Al Jazeera
US president Barack Obama said bin Laden, the most-wanted fugitive on the US list, had been killed on Sunday in a US operation in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, about 61km north of Islamabad.
"Tonight, I can report to the people of the United States and the world, the United States had carried an operation that has killed Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist responsible for killing thousands of innocent people," Obama said in a statement.
"Today, at my direction, the United States carried out that operation... they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
"The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date against al-Qaeda.
"We must also reaffirm that United states is not and will never be at war against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader, in fact, he slaughtered many Muslims," Obama said.
According to New York Times, bin Laden's body was taken to Afghanistan and later buried at sea.
As the news of bin Laden's death spread, crowds gathered outside the White House in Washington DC to celebrate.
Former US president George Bush called his death a "momentous achievement".
"The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done," Bush said in a statement.
According to Al Jazeeera's Rosalind Jordan in Washington, the operation had been in the making for the last nine or 10 months.
"The fact that it happened inside Pakistan, there have been suggestions that Pakistani intelligence may have been protecting them," she said.
Patty Culhane, another Al Jazeera correspondent, said the US authorities got intelligence last September and were able to track bin Laden down through his couriers. They followed them to his compound which was reported to be worth over a million dollars.
Reporting from Pakistan, Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder said the development had caught a lot of people by surprise .
"He was considered by many as a hero, but not to the extent that people would come out on the streets. The reaction so far not likely to be strong on the streets, perhaps a protest here or there by the religious parties," he said.
'Symbolic victory'
Qais Azimy, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Kabul, said Afghan officials described bin Laden's killing as a "symbolic victory", since he was no longer directly connected to the group's field operations.
"This organisation (Al Qaeda) is more than Bin Laden, it may be symbolised by Bin Laden, but it definitely is more than Bin Laden"
Mark Kimmit, US military analyst
Mark Kimmit, a US military analyst, said bin Laden's death "was not the end of terrorism, but an end of a chapter."
"Capturing or killing bin Laden has more iconic value. It will have symbolic value, because it has been a number of years since bin Laden has exercised day to day control over operations. We still have an al-Qaeda threat out there and that will be there for a number of years.
"This organisation (al-Qaeda) is more than bin Laden, it may be symbolised by bin Laden, but it definitely is more than bin Laden," he said.
It is, however, a major accomplishment for Obama and his national security team. Obama's predecessor, George Bush, had repeatedly vowed to bring to justice the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, but never did before leaving office in early 2009.
He had been the subject of a search since he eluded US soldiers and Afghan militia forces in a large-scale assault on the Tora Bora mountains in 2001. The trail quickly went cold after he disappeared and many intelligence officials believed he had been hiding in Pakistan.
While in hiding, bin Laden had taunted the West and advocated his views in videotapes spirited from his hideaway.
Besides September 11, Washington has also linked bin Laden to a string of attacks - including the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 bombing of the warship USS Cole in Yemen.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/05/2011522132275789.html
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
UK: Welcome to Arizona; please shoot carefully
The Independent
Arizona choses official state gun
By Guy Adams
Welcome to Arizona; please shoot carefully. And if you really want to blend in with God-fearing locals, you may also want to be in possession of a cowboy hat, a sunburned neck, and at least one revolver, tucked into the waistband of your denim trousers.
In a move that can best be described as interestingly-timed, given tragic recent news events in the city of Tucson, Governor Jan Brewer this week signed into law a landmark piece of legislation that will give Arizona an official state firearm.
The Colt Single Action Army Revolver (also known as the "Peacemaker") will now join an eclectic list of items supposed to best reflect the unique history, landscape, and culture of the desert state. They include an official tree (the Palo Verde), breed of butterfly (Swallowtail), variety of gemstone (Turquoise), and wild-west-friendly type of neckwear (the bola tie).
Ms Brewer refused to comment on her decision to sign the bill, which was proposed by Republican lawmakers and backed by both gun manufacturers and the powerful National Rifle Association lobby group. However supporters claim it reflects the affection felt by some of Arizona's most famous natives towards Colt firearms.
Todd Rathner, a lobbyist employed by Colt, helped write the bill signed by Brewer. He told reporters that the gun is "historically important to the founding of the state and to the survival of the state." It was, he added, used by generations of Arizona Rangers.
Arizona, which has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the developed world, now becomes the second US State to adopt an official weapon. The decision to formalise its status reflects the strength of gun culture among locals. On any given day roughly 40 per cent of them are capable, to use common vernacular, of "packing heat."
The move also follows a trend. Earlier this year, neighbouring Utah became the first state to gain an official firearm, plumping for a semi-automatic pistol. Gun enthusiasts are now hoping to introduce similar measures across the nation. The National Rifle Association is vigorously lobbying lawmakers in Pennsylvania, for example, to plump for a long rifle.
Yet the growing idolisation of deadly weapons has also sparked heated debate, at a time when Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is still recovering from being shot in the head during an attack which left six dead and 15 injured outside a shopping centre in Tucson.
Her alleged assailant, Jared Lee Loughner, had previous convictions for drug possession and was suffering from mental illness. He was nonetheless able to legally purchase his weapon, an automatic Glock from a local gun store. The relaxation of gun laws under George W Bush also allowed him to buy an extended ammunition clip, doubling the number of rounds he was able to fire before being subdued.
Supporters of Ms Giffords have described the creation of a "state firearm" as an insult to the victims of that attack. They also say that it is a waste of legislative time, and is providing free publicity for a private company which doesn't even boast any employees in Arizona.
