The organization blamed the murders of late-term abortionist George Tiller in Kansas and Holocaust Museum security guard Stephen T. Johns on the "extreme right," explaining that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's much-criticized report warning about the threat of violence by "right-wing extremists" was in fact prophetic.
"Republican right denounced her timely report as an 'attack' on veterans, anti-abortionists, and anti-immigrant crusaders," the editorial said. "Some even called for her resignation."
The party also accused actor Jon Voight of threatening violence against Obama.
"The latest venom comes from actor Jon Voight who denounced President Obama at a GOP fundraiser as a 'softspoken Julius Caesar' that America must be 'freed' from," said the party. "'Bring an end to this false prophet, Obama,' Voight ranted, sounding like Brutus. It is a federal crime to threaten violence against the president."
The solution? The party said: "[T]he best answer is to defeat the hatemongers politically. Boycott Fox News. Demand Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, latest target of hate. Build maximum unity to win healthcare for all, employee free choice, 'green' jobs, immigrant reform, an end to wars, and a more inclusive, tolerant democracy in our country."
Will Collier Emphasis added.
Somebody cue up "My Sharona" or "Le Freak." Apparently it's 1979 all over again.
Rather than offering any crumbs of support to the Iranians who are literally putting their lives on the line for their own freedom, Barack Obama could only manage "deep concerns." In Obamaland, it's not as important to offer even moral support to people trying to shake off the yoke of a barbaric dictatorship as it is to not appear to be "meddling."
This all sounds quite familiar, and everyone over 30 has seen it before. Did somebody replace the "community activist" with a self-righteous peanut farmer while we weren't looking?
The fantasy that "moderates" within the mullah regime can be coaxed into a "grand bargain" has taken in better men than Barack Obama, but Obama doesn't even have the excuse of not being aware of that prior history....
The reign of the ayatollahs in Iran has an expiration date, and the ayatollahs know it. Seventy percent of Iran's population wasn't even alive in 1978, and they've had enough of the mullahs and their Basij bully boys. Whether their yoke is thrown off in 2009 or in 2012 or 2020, it's going to happen, probably within the next decade or so.
I hope any sane person would agree that sooner would be better, but here's a question for all of those who are eaten up with concern over "what will they think of us?" Whenever the turn comes, what exactly will they think of us, if we turn our backs on them today? What will they think if we just hedge our bets against the ludicrous idea that we might be burning (nonexistent) bridges with the mullahs otherwise?
I've meet a lot of Eastern Europeans who have pictures of Ronald Reagan on their mantles. They never forgot the way he stood up for them, in public, against the commissars. Iran's population is going to run off the mullahs one of these years, hopefully this year. When that happens, what do you want them to remember, that we were supporting them, or worrying about what their oppressors would think about it?
For two decades, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has remained a shadowy presence at the pinnacle of power in Iran, sparing in his public appearances and comments. Through his control of the military, the judiciary and all public broadcasts, the supreme leader controlled the levers he needed to maintain an iron if discreet grip on the Islamic republic.
But in a rare break from a long history of cautious moves, he rushed to bless President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for winning the election, calling on Iranians to line up behind the incumbent even before the standard three days required to certify the results had passed. Then angry crowds swelled in cities around Iran, and he backpedaled, announcing Monday that the 12-member Council of Guardians, which vets elections and new laws, would investigate the vote.
"After congratulating the nation for having a sacred victory, to say now that there is a possibility that it was rigged is a big step backward for him," said Abbas Milani, the director of Stanford University's Iranian studies program.
Few suggest yet that Ayatollah Khamenei's hold on power is at risk. But, analysts say, he has opened a serious fissure in the face of Islamic rule and one that may prove impossible to patch over, particularly given the fierce dispute over the election that has erupted amid the elite veterans of the 1979 revolution. Even his strong links to the powerful Revolutionary Guards -- long his insurance policy -- may not be decisive as the confrontation in Iran unfolds.
