I need you guys to put me some knowledge. The President complained this morning:

For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

I've been digging around Google, but I can't find which rules on charitable giving the President believes make it difficult for Muslims to meet their zakat obligation. I'm sure there has to be some and I'm absolutely certain he's not talking about the criminal investigations into Islamic charities who gave money to terrorits as implied by AP. But I can't find what they are.

Any ideas?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:03 AM | Comments (26)
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

My initial thoughts on the President's Cairo trip are that it's just more empty words. If there has ever been a right person to tell the Islamic nations to get their shit together, it is this President. Unfortunately, he failed utterly to call them on their treatment of women.

This in particular set me off:

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

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.

That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.

I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.

Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world.

So he'll defend the right of women to wear the hijab and he wants women to be educated. Good. So do I.

What about the right of women to not be stoned to death for going on a date? Or the right of women to object to being raped without having to have three witnesses? Or the right of women to drive cars or simply be in a public space without the escort of a male relative? Or the right of women not to be brutally mutilated, usually by a relative?

Back during the campaign I saw a lot of bumper stickers and signs around here that said "Obama for Women." Not really. The Islamic nations largely treat their women like property. Other than one sentence on "equality" he didn't mention it. Oh, but he repeated defended the hijab. And when he champions the hijab, he champions the horrifying conditions that come with it.

Obama is NOT for women.

Oh, Another Thing: Alexthechick reminds me of something I missed:

You know what else I would love since Obama declared it GLBT month? How about asking that teh gheys don't get killed? That would be lovely.

The Islamic nations have a nasty practice of hanging, stoning, and imprisoning gays. But actually calling them on it? That's above the President's pay grade.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:00 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 577 words, total size 3 kb.

Just getting a chance to read it. First impression...it's long.

Some highlights.

Obama's speech cycled through the most contentious of issues between and among Western and Islamic societies -- from Iraq to Afghanistan to democracy and religious freedom.

"I've come here to Cairo 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," Obama said.

The president sought to highlight Muslim contributions to the modern world and stress common ground between his country and Muslim states, drawing heavy focus to his early life in Muslim Indonesia as well as his Muslim family members. He noted that while he is a Christian, his father came from a Kenyan family that "includes generations of Muslims."

..."In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam," he said, referencing his speech to the Turkish parliament on his last overseas tour. "We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject -- the killing of innocent men, women and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people."

...The president, while calling the United States' bond with Israel "unbreakable" and shaming those who deny the Holocaust, continued to step up pressure on Israel's leadership to follow U.S. terms for a roadmap to peace. He called on Israel to stop constructing settlements in Palestinian territory and declared that Palestinian statehood is the only resolution to the conflict in the region.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace," he said. "It is time for these settlements to stop."

There's a lot here obviously but one passage quoted in the Fox story caught my attention.

Obama declared he has experienced Islam on three continents, which has shaped an attitude of tolerance toward its religion and culture.

"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," Obama said to applause. He said neither Muslims nor Americans, though, can fit the "crude stereotype" they are sometimes assigned.

Really? Part of the job of the President of the United States is to "to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear"? Since when exactly? What other religions does Obama feel responsible to defend?

Has he been defending mainstream Christian groups who have been lumped in with the guy who shot George Tiller? Maybe I missed that.

Expect more on this throughout the day.

More now...

I also know 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.

Alternatively one might look at that and point out America has been at war with Islamic states almost since our founding.

The line from the Marine Corps hymn about "From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli"? They weren't sun bathing on those shores Mr. Obama.

Credit where credit is due more...

Posted by: DrewM at 05:31 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 741 words, total size 5 kb.

Thank goodness it's Thursday. This shizzy is almost over, right?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:17 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

In tonight’s “Compare and Contrast” segment (an ongoing series limited to just this post) we examine love, chastity and full-blown bat-shit crazy.

Example One: From Whidbey Island, WA comes the heartwarming tale of a 21-year-old bride to be whoÂ’s never been kissed. All that will change soon as sheÂ’s about to tie the knot in July with an obvious bad seed, male hussy who apparently has kissed before. How long before this perverted freak starts trying to introduce tongue into the whole thing? 5 years? 10?

COMPARE/CONTRAST

Example Two: In a show of true love, a 25 year old Egyptian laborer decided to cut off his own penis to protest an arranged marriage by his parents to a woman he didnÂ’t love (mum & pops didnÂ’t approve of his preferred main squeeze.) Sadly, doctors were unable to reattach the severed member. But who are we to judge? Who amongst us hasnÂ’t done this at least once to prove our undying, deranged love? WeÂ’re just fortunate that we have better emergency care facilities.

Enough of all that nonsense. HereÂ’s some news you might actually be able to use: NASA is hiring Pillownauts to lie in bed for weeks on end.

”In order to study the long-term effects of micro-gravity on the human body, NASA is looking for a few good lazy people to lie in bed all day sleeping, watching TV and playing video games.”

“Sounds like a dream come true, but I will not be signing up. You see, these "pillownauts" experience nasty side effects like sore feet, muscle weakness, headaches, toothaches and runny noses/eyes. Plus, I would think that lying on your back for weeks on end like that would drive you to madness.”

Posted by: Open Blog at 04:09 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

Apparently it's much worse than I thought. They won't even shake Obama's hand.

The woman in line gives him a pretty good deke too, suckers him into extending his hand then pulls hers back.

via Pajama momma

UPDATE: Commenter Proudin NC points out it's Axlerod and Valerie Jarrett. So it seems they are following protocol and Obama just isn't paying attention to who's in line and stickin his hand out.

UPDATE AGAIN: Yet another commenter noses in with a plausible explanation and shit, suggesting he is merely introducing members of his staff. Looking at his head movements, I buy that.

