Sharia Religious Police...

Saudi Arabia Stands By Its Arrest of An American Woman in Starbucks

Tuesday , February 19, 2008

By Sonia Verma

Saudi Arabia's religious police have issued a rare public statement defending their arrest of an American woman living in Riyadh, jailed for sitting with a male colleague at Starbucks.

Yara, a businesswoman and married mother of three, said she was strip-searched, forced to sign false confessions and told by a judge she would "burn in hell" before she was released on Feb. 4.

Late Monday night, The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice publicly denounced her with a statement posted on the Internet, saying her actions violated the country's Shariah law.

"It's not allowed for any woman to travel alone and sit with a strange man and talk and laugh and drink coffee together like they are married," it said.

"All of these are against the law and it's clear it's against the law. First, for a woman to work with men is against the law and against religion. Second, the family sections at coffee shops and restaurants are meant for families and close relatives," it continued.

The Commission contested Yara's version of events, saying she was never strip-searched or forced to sign confessions.

It accused her of wearing makeup, not covering her hair and "moving around suspiciously" while sitting with her Syrian colleague, who was also arrested, but later released.

Speaking from the family's home in Jeddah where they have lived for eight years, Yara's husband, who did not wish to be named for safety concerns said: "We are afraid for our lives, for our family and from further harassment."

"The things that they are suggesting about my wife, of course it isn't true. She's a professional businesswoman and she was at a café, not at a bar. They are coming up with ways to justify their actions."

Yara's story captured international attention and has fuelled fierce debate within Saudi society, where reformers and human rights groups are pressuring the government to liberalize.

The powerful religious police have launched a crackdown on the local press for its criticism of the religious police and its handling of the incident.

The "Mutaween" has vowed to sue two newspaper columnists who have written in Yara's defense, saying: "The Commission has the right to sue the writers because of the lies they are spreading. It gives the wrong idea of Saudi Arabia."

Yara, a managing partner in a finance company, has meanwhile returned to work in Jeddah, though she no longer travels to her company's offices in Riyadh where the incident took place.

Her family is contemplating a return to America, saying they feel caught in the middle of a greater debate in Saudi society between conservatives and reformers.

"There are a lot of Saudis who are angry and they are using Yara's story to say 'Enough of these people in our country.' Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, we don't want to get further punished for this," Yara's husband said.

Dear Mr. President:

(WASHINGTON, D. C.) – U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R - Littleton) today sent a letter to Mexican President Felipe Calderon questioning the motives behind his current visit to the United States as well as the Charges Levied by Mr. Calderon against "the fairness" of American Immigration policy.

A copy of the letter is below:

President Calderon:

I was disappointed by misguided comments you recently made regarding U.S. - Mexico relations and U.S. Immigration laws. Purveying misinformation and absurd allegations is hardly a positive step to building a constructive partnership.

According to the Associated Press you recently said, "You have two economies. One economy is intensive in capital, which is the American Economy. One Economy is intensive in Labor, which is the Mexican economy. We are two complementary economies, and that phenomenon is impossible to stop. "Yes, both Countries benefit by the 85 % of Mexico's manufacturing exports that come to the U.S., but people are not commodities. While I appreciate your concern for our joint prosperity, the economic and social ills that plague Your Country cannot be resolved by simply exporting your citizens to the United States.

It is undeniable that Mexico faces major challenges. Endemic corruption and the power of violent drug cartels still dominate everyday life across Mexico. Beyond the headlines, Mexico has deep Institutional maladies. Mexico's absurdly antiquated Napoleonic - inquisition styled Legal System and the squandering of robust energy - industry opportunity by a poorly managed, state - run PEMEX monopoly are just two examples of the kind of self - inflicted wounds that hobble your troubled nation.

I understand that you are attempting to resolve some of these problems and applaud your leadership in trying to do so. But what would contribute more to the long term stability of your economy and your country would be to focus more energy on addressing your domestic challenges and less on lobbying the U.S. to provide amnesty for Mexicans who have Illegally entered this country with the blessing of Your government. In doing so, you might be able to keep Mexico's "best and brightest young men" 'in' Mexico – where they can contribute more to Mexico's economy than remittance payments. Unfortunately, your recent comments indicate that Mexico will continue its policy of encouraging Illegal immigration and treating the United States as little more than a dumping ground for your social and economic problems.

In your speech yesterday to the California State legislature, you lectured the American people on how to improve our immigration policies. Why did you not propose that we model our policies on Mexico's own policies toward illegal entry across your own Southern border? Mexico expends enormous resources to prevent Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans from entering the country illegally, but you castigate the United States for wanting secure borders. Mr. President, in my neighborhood that is called hypocrisy.