"Khamenei would always come and say, 'Shut up; what I say goes,' " said Azar Nafisi, the author of two memoirs about Iran, including "Reading Lolita in Tehran." "Everyone would say, 'O.K., it is the word of the leader.' Now the myth that there is a leader up there whose power is unquestionable is broken."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/17/2009 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
I don't see how a popular uprising in a place like Iran can triumph. Yet, there have been a few bloodless revolutions when the military and police simply refused to kill their own people en masse. Is this possible in Iran? Probably not.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
06/17/2009 7:09 Comments ||
One of the key elements is that the 'guard dogs' are first generation. First geners can still taste blood and historically don't have the qualms about taking out the 'heretics'.
Khamenei (Obama, disgustingly and supinely calls him Supreme Leader) has several layers of support in the para military. There is the Revolutionary guard (aka the Basij) and the Special Revolutionary Guard (aka the Pasdaran or IRG or IRGC). Together they probably have a deployable strength of loyal (to Khamenei although they may be more loyal to Ahmadinejad) troops of nearly 1M. The Army has about 800k but is not thought to be loyal to Khamenei.
Interestingly, Khamenei has been thought to have had some serious illnesses in the past few years. If he was to be incapacitated, that would shake things up.
Posted by: Lord garth ||
06/17/2009 11:17 Comments ||
Question: didn't an article posted here a few days ago mention that the Basij Guards included a lot of Arabs? If so, then they'd have no qualms whatever about shooting Iranians, who are not their own people.
Read an article saying that the military had said they won't be used in putting down the demonstators, but on the other hand the real power is with the Revolutionary Guards backed up by the Basij militia. Think of the RG as something like the SS - both a secret police and a waffen aspect.
From a blog, but one that can translate. It's opinion' but seems genuine. See what you think.
Grand Ayatullah Husayn (Hossein) 'Ali Montazeri has issued a statement supporting peaceful protests to "claim rights", condemned the violence, and called the Iranian presidential election results into question.
"Confirmation" in the Western media seems to be slow in coming, but the statement (in Persian) has been released on Montazeri's official web site. A translation has been posted). Upon skimming sections, it seems like a reasonable translation. However, confirmation from a reader whose Persian is much better than mine is welcome.
There is some streamlining, e.g. of the introduction, where it reads "To the Iranian People" instead of "[to the] Noble People", which is closer to the literal translation. The word ملت can also be translated as "nation," thus, "Noble Nation."
The entire bismillah used by Muslims around the world to begin things is also cut short, "In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful...":
In the name of God
People of Iran
These last days, we have witnessed the lively efforts of you brothers and sisters, old and young alike, from any social category, for the 10th presidential elections.
Our youth, hoping to see their rightful will fulfilled, came on the scene and waited patiently. This was the greatest occasion for the governments officials to bond with their people.
But unfortunately, they used it in the worst way possible. Declaring results that no one in their right mind can believe, and despite all the evidence of crafted results, and to counter people protestations, in front of the eyes of the same nation who carried the weight of a revolution and 8 years of war, in front of the eyes of local and foreign reporters, attacked the children of the people with astonishing violence. And now they are attempting a purge, arresting intellectuals, political opponents and Scientifics.
Now, based on my religious duties, I will remind you :
1- A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress all critical views. I fear that this lead to the lost of peoples faith in Islam.
2- Given the current circumstances, I expect the government to take all measures to restore peoples confidence. Otherwise, as I have already said, a government not respecting peoples vote has no religious or political legitimacy.
3- I invite everyone, specially the youth, to continue reclaiming their dues in calm, and not let those who want to associate this movement with chaos succeed.
4- I ask the police and army personals not to sell their religion, and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before god. Recognize the protesting youth as your children. Today censor and cutting telecommunication lines can not hide the truth.
I pray for the greatness of the Iranian people.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/17/2009 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
This is not a significant development.
Montazeri is a Grand Ayatollah, but he was sidelined a couple of decades ago in a falling out with Khomeini. He has often issued this sort of opinion and has always been ignored. He is known as the dissident Ayatollah.
Now, if some other Grand Ayatollahs were to issue concurring statements that would be something.