"This is a free advertisement for Colt," said Democratic Senator Adam Driggs, noting that the legislature is currently facing a billion-dollar budget shortfall. "If the state is going to go in this direction, I think we should get the equivalent of naming rights."
It has further upset supporters of native Navajo Indians, who say the Colt was used as a tool of genocide by white settlers to drive them from their ancestral lands. Albert Hale, another Democrat, said it had been promoted by lawmakers "who are more concerned about their own agenda" than the impact it might have on Native American communities.
"If you want to symbolize something and shove that into the faces of the victims, this is it," Mr Hale said. "This gun symbolizes extinction and extermination. To glorify this action and act as if a John Wayne movie is real history is very disturbing."
One of the lawmakers who wrote the bill creating the official firearm is Russell Pearce, a Republican who was also behind Arizona's controversial anti-immigration bill, which was deemed unconstitutional by a court last year.
Mr Pearce did not address the controversy this week, but shortly after the shooting of Giffords he achieved fame by appearing on television to claim that "guns save lives," arguing that if only an armed citizen "prepared to take action" had been present during the shooting "lives could have been saved".
It later emerged that Joe Zamudio, one of the onlookers who helped subdue gunman Jared Lee Loughner at the scene, was actually armed at the time. Mr Zamudio came within seconds of shooting the wrong man, wrongly identifying a fellow bystander as the assailant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/arizona-choses-official-state-gun-2277367.html
Arizona choses official state gun
By Guy Adams
Welcome to Arizona; please shoot carefully. And if you really want to blend in with God-fearing locals, you may also want to be in possession of a cowboy hat, a sunburned neck, and at least one revolver, tucked into the waistband of your denim trousers.
In a move that can best be described as interestingly-timed, given tragic recent news events in the city of Tucson, Governor Jan Brewer this week signed into law a landmark piece of legislation that will give Arizona an official state firearm.
The Colt Single Action Army Revolver (also known as the "Peacemaker") will now join an eclectic list of items supposed to best reflect the unique history, landscape, and culture of the desert state. They include an official tree (the Palo Verde), breed of butterfly (Swallowtail), variety of gemstone (Turquoise), and wild-west-friendly type of neckwear (the bola tie).
Ms Brewer refused to comment on her decision to sign the bill, which was proposed by Republican lawmakers and backed by both gun manufacturers and the powerful National Rifle Association lobby group. However supporters claim it reflects the affection felt by some of Arizona's most famous natives towards Colt firearms.
Todd Rathner, a lobbyist employed by Colt, helped write the bill signed by Brewer. He told reporters that the gun is "historically important to the founding of the state and to the survival of the state." It was, he added, used by generations of Arizona Rangers.
Arizona, which has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the developed world, now becomes the second US State to adopt an official weapon. The decision to formalise its status reflects the strength of gun culture among locals. On any given day roughly 40 per cent of them are capable, to use common vernacular, of "packing heat."
The move also follows a trend. Earlier this year, neighbouring Utah became the first state to gain an official firearm, plumping for a semi-automatic pistol. Gun enthusiasts are now hoping to introduce similar measures across the nation. The National Rifle Association is vigorously lobbying lawmakers in Pennsylvania, for example, to plump for a long rifle.
Yet the growing idolisation of deadly weapons has also sparked heated debate, at a time when Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is still recovering from being shot in the head during an attack which left six dead and 15 injured outside a shopping centre in Tucson.
Her alleged assailant, Jared Lee Loughner, had previous convictions for drug possession and was suffering from mental illness. He was nonetheless able to legally purchase his weapon, an automatic Glock from a local gun store. The relaxation of gun laws under George W Bush also allowed him to buy an extended ammunition clip, doubling the number of rounds he was able to fire before being subdued.
Supporters of Ms Giffords have described the creation of a "state firearm" as an insult to the victims of that attack. They also say that it is a waste of legislative time, and is providing free publicity for a private company which doesn't even boast any employees in Arizona.
"This is a free advertisement for Colt," said Democratic Senator Adam Driggs, noting that the legislature is currently facing a billion-dollar budget shortfall. "If the state is going to go in this direction, I think we should get the equivalent of naming rights."
It has further upset supporters of native Navajo Indians, who say the Colt was used as a tool of genocide by white settlers to drive them from their ancestral lands. Albert Hale, another Democrat, said it had been promoted by lawmakers "who are more concerned about their own agenda" than the impact it might have on Native American communities.
"If you want to symbolize something and shove that into the faces of the victims, this is it," Mr Hale said. "This gun symbolizes extinction and extermination. To glorify this action and act as if a John Wayne movie is real history is very disturbing."
One of the lawmakers who wrote the bill creating the official firearm is Russell Pearce, a Republican who was also behind Arizona's controversial anti-immigration bill, which was deemed unconstitutional by a court last year.
Mr Pearce did not address the controversy this week, but shortly after the shooting of Giffords he achieved fame by appearing on television to claim that "guns save lives," arguing that if only an armed citizen "prepared to take action" had been present during the shooting "lives could have been saved".
It later emerged that Joe Zamudio, one of the onlookers who helped subdue gunman Jared Lee Loughner at the scene, was actually armed at the time. Mr Zamudio came within seconds of shooting the wrong man, wrongly identifying a fellow bystander as the assailant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/arizona-choses-official-state-gun-2277367.html
Saturday, April 30, 2011
UK: "The world's greatest democracy takes the cake"
The Guardian
Will nothing deter the US 'birthers' who question Obama's origins?