So I'm just gonna go look for some NFL cheerleader pics or something useful now.

bummer.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 02:36 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, bin Ladin's criticism of Obama is a sign that Obama is scary-tough on terrorists. He never criticized Bush, after all. Or at least AP did not deem any such criticism of Bush to be a signal that Bush's policies were working.

Quite the opposite, in fact. When bin Ladin seemed to endorse John Kerry for president in 2004, the media redlined its spin-engines claiming that this was reverse psychology intended to get Bush reelected, because, of course, we all know that Bush was the best thing to ever happen to bin Ladin.

And now? Well, now bin Ladin no longer utilizes reverse psychology. Surely this isn't a reverse-psychology ploy, as the media insisted was utilized in 2004, to actually support Obama because he likes Obama's weak-sauce policies. No, this time, bin Ladin's word is bond, the AP figures.

If you can't trust a Man-Caused Disaster engineer, who can you trust?

Anyway, great for a dark chuckle.

in Laden's Obama criticism a sign he is worried

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago

CAIRO – A day before President Barack Obama is to deliver a speech here seeking goodwill with the Islamic world, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden tried in a new message Wednesday to convince Muslims they should hate him.
The message was the second from al-Qaida in as many days criticizing Obama. Analysts said the PR offensive shows the terrorist organization worries the new president will succeed in improving America's image in the Muslim world and undermine the group's anti-American jihad, or holy war.

"Obama's election is just about the worst thing that could have happened to these guys," said Tom Sanderson, a terrorism expert at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "They knew right away that his election undermined a key part of their argument that the U.S. was anti-Islamic, that the U.S. was racist."

Yes, that was a key part of their argument. Everyone knows that jihadist Arab and Pakistani Muslims hate racists. They hate them almost as much as they hate Jews. And black Africans.

Posted by: Ace at 01:22 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

So here's some sharing.

Mild content warning. I sorta can't say what the content in question is without blowing the fun. Just decide based on "Mild Content Warning." more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:12 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

If we don't seal the borders, the Man-Caused Disasters win.

U.S. counterterrorism officials have authenticated a video by an al Qaeda recruiter threatening to smuggle a biological weapon into the United States via tunnels under the Mexico border, the latest sign of the terrorist group's determination to stage another mass-casualty attack on the U.S. homeland.

The video aired earlier this year as a recruitment tool makes clear that al Qaeda is looking to exploit weaknesses in U.S. border security and also is willing to ally itself with white militia groups or other anti-government entities interested in carrying out an attack inside the United States, according to counterterrorism officials interviewed by The Washington Times.

...

"Four pounds of anthrax -- in a suitcase this big -- carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there," the recruiter said. "What a horrifying idea; 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on. One person, with the courage to carry 4 pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this 'confetti' all over them, and then we'll do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real celebration."

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Related: Tagging the Terrorists: I wish this hadn't gotten out, but now that it has, it's pretty awesome.

The story that the CIA uses tiny homing beacons to guide their drone strikes in Pakistan may sound like an urban myth. But this sort of technology does exist, and might well be used for exactly this purpose. It might even have been the “secret weapon” that Bob Woodward said helped the American military pacify Iraq.

The military has spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching, developing, and purchasing a slew of “Tagging tracking and locating” (TTL) gear — gizmos designed to keep covertly tabs from far away. Most of these technologies are highly classified. But there’s enough information in the open literature to get a sense of what the government is pursuing: laser-based reflectors, super-strength RFID tags, and homing beacons so tiny, they can be woven into fabric or into paper.

Some of the gadgets are already commercially available; if you’re carrying around a phone or some other mobile gadget, you can be tracked - either through the GPS chip embedded in the gizmo, or by triangulating the cell signal. Defense contractor EWA Government Systems, Inc. makes a radio frequency-based “Bigfoot Remote Tagging System” that’s the size of a couple of AA batteries. But the government has been working to make these terrorist tracking tags even smaller.

Sandia National Laboratories have carried out development on “Radar Responsive” tags, which are like a long-range version of the ubiquitous stick-on RFID tags used to mark items in shops. The Radar Responsive tag stays asleep until it is woken up by a radar pulse. The tags in Wal-mart have a range of a couple of meters, Sandia’s tags can light up and locate themselves from twelve miles away.

Posted by: Ace at 12:57 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 546 words, total size 4 kb.

When last I wrote about the Obama- and UAW-sponsored sham sale of Zombie Chrysler for the purpose of shortchanging the failing healthcare and pension company's secured creditors, a U.S. district court judge had just denied a motion from Indiana state investors (more pensions) to stay the sale.

The sale hearing was supposed to happen tomorrow, but it's now on hold while the Second Circuit Court of Appeals takes a stab at the stay motion. The oral argument at the appeals court will now be on Friday. What happens next will largely depend on how the court rules. Earlier, the bankruptcy judge stated that his breakneak pace is because Chrysler is losing $100 million a day while it waits on the sale.

Last time we talked about this there were some questions about the precise issue in the district court (and now the circuit court) case. The pensions asked for several things, but most importantly they asked for a stay and for the case to be removed from the bankruptcy judge and placed in regular proceedings because the case involves constitutional issues not normally committed to bankruptcy court. The district court judge in his ruling also suggested that the Indiana pensions did not have standing to object to the sale.

The district court (and now the circuit court) will only be ruling on those issues: the stay, standing, and removal to a court of general jurisdiction. They will likely not be reaching the constitutional issues except insofar as they must to determine whether there is a likelihood that Indiana will prevail on the merits. That's the difference. This isn't on the merits...yet.

Even if the circuit court denies the motion, Indiana will still get a chance to appeal the bankruptcy sale hearing (if it goes as expected) after the bankruptcy judge issues a final order.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:16 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.