighieri
   of 1074442
Al, let me make is pure and simple for you.

Obama promised that health care costs and the deficit would be reduced with the passage of ObamaCare.

Are you seeing any indication of that whatsoever?

Do you have evidence that this is not the case other than this political hackery by the examiner? And did you expect this to happen in a couple of years, particularly since the law really does not go into effect until 2014?

Numbers are easiily manipulated, particularly by legislators using the CBO as a propaganda arm.

You can decide for yourself whether ObamaCare is actually succeeding in its goals (and whether the problem is that it's too much or not enough ObamaCare) ...

Quit reading conservative garbage to fuel your biases....


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: tejek who wrote (648017)3/15/2012 10:05:39 AM
From: longnshort
4 Recommendations   of 1074442
Envy–It’s An Ugly Thing: Obamas Notice the Camerons “Look Better” Than They Do by Tammy on March 14, 2012

Yeah, honey, everyone looks better than you do. And on November 7th, you’ll also look unemployed. One note to Mooch–bling doesn’t help.

Yes, I have a feeling this is begging to be a Caption This! Obama: British pair ‘look better than us’

When it comes to appearances at state dinners, President Obama is keeping score.

Mr. Obama was standing with first lady Michelle Obama on Wednesday night at the White House when their guests of honor, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife Samantha, arrived for the state dinner on the South Lawn.

As Mrs. Cameron stepped out of a town car, Mr. Obama commented, “very pretty.”

Then he turned to his wife and said, “They look better than us.”

Priorities, priorities. What a jerk.

But this can’t be a revelation to these two. Destroying us economically apparently isn’t enough, they’ve been embarrassing us to the entire world for over 3 years now.

And hey Michelle, envy is ugly. And if you do it too often, your face will freeze that way. Oh, wait…

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: longnshort who wrote (648050)3/15/2012 10:42:01 AM
From: Bill
   of 1074442
This is embarrassing.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Bill who wrote (648051)3/15/2012 10:52:25 AM
From: longnshort
3 Recommendations   of 1074442
She is such a cow, no wonder Barry is gay. I wouldn't do her with Biden's pee pee

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.