It's thanks to Donald Trump that the myth of Obama as a sinister alien gathered strength – and seems doomed to continue
By Alexander Chancellor
A couple of years ago I was noting with astonishment on this page that 28% of American Republicans believed Barack Obama had not been born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president. A further 30% of Republicans were "not sure", despite the fact that Obama's birth in Honolulu on 4 August 1961 had been officially registered with the authorities at the time and his birth certificate published in two Hawaiian newspapers. What, I wondered, could persuade these millions of Americans to accept a fact that had been repeatedly investigated and verified? The answer seems to be nothing.
No opinion poll has been published on the question since Obama produced his birth certificate for inspection this week; but a poll carried out by CBS News and the New York Times only a week ago showed that the percentage of Republicans believing that he was born in another country had risen to a staggering 45% (and that a quarter of all Americans, including Democrats, were of the same view).
This willful denial of a seemingly incontrovertible truth is bewildering. But the myth of the president as a sinister alien and secret subversive has gathered new strength since its adoption by Donald Trump, the real-estate tycoon who is wondering whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Obama may have hoped that Trump would be chastened by the sight of his birth certificate, but, if so, he was to be disappointed.
"Today, I'm very proud of myself because I accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," Trump said, claiming responsibility for its publication. And he promised he would still go on digging into the president's past, despite the media's efforts to "protect" him. His next target would be Obama's college records. Obama had reputedly been "a terrible student" at Occidental College in Los Angeles, said Trump, but he had nevertheless gone on to both Columbia and Harvard universities. "How do you get into Harvard if you're not a good student?" he asked.
Like other leading "birthers", as those questioning Obama's origins are called, Trump also refused to accept the birth certificate at face value. He would examine it for authenticity, he said; as did Joseph Farah, the editor of an Obama-obsessed website, who declared that "it raises far more questions than it answers". Another prominent Obama critic, Orly Taitz, questioned the certificate's authenticity because it gave Obama's father's race as "African". "It sounds like it would be written today, in the age of political correctness, and not in 1961, when they wrote white or Asian or 'Negro'," Taitz said.
Be that as it may, the controversy seems doomed to continue. As the Washington Post put it yesterday: "Conspiracy theories have the self-sustaining gift of ramification: they sprout new tendrils, like a mad vine that has invaded from another continent. For the committed conspiracy theorist, there is always another angle to explore, another anomaly to scrutinize." But in America, unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists are not just a few crazy people but millions of supposedly normal ones. The level of political debate in Britain is often dismal, as when an historic reform of the voting system is discussed mainly in terms of what it would cost and which political party it would hurt the most. But the world's greatest democracy seems to take the cake.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/29/us-birthers-question-obamas-origins
Will nothing deter the US 'birthers' who question Obama's origins?
It's thanks to Donald Trump that the myth of Obama as a sinister alien gathered strength – and seems doomed to continue
By Alexander Chancellor
A couple of years ago I was noting with astonishment on this page that 28% of American Republicans believed Barack Obama had not been born in the United States and was therefore ineligible to be president. A further 30% of Republicans were "not sure", despite the fact that Obama's birth in Honolulu on 4 August 1961 had been officially registered with the authorities at the time and his birth certificate published in two Hawaiian newspapers. What, I wondered, could persuade these millions of Americans to accept a fact that had been repeatedly investigated and verified? The answer seems to be nothing.
No opinion poll has been published on the question since Obama produced his birth certificate for inspection this week; but a poll carried out by CBS News and the New York Times only a week ago showed that the percentage of Republicans believing that he was born in another country had risen to a staggering 45% (and that a quarter of all Americans, including Democrats, were of the same view).
This willful denial of a seemingly incontrovertible truth is bewildering. But the myth of the president as a sinister alien and secret subversive has gathered new strength since its adoption by Donald Trump, the real-estate tycoon who is wondering whether to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Obama may have hoped that Trump would be chastened by the sight of his birth certificate, but, if so, he was to be disappointed.
"Today, I'm very proud of myself because I accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," Trump said, claiming responsibility for its publication. And he promised he would still go on digging into the president's past, despite the media's efforts to "protect" him. His next target would be Obama's college records. Obama had reputedly been "a terrible student" at Occidental College in Los Angeles, said Trump, but he had nevertheless gone on to both Columbia and Harvard universities. "How do you get into Harvard if you're not a good student?" he asked.
Like other leading "birthers", as those questioning Obama's origins are called, Trump also refused to accept the birth certificate at face value. He would examine it for authenticity, he said; as did Joseph Farah, the editor of an Obama-obsessed website, who declared that "it raises far more questions than it answers". Another prominent Obama critic, Orly Taitz, questioned the certificate's authenticity because it gave Obama's father's race as "African". "It sounds like it would be written today, in the age of political correctness, and not in 1961, when they wrote white or Asian or 'Negro'," Taitz said.
Be that as it may, the controversy seems doomed to continue. As the Washington Post put it yesterday: "Conspiracy theories have the self-sustaining gift of ramification: they sprout new tendrils, like a mad vine that has invaded from another continent. For the committed conspiracy theorist, there is always another angle to explore, another anomaly to scrutinize." But in America, unfortunately, the conspiracy theorists are not just a few crazy people but millions of supposedly normal ones. The level of political debate in Britain is often dismal, as when an historic reform of the voting system is discussed mainly in terms of what it would cost and which political party it would hurt the most. But the world's greatest democracy seems to take the cake.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/29/us-birthers-question-obamas-origins
Has the US lost is moral compass along with its collective mind?