You proposed in your Sacramento speech that "migration" be made "legal, safe and organized." Mr. President, we already have such a program and it is called legal immigration. Over one million legal immigrants come through our ports of entry each year, not across our border fences. The American people set limits on the number of legal immigrants through our Immigration laws and it is not the job of the Mexican government to revise, or expand those limits.

President Calderon, you are insulting the American people when you tell us that fifteen to twenty million illegal aliens in our country bring only benefits and no costs. I challenge you to give one concrete example of how the enforcement of our existing immigration laws violates anyone's human rights. The people of Oklahoma are not anti - Mexican for passing laws to require verification of employment eligibility. The people of Indiana are not anti - immigrant for passing laws to require photo identification for voting. The people of California are not anti - Mexican for denying Driver's Licenses to illegal aliens. The people of Arizona are not anti - immigrant for passing laws that deny Welfare Benefits to people who are in that State unlawfully.

It is no secret that the purpose of your visit is to influence the American election, and in fact your trip has been billed as a high - stakes effort to 'shape' the immigration debate underway in the U.S. Presidential race. What is perhaps more disappointing, however, is your attempt to insinuate that anti - amnesty sentiment here in the U. S. is the same as anti -Mexican sentiment. I am referring to your statement, "I need to change in Mexico the perception that the Americans are the enemy, and it is important to change the perception that the Mexicans are the enemy."

It is both disingenuous and dangerous for you to inject this kind of xenophobia into this debate. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the enforcement of our Immigration laws and take Issue with the notion that we should reward illegal behavior, hardly qualifies as ethnic animosity or international enmity. What you must understand is that a treasured aspect of our national foundation is a respect for the rule of law. Perhaps if corruption were not so widespread and commonplace in Mexico, it would be easier for you to understand this.

President Calderon, in many ways your trip thus far has been a long series of mixed messages. You accuse the United States of recent protectionist trends, yet you heavily restrict foreign entry into Mexico's energy sector through a massive, state -run PEMEX monopoly. You assure American politicians that an open flow of cheap, Mexican labor is not only benign but vitally necessary, but you take great care in securing your own southern border with Guatemala. You come to the United States 'purportedly' to promote better political and economic ties with the U.S., but then issue a thinly veiled threat that Mexicans will regard the U.S. as an enemy if we refuse to provide millions of illegal aliens with unconditional amnesty.

President Calderon, I respectfully suggest that the next time you visit our country, rather than trying to influence U.S. policymakers or our election process, you take time to listen to Americans rather than lecture them. If you want to make changes in Government policies, apply your energies to Mexico's laundry list of problems rather than meddling in domestic American politics.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo, Member of Congress

Global Warming... Really?

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

GOP Conservative Stupidity...

Commentary: Conservatives' hatred of McCain makes no sense

By Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor

(CNN) -- Listening to the irrational and hysterical response of conservatives to the presidential candidacy of Sen. John McCain would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

During a debate Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room," conservative radio talk show host Glenn Beck said that the Republican Party has lost its soul, and McCain is indicative of that problem. He even said that if Sen. Hillary Clinton is the nominee, he will ignore McCain and cast a ballot for her.

Now, how silly is that?

Looking at the exit polls from Super Tuesday, McCain did well in some states with conservative voters, but he continues to run strong among moderates and independents. He clearly has a lot of work to do to shore up this important constituent in the party.

Let's be clear -- conservatives don't like McCain. But with conservatives one seat away from having a majority on the Supreme Court and the next president having the power to name up to three justices, do you actually think the folks who've fought two generations to re-take the Court actually want to see three Clinton jurists?

This, folks, is bordering on the irrational.

It all revolves around this desperate desire to find the new Ronald Reagan. He is the conservative icon. However as conservative Bill Bennett told me Tuesday night during one of our breaks in Super Tuesday coverage, Ronald Reagan wasn't always Ronald Reagan. His positions on taxes and gays evolved.

But don't tell that to conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, who have vowed to destroy McCain because he doesn't carry their water on every issue. Most issues? Yes. But they require their politicians to assume a fetal position, not to have a backbone and stand up to them when needed.

McCain is a guy who is fiercely pro-life. That's a pretty important issue for the conservatives. He is strong on the military and being a former Vietnam prisoner of war sure doesn't hurt. When Republicans got weak-kneed over the surge in Iraq, McCain stood tall and proclaimed that it will work.

The guy is a fiscal conservative who abhors the spending that has taken place during the presidency of George W. Bush and the Congress under Republican rule. Yes, he voted against the first two Bush tax cuts. But as he said, when you don't have spending limits with tax cuts, you blow up the federal deficit, and we are a weaker nation today because Republicans acted like a teenager with Mom and Dad's credit card.