WASHINGTON -- The emergence of Mir Hossein Mousavi as a challenger to Iran's clerical establishment has been cheered as potentially heralding a new moderation in Tehran. But his record also suggests that he would hew to a number of Tehran's more controversial policies. Mr. Mousavi governed as a social conservative while he was prime minister during the 1980s, and remains a committed supporter of the values and clerical system born of the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution, said diplomats and Iran analysts.
He's certainly not a 'reformer', and more just an ally of Rafsanjani, but he's not Short Round, and if the people can depose one government, they can depose another ...
He was one of the early supporters of Iran's nuclear program, and as prime minister he specifically approved Tehran's purchases of centrifuge equipment from the nuclear black market run by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, according to a 2007 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.
Many Iran analysts say that while a Mousavi presidency, if it happened, could open numerous new areas for U.S.-Iranian cooperation, serious stumbling blocks would remain. President Barack Obama addressed that distinction Tuesday in an interview with CNBC.
"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised," he said. "I think it's important to understand that either way, we are going to be dealing with a regime in Iran that is hostile to the U.S."
Mr. Obama Tuesday also offered support for Mr. Mousavi's supporters. "Something has happened in Iran. There is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past," Mr. Obama said. Of Tehran's suppressing of protests in response, he added, "That is not how governments should interact with their people."
Republicans who question Mr. Obama's plan to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran are seizing upon the election fracas to demand Mr. Obama denounce the current regime and support Mr. Mousavi more strongly. "He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election," Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. "The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime."
Mr. Mousavi campaigned on a platform of moderating Iran's foreign policy and improving ties with the U.S., heralding a potential break from four years in which President Ahmadinejad openly sought confrontation over the nuclear question and Israel.
Still, it remains unclear just how significantly Mr. Mousavi could redirect Tehran's foreign and defense policies, short of a recasting of the Iranian political system dominated by conservative supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said U.S. officials. Iran's last reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, regularly clashed with Mr. Khamenei on social, economic and international issues and left office in 2005 with little to show for his progressive agenda.
While serving as Iran's prime minister during the 1980s, Mr. Mousavi was viewed as a competent manager, but politically cautious. This time around, Mr. Mousavi has pledged to loosen the restrictions Mr. Ahmadinejad placed on Iranian nongovernmental organizations, media and women's groups in recent years. These elements of Iranian society have been among the most vigorous in pressing for Tehran's rapprochement with the U.S.
He pledged during the campaign his commitment to Iran's nuclear power, but also held out the potential for direct talks with the U.S. Speaking to Time magazine on Friday, he said there are two elements to the nuclear question: "One is our right to nuclear energy, which is non-negotiable. The second issue is related to concerns about the diversion of this program towards weaponization. Personally, I view this second part, which is both technical and political, as negotiable."
U.S. officials were hoping the potential election of Mr. Mousavi could quickly lead to direct negotiations over the future of Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Obama's aides also seek more substantive cooperation with Iran on stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan and confronting global threats such as narcotics smuggling and piracy.
A number of U.S. and Western diplomats caution, however, that if Mr. Mousavi were to prevail it could actually help Iran's pursuit of nuclear technologies.
The Obama administration has been seeking a unified international stance toward Tehran. It has been lobbying nations such as Russia and China to support expansive new sanctions against Iran should its leaders not respond to Mr. Obama's calls for direct dialogue.
The elevation of a moderate face in Tehran, as opposed to Mr. Ahmadinejad, could delay action against Tehran if foreign governments decide to give Mr. Mousavi some political space and time, these diplomats warn. In such a dynamic, hardliners in Iran could rapidly push ahead with Tehran's nuclear program.
"If your goal is to increase the international sanctions regime against Tehran, it's much easier to do if the Iranian president is a Holocaust-denying radical," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank, referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/17/2009 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
Iran and a hard place.....