PJ: I read this opinion piece in the Washington Post while nodding in agreement with the author as often as I found myself shaking my head in disgust at the lengths to which many will go to try to bring President Obama down. Politics has always worn a black eye when it comes to honesty vs. rhetoric but I have never seen anything like the current discourse in the US. When news agencies such as Fox News parade false information, innuendo and outright lies to further an agenda; when prominent political figures promote lies to win positions and when ordinary citizens are driven away from facts in order to embrace the fiction of their choice, we are left wondering if this signals the end of the great society that was once represented by the phrase "Only in America".
The Washington Post
The relentless smear campaign against Obama
By Colbert I. King, Published: April 29
During Holy Week, President Obama, for the second consecutive year, gathered several Christian clergy at the White House for an Easter Prayer Breakfast during which he talked about his faith and the resurrection. He mentioned Easter in his Saturday radio address. On Easter Sunday morning, the president and his family attended services at Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington.
The next day, Foxnews.com charged Obama with failing to recognize “the national observance of Easter Sunday, Christianity’s most sacred holiday.” Two days later, Steve Doocy, host of Fox News’ “Fox and Friends,” invited Robert Jeffress, a conservative Baptist minister in Dallas, on the show and asked him “what do you think” about why Obama has never issued an Easter proclamation.
Given the opportunity for a gratuitous smear, Jeffress didn’t waste a second: “Steve, let’s look at what’s really going on here. On the one hand, we have a president who never met a Muslim holiday he didn’t like or at least wasn’t willing to issue a proclamation for, and on the other hand, here he is refusing to acknowledge, publicly, the most important event in Christian faith . . . and yet the White House is wondering, why do 20 percent of Americans believe the president is a Muslim?”
It seemed not to matter to Doocy to mention that no president in the past 20 years has issued an Easter proclamation. Doocy also didn’t acknowledge the president’s annual Easter Prayer Breakfast with clergy, though he alluded to Obama making “some comments last week regarding Easter at a breakfast.”
The charge that Obama shortchanged Easter was false. By suggesting Obama had snubbed Christianity and that he might be a closet Muslim, Fox handed its largely conservative audience yet another reason to hate the president.
The quest from the right to degrade Obama knows no bounds.
I’m looking at a photo with the faces of three chimpanzees imposed on the bodies of a man, woman and child. The baby chimp’s face is covered with Obama’s picture. It was e-mailed in California this month with the message: “Now you know why — no birth certificate!”
The sender was Marilyn Davenport, an elected member of the Orange County Republican Central Committee, who thought her GOP colleagues would also get a kick out of seeing the president of the United States depicted as the offspring of chimpanzees.
“I simply found it amusing regarding the character of Obama and all the questions surrounding his origins of birth,” Davenport said in a written statement. “In no way did I even consider the fact that he’s half black when I sent out the email.”
Davenport has since apologized, after coming under fire from civil rights groups and some local Republican leaders. But she’s still on the Orange County GOP Central Committee.
Why, come to think of it, should Davenport give up her official Republican position? She’s in good company. A CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted in August showed that 41 percent of Republicans believe Obama was “probably” or “definitely” born in another country. Even after Obama released his “long form” birth certificate this week, “birthers” — and political hustlers who cater to them — still cling to the “Obama is not one of us” smear.
I happen to think it was beneath Obama to respond to the “birthers,” most of all chief accuser Donald Trump, a rich, thrice-married New York show-off who got his start in business with daddy’s money and managed, through the successful operation of casinos, to get himself inducted in the Gaming Hall of Fame in 2005.
It’s sickening that false claims about Obama’s place of birth and his religion have been made, fanned and believed without any evidence. Sad, too, that despite all evidence to the contrary, 34 percent of conservative Republicans, according to a Pew Research Center poll last August, believe Obama is a Muslim. The percentage had risen 16 points since 2009.
What’s behind all this? Why the relentless lies about Obama?
It is, simply put, a crusade to bring him down.
Make Obama out to be the “outsider” who doesn’t belong where he is. Vilify him as a cheat who, knowing he was ineligible to run for president, intentionally violated the Constitution and defrauded the American people. Marginalize him!
Marginalize his Ivy League education and Harvard Law Review presidency. Devalue his degrees with slurs. Insinuate that merit had nothing to do with his achievements. Accuse him of lying about his religion. Repeat over and over that he’s a socialist bent on destroying free enterprise.
Charge him with being weak. If that won’t do, denounce him as headstrong and arrogant.
But above all else, brand him unqualified and in over his head. Yeah, that’s the one. It always works. That’ll get him out of there.
kingc@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-relentless-smear-campaign-against-obama/2011/04/29/AFkSVyGF_story.html
The Washington Post
The relentless smear campaign against Obama
By Colbert I. King, Published: April 29
During Holy Week, President Obama, for the second consecutive year, gathered several Christian clergy at the White House for an Easter Prayer Breakfast during which he talked about his faith and the resurrection. He mentioned Easter in his Saturday radio address. On Easter Sunday morning, the president and his family attended services at Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington.
The next day, Foxnews.com charged Obama with failing to recognize “the national observance of Easter Sunday, Christianity’s most sacred holiday.” Two days later, Steve Doocy, host of Fox News’ “Fox and Friends,” invited Robert Jeffress, a conservative Baptist minister in Dallas, on the show and asked him “what do you think” about why Obama has never issued an Easter proclamation.