What you will hear from conservatives is that he has co-sponsored legislation with several Democrats, including former Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Joe Lieberman. Of course, I crack up laughing because conservative talkers have a love affair with Lieberman yet they rip McCain apart for trying to actually accomplish something in a bipartisan manner.

What they seem to be most angry about is that McCain teamed up with Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold to move through a law that severely restricted the dollars in federal elections. This angered conservatives because they viewed the issue as a First Amendment cause. In fact, they really were upset about the GOP losing a major advantage over the Democrats when it came to fundraising. With that window narrowed by the law, they didn't want to see that advantage disappear. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down some parts of the law, but that still hasn't satisfied the money vultures on the right.

Lastly, there's the immigration debate.

In an effort to exercise leadership on a volatile issue, McCain chose not to be a demagogue and work out a compromise bill that would curtail the nation's unsecured borders, while figuring out a way to deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants already here. If you talk to the rabid conservative talk show hosts and their wild and angry listeners, their only option is to throw these immigrants out of the country. In former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they have a very sympathetic ear.

But we all know the truth. That will never happen. Never.

So instead of drooling at such prospects, McCain worked with Democrats and some Republicans to offer a solution, which included making illegal immigrants learn English, pay a fine, force them to get in line for citizenship while targeting businesses that hire them.

Yet, the anger in America was too great. Whites, blacks, some Hispanics, conservatives, and even liberals couldn't stomach doing this first and not securing the borders.

Folks, McCain is a pragmatic leader trying to solve a difficult situation.

Conservatives will do anything to stop him, with some even suggesting -- especially evangelicals -- that they might run a third-party candidate.

Word to the wise: Shut up, suck it up and deal with it.

If McCain wins the nomination, he is the best option the GOP has to stopping the candidacies of Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University, and he is the author of "Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith." You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

It’s The Gridlock, Stupid

Again, It’s The Gridlock, Stupid

As one pundit on Fox News pointed out, this is “the silly season” and he’s definitely on to something. “Change” is the buzzword this silly season, and everyone is emotionally embracing it. Yes, some changes are definitely in order. Things are in a bit of a mess in Washington, D.C. Everyone agrees on that.

The Republicans have spent way too much money. In 2006, the Democrats took over the House and the Senate… No improvement there… Congress, as a whole ranks ten points below President Bush in approval ratings and that’s pretty bad.

I used to be a Republican and voted for Barry Goldwater in my first national election opportunity. Now, 44 years later, I am a registered Independent. I have never been tempted to join with the Democrats and this election will not change that position. I do not consider myself a “strict conservative” nor a “far-left liberal” on issues. I consider myself a “moderate” on most issues.

As I see it, most Americans fall into the “moderate” column on the political spectrum, especially in this election. They are tired of a Washington that “is broken” and “is not working” in the best interest of the people who, after all, elected them to make government work. They are very tired of all the partisan bickering that goes on year after year.

Now, on this Super Tuesday, the bickering is raging again, but this time within each party. Clinton vs Obama. McCain vs Romney vs Huckabee. I guess this is necessary in order to select a “winner” who will go on to represent the party in the November election.

Here is my two cents worth. I detest the Clintons – two for one is only good when it’s happy hour! Hillary Clinton is too polarizing to get anything worthwhile done. And, I don’t believe that Americans as a whole are ready to elect a black man to the White House. I just don’t think it is in the cards. There is still too much prejudice in the populace for that to happen… yet. However, either a woman or a black man will represent the Democrats in the Fall. That’s a fact.

Now, we come to the Republicans and their juvenile, schoolyard fight. Not conservative enough to be the standard bearer for the Republicans. Too liberal to be the standard bearer for the Republicans. I think that the Republicans should grow up and act like adults and think about the big picture… What’s best for America… Democrats running things in a far-left manner for at least four years, maybe eight, or a moderate Republican who can get some things done by working with both sides?

A moderate. A moderate is needed and John McCain is that man… he’s a moderate like me, a moderate like most Americans. Not a religious zealot like Huckabee who wants to change the constitution to me more in line with the Bible!... Not a slick millionaire who takes positions when it is expedient like Romney. A moderate like most Americans is what we need now. What we desperately need now.

It’s “the gridlock” in Washington that needs to be fixed and we need a moderate to fix it. I’m for John McCain. I truly believe he can fix the gridlock. It’s the only solution. The others will only bring the same polarization and continued gridlock. We need a president who can work both sides of the aisle and get the country back on track. That man is John McCain.