Overnight Music video - Moses - Choral Theme - Ennio Morricone

Did anyone say 'Antisemitism?" - Israeli Flags at German soccer game Generate Twitter Drama.

Did anyone say 'Antisemitism?" - Israeli Flags at German soccer game Generate Twitter Drama.(Storify).HT: IsraelMatzav.It seems that yesterday there was the final of the Champions League... As I'm not a fan of soccer, I had no idea about this, until several people started posting about the 2 Israeli flags visible in the front row of the Allianz Arena in Munich. I've seen many national flags in soccer matches, but I had never seen so much controversy about any of them.Just two small national flags in a stadium, not original at all, there were even other spectators waving flagsof other countries in the stadium... But, wait, we are talking about Jews and/or Israelis! Then it's enough to make the the previous twitter user get butthurt. And he was not the only one, as you can see:

Hmmmm..........MYTH: DOES THE COLOR RED REALLY MAKE BULLS ANGRY?
Answer:
The red, blue and white flags got equal, half-hearted attacks when they were motionless. In order to elicit an aggressive charge response from the bull, the flags had to be waved.Read the full story here.

U.S. Leads Effort to Criminalize Free Speech.

U.S. Leads Effort to Criminalize Free Speech. Middle East Forum.By Ann Snyder.
Gatestone Institute.
May 16, 2012.

The Human Rights Council concluded its nineteenth session on March 23, 2012 and adopted, without a vote, yet another resolution aimed at restricting freedom of speech throughout the world. While its title[1], as usual, suggests it is about combating intolerance based on religion, its plain language shows that, once again, speech is the real target.
One of its sponsors, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organization of the Islamic Conference or "OIC" ), has, for over a decade, introduced speech-restrictive resolutions at the United Nations. In the past, these resolutions contained explicit language about "defamation of religions." Last year, however, when the OIC introduced Resolution 16/18 without the term "defamation of religions," the West's resistance to the OIC's efforts faltered (discussed here). The "defamation of religions" concept had been easy for Western countries to rally against, in part, because it seemed to attach rights to a concept (here, religion) rather than to individuals. But, dropping that term was little more than a cosmetic change leaving speech-targeting language behind and the OIC's speech-restrictive agenda intact.
Resolution 19/25, like 16/18, specifically "condemns" certain types of speech and "urges States to take effective measures as set forth in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." (emphasis added) In short, it is an explicit call to action for states to curtail certain types of speech.
The "advocacy" (read: speech) that the resolution "condemns" and calls on states to limit is "any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" using "print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means." This language almost directly parallels International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights Article 20(2), which reads: "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
At the time Article 20 was being debated, there was little doubt that it was about limiting speech; and indeed, concerns were raised about the potential for abuse of the provision to limit an essential right. Further, when the United States finally ratified the ICCPR in 1992, it did so with an explicit reservation to Article 20, reading: "That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The language of ICCPR Article 20 and Resolutions 16/18 and 19/25 bears a striking resemblance to the "hate speech" provisions that have proliferated throughout Europe and that are already being used to silence speech (as the trials of Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, and others demonstrate).
Further, conceptually, "defamation of religions" and "hate speech" were already linked in prior resolutions. It is puzzling, therefore, that the West was so easily duped into believing that dropping the "defamation of religions" language was any kind of substantive victory. Although the most recent resolutions stop short of Article 20's language, leaving out "shall be prohibited by law," it hardly matters. The OIC's agenda can simply be pushed instead through "hate speech" laws that already exist. (By its own statements, the OIC has not changed its goals, nor has it abandoned the concept.) The shift in wording has simply lost us allies in resisting it.
That a resolution without an explicit reference to "defamation of religions" but that retained "hate speech" language would be more appealing to European allies is not surprising. Most European countries have already adopted some form of "hate speech" laws -- but to terrible effect -- on freedom of speech. With regard to this issue, the United States had stood alone—"hate speech" is currently not proscribed here, although we appear headed in that direction: since the United States supported the resolution, how could we expect our Western allies to resist?
Our Secretary of State applauded the OIC and described efforts leading to Resolution 16/18 as beginning "to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression." Far from demanding a "reservations clause" of any kind, the United States, instead, sponsored a three-day, closed-door meeting in Washington, DC last December on implementing 16/18 —a meeting in a series called the "Istanbul Process." Taking its lead from the US, the European Union then offered to host the next session, an initiative the OIC hailedas a "a qualitative shift in action against the phenomenon of Islamophobia."
In short, a mere cosmetic change in a resolution has resulted in a radical shift in the West's—and specifically United States' and therefore Europe's —policy toward the OIC's efforts to restrict free speech..
If we do not wake up, recognize the implications of that policy shift, and reverse course, this "mere" cosmetic change may result in a radical shift in the protections for freedom of speech in the United States.