Given the opportunity for a gratuitous smear, Jeffress didn’t waste a second: “Steve, let’s look at what’s really going on here. On the one hand, we have a president who never met a Muslim holiday he didn’t like or at least wasn’t willing to issue a proclamation for, and on the other hand, here he is refusing to acknowledge, publicly, the most important event in Christian faith . . . and yet the White House is wondering, why do 20 percent of Americans believe the president is a Muslim?”
It seemed not to matter to Doocy to mention that no president in the past 20 years has issued an Easter proclamation. Doocy also didn’t acknowledge the president’s annual Easter Prayer Breakfast with clergy, though he alluded to Obama making “some comments last week regarding Easter at a breakfast.”
The charge that Obama shortchanged Easter was false. By suggesting Obama had snubbed Christianity and that he might be a closet Muslim, Fox handed its largely conservative audience yet another reason to hate the president.
The quest from the right to degrade Obama knows no bounds.
I’m looking at a photo with the faces of three chimpanzees imposed on the bodies of a man, woman and child. The baby chimp’s face is covered with Obama’s picture. It was e-mailed in California this month with the message: “Now you know why — no birth certificate!”
The sender was Marilyn Davenport, an elected member of the Orange County Republican Central Committee, who thought her GOP colleagues would also get a kick out of seeing the president of the United States depicted as the offspring of chimpanzees.
“I simply found it amusing regarding the character of Obama and all the questions surrounding his origins of birth,” Davenport said in a written statement. “In no way did I even consider the fact that he’s half black when I sent out the email.”
Davenport has since apologized, after coming under fire from civil rights groups and some local Republican leaders. But she’s still on the Orange County GOP Central Committee.
Why, come to think of it, should Davenport give up her official Republican position? She’s in good company. A CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted in August showed that 41 percent of Republicans believe Obama was “probably” or “definitely” born in another country. Even after Obama released his “long form” birth certificate this week, “birthers” — and political hustlers who cater to them — still cling to the “Obama is not one of us” smear.
I happen to think it was beneath Obama to respond to the “birthers,” most of all chief accuser Donald Trump, a rich, thrice-married New York show-off who got his start in business with daddy’s money and managed, through the successful operation of casinos, to get himself inducted in the Gaming Hall of Fame in 2005.
It’s sickening that false claims about Obama’s place of birth and his religion have been made, fanned and believed without any evidence. Sad, too, that despite all evidence to the contrary, 34 percent of conservative Republicans, according to a Pew Research Center poll last August, believe Obama is a Muslim. The percentage had risen 16 points since 2009.
What’s behind all this? Why the relentless lies about Obama?
It is, simply put, a crusade to bring him down.
Make Obama out to be the “outsider” who doesn’t belong where he is. Vilify him as a cheat who, knowing he was ineligible to run for president, intentionally violated the Constitution and defrauded the American people. Marginalize him!
Marginalize his Ivy League education and Harvard Law Review presidency. Devalue his degrees with slurs. Insinuate that merit had nothing to do with his achievements. Accuse him of lying about his religion. Repeat over and over that he’s a socialist bent on destroying free enterprise.
Charge him with being weak. If that won’t do, denounce him as headstrong and arrogant.
But above all else, brand him unqualified and in over his head. Yeah, that’s the one. It always works. That’ll get him out of there.
kingc@washpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-relentless-smear-campaign-against-obama/2011/04/29/AFkSVyGF_story.html
UK: Superman becomes a superhero of the world
The Independent
Superman becomes a super-rebel – and scourge of the American right
By Guy Adams in Los Angeles
He's still a firm believer in truth and justice, but the world's foremost superhero is no longer sure he can carry on proudly endorsing the American way. As he approaches his 80th birthday, Superman has made a shock decision: he intends to renounce his US citizenship.
The move, to be announced next week in the 900th edition of Action Comics, comes after a peculiarly topical plot twist: the Man of Steel finds himself being criticised by the White House for joining young Muslims at a rally against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
"I'm tired of having my actions construed as instruments of US policy," he wearily tells the President's National Security Advisor. "Truth, justice and the American way... It's not enough anymore. The world's too small. Too connected. I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my US citizenship."
The comments have sparked heated debate among fans of the superhero, who was created in the 1930s. With his perfect teeth, rags-to-riches story and enduring ability to kick butt, Superman has, until now, represented a red-blooded embodiment of the American Dream.
Born on a fictional planet called Krypton, he was raised by a farmer and his wife in rural Kansas. Since becoming an adult, he's lived a double life in New York as Clark Kent, a "mild-mannered" reporter for The Daily Planet, who uses vacant telephone boxes to change into his patriotically coloured blue jumpsuit and red underpants whenever a wrong needs righting.
But since the end of the Cold War, Superman has increasingly found his philosophy at odds with official US policy. His threat to renounce citizenship, which has yet to be followed through, can perhaps therefore be interpreted as an acknowledgement that modern superheroes can no longer view right and wrong through a prism of narrow patriotism.
That sort of liberal hand-wringing is more-or-less guaranteed to upset Middle America, however. News that Superman's commitment to the USA is wavering sparked comic levels of outrage among right-leaning commentators yesterday.
"We are turning into the biggest bunch of pantie-wasted sissies I've ever seen," wrote one Jimmy Wallingford, of Texas, after reading of the development on the New York Post's website. "Has anyone at DC Comics been to another country? America may have some problems, but there is nowhere I'd rather be!"
Another reader, Bernie Loverde, suggested that the development was part of a plot to indoctrinate children with left-wing beliefs. "Do progressives, with their one global life and political correctness, have no end to what they have to shit all over?" he asked. Such comments conveniently ignore the fact that, since he was never formally adopted, Superman is officially classified as an illegal alien. By the logic of most conservatives, he does not therefore have US citizenship to renounce.