Brothers And Sisters At Arms,
So I'm watching Iran information all over the many blogs and T.V. news that's reporting about the riots happening there. Then I'm thinking, the Resident-in-Chief wants to talk with leaders or the President of Iran without preconditions as he said in one of the many Democratic Debates. Misguided. Yes. Bordering stuck-on stupid. Yes. And not debating on Fox News because of some far-left zealots another stupid choice? Definitely. Why you ask? If you have studied any information on any of the major players in the middle east, besides the terrorist factions/sects/groups, the name of the so-called "moderate" candidate, which I will not even attempt to write or say his name, was the S.O.B. that got Iran's nuclear program started in the first place! Then there is the fool who wants to "...wipe Israel off the map...". No matter what the outcome of those so-called elections, who would you (the White House) want to speak to? How would you even start the conversation? And I'm about sick and tired of hearing that Israel should give up land for peace. Didn't they do that with the Gaza Strip back in 2005? How's that working out for you? The Israeli's left fully constructed homes and apartment buildings, greenhouses with fruit and vegetables going and growing. It was all torn down. What really gets me going is the fact that we are training the "Fatah" faction to do security for a state I don't believe should be anywhere near Israel (heh, that's just how I roll) or within missile range. But "Fatah" used to be called "The Palestinian Liberation Organization", the "P.L.O.", though led by Arafat, was an offshoot of the "Muslim Brotherhood" in Egypt. The dictators in Egypt have been keeping a tight leash on them for a while but Arafat was still able to start the P.L.O. in the sixties. Why are we doing this? I must not get it because I'm a 'Grunt' or something....
I'm all Infantryman however. Some might even call me a "warmonger". I believe if you go to war, it's "clobbering time". Overwhelming forces, after carpet bombing the land. Case in point; the Gaza Strip. The population should not be getting any support from Israel to a populace that voted into power an organization that has in its charter, or like the "mission statement" an American corporation would have to spell what their ultimate goal(s) is/are, Hamas, has it in their charter, and I'm paraphrasing here, "...the elimination of the Zionist/Jewish occupied territories...". I don't remember the exact language, you can look it up, but you hopefully get the point. The general public should pay a severe tole for electing/letting a terrorist group run their 'government'. How's that working for them? Hamas can't even supply basic services. They beg for help from the feckless U.N. There's a clusterf**k of an organization for you. Heh, you folks that didn't want to invade Iraq. I have a couple of words for you: Food for Oil. That was some kind of racket. Wasn't it? Back to the Gaza problem. I think the entire area, and by the way, this should be on the table for Iran as well, they (our government) should begin "carpet bombing" every square inch until the population turns on Hamas in Gaza, and the Mullahs and President of Iran, and surrender "without conditions", so it sends a message to the rest of the dictators and despots around the world "that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore". An we should use every type of weapon in our arsenal, napalm if we have any, cluster bombs, hellfire missiles, including nukes if they don't get a clue after a few hours of that unleashing of destruction we in the 'west' invented. Now you can call me callous, apathetic towards the people of those two areas, whatever your heart desires. It's my opinion and I gave a little over ten years in our nations military to pay for the right IN FULL.
Part of the reason I'm not affiliated with Democrats or Republicans at this time, I am a registered Independent that is a conservative and have traditional values. When Reagan, the beloved of some people on the right of politics, pulled out of Beirut after our barracks there got bombed, we should have sent an overwhelming force to eradicate the lot of them. Instead, Reagan turned tail and ran, pissed me off. Bush, Sr. blew it with me after "Read my lips, no new taxes". Bush, Jr. had me for a while until he signed the McCain/Fiengold bill and even thinking about giving amnesty to illegal aliens in our nation. I DON'T CARE WHY THEY CAME HERE. They didn't respect our laws to begin with, stealing identities to work and allegedly paying taxes (bologna), or working under the table for indentured servant wages. Slaves, getting money, but slaves none-the-less. And they aren't/weren't paying taxes people.