Nonetheless, the publishers of DC Comics, Jim Lee and Dan DiDio, appear to be concerned at the level of hostility their new edition has generated. They released a statement yesterday arguing that, despite his commitment to an increasingly international outlook, Superman will continue to embody the best of America.
"Superman is a visitor from a distant planet who has long embraced American values. As a character and an icon, he embodies the best of the American Way," it read. "In a short story in Action Comics 900, Superman announces his intention to put a global focus on his never-ending battle, but he remains, as always, committed to his adopted home and his roots as a Kansas farm boy from Smallville."
The repositioning certainly makes sense from a commercial point of view, with a new Superman film on the way and Hollywood increasingly dependent on international box office returns.
Defenders of the move have also pointed out that Superman is not the first superhero to thumb his nose at the US. During the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, Captain America also renounced his citizenship.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/superman-becomes-a-superrebel-ndash-and-scourge-of-the-american-right-2276861.html
Superman becomes a super-rebel – and scourge of the American right
By Guy Adams in Los Angeles
He's still a firm believer in truth and justice, but the world's foremost superhero is no longer sure he can carry on proudly endorsing the American way. As he approaches his 80th birthday, Superman has made a shock decision: he intends to renounce his US citizenship.
The move, to be announced next week in the 900th edition of Action Comics, comes after a peculiarly topical plot twist: the Man of Steel finds himself being criticised by the White House for joining young Muslims at a rally against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
"I'm tired of having my actions construed as instruments of US policy," he wearily tells the President's National Security Advisor. "Truth, justice and the American way... It's not enough anymore. The world's too small. Too connected. I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my US citizenship."
The comments have sparked heated debate among fans of the superhero, who was created in the 1930s. With his perfect teeth, rags-to-riches story and enduring ability to kick butt, Superman has, until now, represented a red-blooded embodiment of the American Dream.
Born on a fictional planet called Krypton, he was raised by a farmer and his wife in rural Kansas. Since becoming an adult, he's lived a double life in New York as Clark Kent, a "mild-mannered" reporter for The Daily Planet, who uses vacant telephone boxes to change into his patriotically coloured blue jumpsuit and red underpants whenever a wrong needs righting.
But since the end of the Cold War, Superman has increasingly found his philosophy at odds with official US policy. His threat to renounce citizenship, which has yet to be followed through, can perhaps therefore be interpreted as an acknowledgement that modern superheroes can no longer view right and wrong through a prism of narrow patriotism.
That sort of liberal hand-wringing is more-or-less guaranteed to upset Middle America, however. News that Superman's commitment to the USA is wavering sparked comic levels of outrage among right-leaning commentators yesterday.
"We are turning into the biggest bunch of pantie-wasted sissies I've ever seen," wrote one Jimmy Wallingford, of Texas, after reading of the development on the New York Post's website. "Has anyone at DC Comics been to another country? America may have some problems, but there is nowhere I'd rather be!"
Another reader, Bernie Loverde, suggested that the development was part of a plot to indoctrinate children with left-wing beliefs. "Do progressives, with their one global life and political correctness, have no end to what they have to shit all over?" he asked. Such comments conveniently ignore the fact that, since he was never formally adopted, Superman is officially classified as an illegal alien. By the logic of most conservatives, he does not therefore have US citizenship to renounce.
Nonetheless, the publishers of DC Comics, Jim Lee and Dan DiDio, appear to be concerned at the level of hostility their new edition has generated. They released a statement yesterday arguing that, despite his commitment to an increasingly international outlook, Superman will continue to embody the best of America.
"Superman is a visitor from a distant planet who has long embraced American values. As a character and an icon, he embodies the best of the American Way," it read. "In a short story in Action Comics 900, Superman announces his intention to put a global focus on his never-ending battle, but he remains, as always, committed to his adopted home and his roots as a Kansas farm boy from Smallville."
The repositioning certainly makes sense from a commercial point of view, with a new Superman film on the way and Hollywood increasingly dependent on international box office returns.
Defenders of the move have also pointed out that Superman is not the first superhero to thumb his nose at the US. During the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, Captain America also renounced his citizenship.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/superman-becomes-a-superrebel-ndash-and-scourge-of-the-american-right-2276861.html
Friday, April 29, 2011
UK: Palin's Trig story goes mainstream
The Guardian
Sarah Palin, unreliable narrator
It's wrong to cast those who question Trig's birth story as crazed conspiracy theorists when the media have not done their job
The rumours surrounding Sarah Palin's pregnancy with Trig have been an issue that found little attention in the media until two weeks ago, when a research paper by Bradford Scharlott, associate professor of journalism at Northern Kentucky University, hit the mainstream. Professor Scharlott asserted in his paper that there exists a "spiral of silence" in the media regarding the circumstances of Trig Palin's birth.
Scharlott was not the first person to make this observation. Since August 2008, the influential blogger Andrew Sullivan, editor at the "The Dish", has repeatedly and harshly criticised the media for its unwillingness to report on Sarah Palin's pregnancy in a long series of posts on his blog. In addition, Sullivan published a book review in the Sunday Times (of London) on 22 November 2009, in which he gave a summary of Sarah Palin's birth story and observed that her account makes "Xena, the warrior princess, seem fragile" in comparison.
But what is Sarah Palin's birth story, and why is it relevant?