The Democrats; got us into Viet-Nam for starters, though to fight against communism, a noble cause, but J.F.K. got us in there. The best thing he ever did, besides Marilyn Munroe (sorry, but I couldn't resist), was to create The U.S. Army's Special Forces, and bestow on them the distinction of their signature headgear; the Green Beret. L.B.J.? Are you kidding? Carter; who is all Anti-Semitic, all the time, though I joined the U.S. Army despite him before he became the man he is today, I thought like the rest of my Brothers at Arms with me in Basic Infantry School that we would be part of the first wave to get our people (the Hostages) back from the Iranians and since some of us were going to Airborne School right after Basic. Our D.I.'s gathered the Airborne candidates at one point and basically told/warned us we just might be part of the "Tip Of The Spear". Scary, but thrilling at the same time. A real mission. Our nation had the moral authority and "high ground", liberals love to say our government must have before we even defend ourselves. But they have no clue we [in the military] were/are taught the credo to "never leave a man on the field or behind". There were active duty Marines among those hostages. And everyone of us wanted to go get them back. That incident should have been enough to declare war. I reported to the 82nd Airborne Division after Airborne School (which kicked my butt but I made it among the 60% that finished the course)in December of 1979. And while there, we all waited and waited and waited, but no "green light" came. Then came the botched rescue attempt that made our military look like the Keystone Cops around the world. Thanks Jimbo, now go back to your peanut farm and just shut the F**k up you feckless coward. And while still in office he wrecked our intelligence services with cutbacks. And "B.J." Clinton, oh my God, as the girls in California say, not only did he do more to reduce our intel services and the troop levels of each service, he didn't, like all those before and after him, put a security wall, triple fence, mine field, cow field or dog field on our southern or northern border when Osama Bin Hiden declared war on us in the early nineties and (1) wasn't taken seriously and (2) blew several opportunities to nab his a**; and then (3) sent the cops to do a soldiers work after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. The terrorist were just plain stupid for sticking around long enough to get caught, tried, then jailed, but one of their lawyers, whose name escapes me at the moment, she was taking coded messages from one of the terrorist (the Blind Sheik) and passing it along to his buddies on the outside. Besides the illegality of that, and in my opinion, a treasonous act, she should have been jailed for longer than approximately 3 years. She should have been put on 'Death Row' for that! She helped get people killed in the middle east, but that still doesn't make it alright!
All that's happening now, electing a socialist to the Oval Office, cutting defensive budgets right when things are heating up around the world and the the Resident-in-Chief bugs out of an agreement for anti-missile batteries in Poland and a radar system in another "allies" country. And then gets scared of a threat from the ruins of the U.S.S.R. of pointing nukes at western Europe? He is not impressing me what so ever. I wonder if those that voted in the novice have "buyers remorse" yet. I could be wrong though....
In the meantime,
watch your six.
P.S. This was originally posted on my blog at warriorlegacyfoundation.org on June 15th,2009. It's amazing that logical speculation can be seen and addressed by anyone and discussed similarly on a completely different web site. Viewers should collate these two opinions seriously and come to their own conclusion. If you have the opportunity, check them out the web site I mention above or try the website I list to find me and my blog. You may have to create an account but sign up is free and you might find a whole lot of like-minded folks out there. It's open to people that have never served in the military but support the military, so don't feel left out! And all the services are represented...
Posted by: Old Paratrooper ||
06/17/2009 0:49 Comments ||
Hitler vs Ernst Rohm - no lesser of two evils here.
Posted by: Spereck Oppressor of the Weak4379 ||
06/17/2009 15:08 Comments ||
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world"
Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, December 2001
"If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
Hezbollahâs Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, October 23, 2002
"Our struggle is not about land or water...It is about bringing, by force if necessary, the whole of mankind onto the right path."
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
former leader of Hezbollah on Americans
"Death to America!"
De Facto National Motto of Iran
Just as a reminder. Mousavi is apparently an ally of the Rafsandjani faction. He served as Prime Minister under Supreme Leader Khomeini and had a hand in founding Hezbollah.
The safe, conservative assumption on Iran is that all the relevant factions are mortal enemies of the West (especially Israel of course, but not limited to it.)
Mousavi might not actually deny the historical fact of the Holocaust, but he and his allies are as likely as Ahmadinejad to try to complete it.
On a train to London, a young woman wearing a burkha, with only her heavily made-up eyes peeping out, did not have a valid ticket.
Challenged by the guard, the young woman gave a litany of excuses. She had left her bag at her boyfriend's, he had bought the ticket, she had no money on her...
My friend Jane, who was in the same carriage, noticed how the guard became nervous as the Muslim girl presented herself as an innocent in a society she didn't understand.
Instead of issuing a penalty fine, the guard backed off, shrugging his helplessness at the other passengers.