A short look at the available documentation reveals that a coherent birth story is hard to determine, as several versions exist – all told by Sarah Palin herself. The first version, audiotaped during a press conference on 21 April 2008, is the one where Sarah Palin went on the record right after Trig's birth. During the press conference, the following exchange happened:
Reporter: So did your water break?
Palin: Well, if you must know more of those type of details, but, um …
Reporter: Well, your dad said that and I saw him say it so that's why I asked.
Palin: Well that was again if, if I must get personal, technical about this at the same time, um, it was one, it was a sign that I knew, um, could lead to uh, labour being uh kind of kicked in there was any kind of, um, amniotic leaking, amniotic fluid leaking, so when, when that happened we decided OK let's call her.
This exchange established that Palin's waters broke during the early hours of the morning on 17 April 2008 in Dallas, Texas. Lisa Demer quoted in the Anchorage Daily News an obstetrician, who confirmed: "To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak."
This statement by Sarah Palin was the trigger for scepticism on the part of some journalists regarding Palin's birth story, as well as the start of investigations by bloggers and citizens. I have played a role in these investigations since November 2008. Since then, more material has come to light – and Palin has herself given different accounts of Trig's birth story. In her autobiography, Going Rogue, there is no mention of her "amniotic fluid leaking", but Palin reports instead on page 193 that she was woken at 4am on 17 April 2008 by a "strange sensation low in my belly".
By her own account, Sarah Palin's pregnancy was a "high-risk" one: she was 44 years old, and it was her seventh pregnancy (she had had two previous miscarriages); the baby had Down's Syndrome and was about to be born prematurely. The fact that Palin, despite the obvious complications, embarked on a ten-hour plane journey from Dallas to Anchorage with a stopover in Seattle, bypassing the first-rate Baylor Regional Medical Centre in Dallas with a neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU) situated ten minutes away from the conference she was attending, is mystifying – even more so since Palin then elected not to attend Providence hospital in Anchorage, which is also equipped with excellent NICU facilities that would have ensured a safe delivery for her premature son.
Sarah Palin officially gave birth at Mat-Su Regional Medical Centre, a local hospital with no NICU at Palmer, Alaska, on 18 April 2008. The 6lb 2oz Trig was presented by his grandparents to journalists just a few hours after his birth. Oddly, in a memorable appearance in Waco, Texas, on 14 September 2010, Palin, after bragging that she holds the "world record" in hiding her pregnancy and joking about the "Trig truthers", told the audience that she "had the baby in Anchorage", when official accounts have her giving birth 45 minutes away in Palmer.
Why are there so many apparent contradictions in Palin's account of Trig's birth story? Many blogs have addressed this question: for example, on the blogs Politicalgates, Palingates and Palin's Deceptions, as well as Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish. The controversy was known at the time of Sarah Palin's nomination for vice-presidential candidate, with Michael Carey, an editor for the Anchorage Daily News, making explicit reference to rumours, at the Republican convention. Despite the attention Professor Scharlott's paper has received since it was released, Sarah Palin and her fans have been strangely silent on the issue. Palin could end the public discussion immediately by presenting hard evidence, such as hospital or insurance records. She once claimed to have published Trig's birth certificate, but no journalist can be found who has seen it.
This issue is not about misogyny, as Megan Carpentier claimed in her recent commentary in the Guardian. We are not misogynist and we have no interest in examining Sarah Palin's "vagina". The majority of our readers, supporters and researchers are female, and they are usually women with experience in giving birth. There are also many readers who have medical backgrounds who strongly question Palin's account of Trig's birth. And I would like to point out that we are also not fixated on the pregnancy, as Carpentier asserts, but have written about many different issues regarding Sarah Palin.
The questions about Sarah Palin's pregnancy are relevant, because they raise issues of trust about a woman who almost became the vice-president of the US and who still has a large following and political influence. Journalists who now quickly declare this matter "closed" without having examined the evidence should be reminded that former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt is on record saying that Palin's book Going Rogue comprises "not 70%, but 100% fiction". Journalists should take this statement more seriously before putting their reputation on the line for Sarah Palin. Instead, they should ask her some tough questions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/28/sarahpalin-alaska
Sarah Palin, unreliable narrator
It's wrong to cast those who question Trig's birth story as crazed conspiracy theorists when the media have not done their job
The rumours surrounding Sarah Palin's pregnancy with Trig have been an issue that found little attention in the media until two weeks ago, when a research paper by Bradford Scharlott, associate professor of journalism at Northern Kentucky University, hit the mainstream. Professor Scharlott asserted in his paper that there exists a "spiral of silence" in the media regarding the circumstances of Trig Palin's birth.
Scharlott was not the first person to make this observation. Since August 2008, the influential blogger Andrew Sullivan, editor at the "The Dish", has repeatedly and harshly criticised the media for its unwillingness to report on Sarah Palin's pregnancy in a long series of posts on his blog. In addition, Sullivan published a book review in the Sunday Times (of London) on 22 November 2009, in which he gave a summary of Sarah Palin's birth story and observed that her account makes "Xena, the warrior princess, seem fragile" in comparison.
But what is Sarah Palin's birth story, and why is it relevant?
A short look at the available documentation reveals that a coherent birth story is hard to determine, as several versions exist – all told by Sarah Palin herself. The first version, audiotaped during a press conference on 21 April 2008, is the one where Sarah Palin went on the record right after Trig's birth. During the press conference, the following exchange happened:
Reporter: So did your water break?
Palin: Well, if you must know more of those type of details, but, um …
Reporter: Well, your dad said that and I saw him say it so that's why I asked.
Palin: Well that was again if, if I must get personal, technical about this at the same time, um, it was one, it was a sign that I knew, um, could lead to uh, labour being uh kind of kicked in there was any kind of, um, amniotic leaking, amniotic fluid leaking, so when, when that happened we decided OK let's call her.
This exchange established that Palin's waters broke during the early hours of the morning on 17 April 2008 in Dallas, Texas. Lisa Demer quoted in the Anchorage Daily News an obstetrician, who confirmed: "To us, leaking and broken, we are talking the same thing. We are talking doctor-speak."
This statement by Sarah Palin was the trigger for scepticism on the part of some journalists regarding Palin's birth story, as well as the start of investigations by bloggers and citizens. I have played a role in these investigations since November 2008. Since then, more material has come to light – and Palin has herself given different accounts of Trig's birth story. In her autobiography, Going Rogue, there is no mention of her "amniotic fluid leaking", but Palin reports instead on page 193 that she was woken at 4am on 17 April 2008 by a "strange sensation low in my belly".
By her own account, Sarah Palin's pregnancy was a "high-risk" one: she was 44 years old, and it was her seventh pregnancy (she had had two previous miscarriages); the baby had Down's Syndrome and was about to be born prematurely. The fact that Palin, despite the obvious complications, embarked on a ten-hour plane journey from Dallas to Anchorage with a stopover in Seattle, bypassing the first-rate Baylor Regional Medical Centre in Dallas with a neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU) situated ten minutes away from the conference she was attending, is mystifying – even more so since Palin then elected not to attend Providence hospital in Anchorage, which is also equipped with excellent NICU facilities that would have ensured a safe delivery for her premature son.
Sarah Palin officially gave birth at Mat-Su Regional Medical Centre, a local hospital with no NICU at Palmer, Alaska, on 18 April 2008. The 6lb 2oz Trig was presented by his grandparents to journalists just a few hours after his birth. Oddly, in a memorable appearance in Waco, Texas, on 14 September 2010, Palin, after bragging that she holds the "world record" in hiding her pregnancy and joking about the "Trig truthers", told the audience that she "had the baby in Anchorage", when official accounts have her giving birth 45 minutes away in Palmer.
Why are there so many apparent contradictions in Palin's account of Trig's birth story? Many blogs have addressed this question: for example, on the blogs Politicalgates, Palingates and Palin's Deceptions, as well as Andrew Sullivan on the Daily Dish. The controversy was known at the time of Sarah Palin's nomination for vice-presidential candidate, with Michael Carey, an editor for the Anchorage Daily News, making explicit reference to rumours, at the Republican convention. Despite the attention Professor Scharlott's paper has received since it was released, Sarah Palin and her fans have been strangely silent on the issue. Palin could end the public discussion immediately by presenting hard evidence, such as hospital or insurance records. She once claimed to have published Trig's birth certificate, but no journalist can be found who has seen it.
This issue is not about misogyny, as Megan Carpentier claimed in her recent commentary in the Guardian. We are not misogynist and we have no interest in examining Sarah Palin's "vagina". The majority of our readers, supporters and researchers are female, and they are usually women with experience in giving birth. There are also many readers who have medical backgrounds who strongly question Palin's account of Trig's birth. And I would like to point out that we are also not fixated on the pregnancy, as Carpentier asserts, but have written about many different issues regarding Sarah Palin.
The questions about Sarah Palin's pregnancy are relevant, because they raise issues of trust about a woman who almost became the vice-president of the US and who still has a large following and political influence. Journalists who now quickly declare this matter "closed" without having examined the evidence should be reminded that former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt is on record saying that Palin's book Going Rogue comprises "not 70%, but 100% fiction". Journalists should take this statement more seriously before putting their reputation on the line for Sarah Palin. Instead, they should ask her some tough questions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/28/sarahpalin-alaska
Pakistan: Pakistan will benefit greatly from peace in Afghanistan
Associated Press of Pakistan
Pakistan will be first country to be benefitted from peace in Afghanistan:
ISLAMABAD, April 28 (APP): Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar on Thursday said that Pakistan would be the first country to get benefit from the peace and security in Afghanistan. Talking to reporters outside the Parliament House, she said Pakistan always made sincere efforts for peace in the Afghistan adding, “We do not want that Pakistani soil should be used for adventurism and similarly we hope that any other country soil, including Afghanistan, will not be used for adventurism in the region.”
Replying to a question she said Pakistan is facing challenges and it has been seeking cooperation and assistance from the international community.
To an other question she said Pakistani is looking into all diplomatic options to counter the drone attacks as these are counter productive.
She said Pakistan has conveyed its resentment and feelings on the drone attacks to the American leadership at all platforms.
http://ftpapp.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137937&Itemid=1
Pakistan will be first country to be benefitted from peace in Afghanistan:
ISLAMABAD, April 28 (APP): Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar on Thursday said that Pakistan would be the first country to get benefit from the peace and security in Afghanistan. Talking to reporters outside the Parliament House, she said Pakistan always made sincere efforts for peace in the Afghistan adding, “We do not want that Pakistani soil should be used for adventurism and similarly we hope that any other country soil, including Afghanistan, will not be used for adventurism in the region.”
Replying to a question she said Pakistan is facing challenges and it has been seeking cooperation and assistance from the international community.
To an other question she said Pakistani is looking into all diplomatic options to counter the drone attacks as these are counter productive.
She said Pakistan has conveyed its resentment and feelings on the drone attacks to the American leadership at all platforms.
http://ftpapp.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137937&Itemid=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)