So imagine my friend's surprise when she got off at the same station as burkha girl and saw this 'penniless innocent' whip out a credit card from under the folds of her dress with which she promptly bought a Tube ticket.
Jane was so incensed she sent me a text message, explaining what she'd witnessed. It ended: 'Attack of Burkha Rage. Grrr.'
Jane is not a BNP voter. She is a university lecturer who specialises in the developing world.
Yet Burkha Rage has become our personal shorthand for someone taking the mickey out of our country and its tolerant ways. Rest at link
When I spent time in Tel Aviv, the buses were on the honor system, spot checks for tickets. Gal I knew from Finland related that she was on a bus, had no ticket. The ticket taker asked her for her ticket - so she babbled something in Finnish. He passed her by.
Of course she was fluent in English (most widespread 2nd language in Israel), and conversational in German (also well known) but the ticket taker didnt know that.
Petty fraud is found in all cultures.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/17/2009 14:40 Comments ||
The rest of the article:
Yet Burkha Rage has become our personal shorthand for someone taking the mickey out of our country and its tolerant ways.
Despite a growing acceptance that multi-culturalism has been deeply damaging to race relations, there are still almost weekly opportunities for a fit of Burkha Rage.
Look at Fata Lemes, the Muslim bar waitress who won £3,000 compensation this week for quitting her job after she objected to wearing a red cocktail dress.
Apologies if I find it hard to keep a straight face, but my jaw keeps dropping open. Miss Lemes took the job in a bar and left after eight days, claiming managers asked her to wear a dress that made her look like a prostitute.
Actually, the frock is conservative by London bar standards - more Petersfield garden party than Peter Stringfellow. But fair enough if Miss Lemes didn't like it.
What was not fair enough was her demand for £20,000 compensation.
An employment tribunal found that Miss Lemes had 'overstated her trauma'. You can say that again. Her compensation claim was 'manifestly absurd'.
Yet instead of telling the 33-year-old to grow up and accept that a British city bar is not readily confused with a convent, the tribunal awarded her £2,919.95.
As a Bosnian Muslim, it said, she 'holds views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century'.
They might think it was unusual if they had spotted that modest flower Miss Lemes on Facebook wearing a vest top with a gaping cleavage. But that image was not produced in court.
How exactly are British employers supposed to avoid hurting the feelings of grievance-mongers like Fata Lemes?
Imagine a job interview where a bar manager dared to suggest that a Muslim woman might not feel at ease in their uniform. Before you could say 'Mine's a Cosmopolitan', Miss Lemes would have sued for discrimination.
I'm afraid Fata Lemes is no better than the girl dodging the train fare. Both are quick to hide behind their religious identity and play the victim. Both are happy to embarrass their host nation into ignoring common sense.
Let me be clear: there are millions of British Muslims who respect our cultural norms. It's the minority of opportunists who provoke Burkha Rage.
You see it from time to time: the Muslim shop assistant who refused to serve a woman buying First Bible Stories for her grandson because it was 'unclean'.
And the disgraceful capitulation of Sainsbury's to Islamic checkout staff who refused to sell alcohol.
Gordon Brown, a recent convert to Britishness, has promised that the emphasis for immigrants must be on fitting in, learning our ways and our language.
Yet, only yesterday, a Metropolitan Police chief admitted the bill for translation services for criminals and victims was set to soar to a staggering £20million by 2012.
Scotland Yard blames a growth in 50 distinct communities of more than 10,000 people and having to deal with more than 300 languages.
At no point in the statement is there any mention of compulsory English lessons.
No suggestion of people needing to fit in with our ways, rather than us with theirs. I feel a small attack of Burkha Rage coming on.
From the Star Wars novel Showdown at Centerpoint:
"Traditions make for an awfully handy set of excuses," Mara [Jade] said. "Every time I have ever dealt with a Selonian who didn't want to do something, she's explained to me how tradition made it impossible, or the ways of her people caused it to be difficult to decide, or whatever excuse seemed handy And my people always had to be respectful of your ways, and accept the structure of your culture. No more. ... This is survival. There is no time. It is time for you to accept the ways of our culture.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.