Ann Snyder serves as a Senior Fellow of The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

[1] "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief"

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing listThis text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Obama impeachment bill gaining steam.

Technically, the President isn’t even legally “Commander and Chief” until an official Declaration of War is given by Congress as an OK for the President to begin war-time operations against an aggressor.

Obama impeachment bill gaining steam.(Examiner).By Jeffrey Phelps.Hoping to soon pass committee and make it to the house is HCR 107, a bill threatening the possibility of the impeachment of the President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors, now thrust into the spotlight.

Citing a demand Wednesday that Obama regain respect for the War Powers Act, constitutional laws that restrict a President from waging a war without first receiving the approval of the people and its Congress, was the architect of the legislation, 9-term North Carolina Congressman,,Walter Jones.

Thanking the most popular internet radio show and its host, Alex Jones, was Congressman Jones, grateful for the opportunity to speak to the perfect audience for gaining support and momentum for this type of bill. One that already has multiple co-sponsors.After all, it was Ron Paul and his supporters who started the modern Tea Party on the very same radio show in 2007, with dedicated listeners and supporters that helped the movement eventually gain national prominence in the 2010 mid-terms, with many ‘unsuspecting’ upsets and likely more on the way.

Stating the need to reign the Peace Prize White House in from continuing the constant, deafening pounding on the drums of war, the Congressman used Libya as a prime example, alleging the constitution explicitly states something the government has mysteriously allowed a free pass on for far too long…Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution. Alex Jones added Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

In order to garner approval for the actions taken against Gaddafi in Libya, for instance, Obama went even one step further by openly waging a war, with US troops and equipment, with only an OK by the UN, again declaring Congress totally irrelevant.

Even Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta recently reiterated the startling sentiments in an Armed Services Committee meeting, ones he shared a couple months earlier, while echoing the administration’s open disrespect for the law and arguing for the UN’s authority, over the US, to use the US military overseas, for its own agenda. Open and clear violations that could present a clear and present danger to US national security.

Especially after such egregious acts of war taken by the last few successive administrations, with 2 or 3 panels of experts on the constitution available for testimony, Congressman Jones is looking to fashion a hearing by July, before the committee moves it to the floor.

He’s confident, with the situation at hand, he may finally get enough members of congress to move this type of resolution forward in the house.

Ron Paul and Congressman Jones was with mostly Republicans in 1999 filing suit on Clinton’s decision to bomb Kosovo, but the courts used the easy to say, yet seemingly impossible to accomplish, excuse that “congress has the power to cut the war budgets.”

Last year it was he and only five other Congressman, two other Republicans including Ron Paul and three Democrats, including Dennis Kucinich, confidently taking it to the courts again over Obama’s decision to bomb Libya, with the courts repeating the excuse that Congress already has the ability to cut the funding if they really wanted.

The courts know Congress is very unlikely to cut the war budget, however, because of the political pressure of not wanting to leave the military high and dry during actions overseas, a vicious cycle that perpetuates the problem.

But the broadcast reminded listeners that, technically, the President isn’t even legally “Commander and Chief” until an official Declaration of War is given by Congress as an OK for the President to begin war-time operations against an aggressor. Stunningly, this is something that hasn’t actually happened since prior to the Korean War.

Since the TV boom, however, the government has magically been able to get away with waging wars without approval, on just about whomever they’ve wanted to, and Congress has done virtually nothing to remain relevant against a consistently over-reaching Executive Branch.

All this could very well be a large part of the reason polls have long-stated Congressional approval ratings to be under an astounding 10% for years, with still nothing ever reasonably done to regain the people’s confidence.

Obama is also the first sitting President to ever join a foreign governing body while still sitting President. He accepted the duty of acting Chair of the UN Security Council, even striking the gavel in open session, a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Something you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the people and its Congress.

Officially introduced to the congressional legislature on March 7tth, the actual title of Congressman Jones’ bill reads, “Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,”

Congressman Jones has also been seen recently spelling out a great case for a Trading with the Enemy Act argument, against Obama, for publicly funding Al Qaeda in Libya with money, weapons and training.

Obama has allegedly used a widely-known, enemy terrorist group, supposedly the prime suspects in the WTC attacks on 9/11, to further an overseas political agenda, apparently also largely run by the UN, at the expense of the US military/taxpayer.

Senator, Prescott Bush, Grandfather to George W. Bush, was also tied to a seizure of the Union Bank and its assets in 1942, suspected of holding gold of behalf of NAZI leaders during WW II.

It seems as though the more things change, the more they actually stay the same. Until now, if the necessary support for HCR 107 has anything to do with it.

Congressmen Jones, Kucinich, Paul and many others ask that citizens and all supporters of the bill call the US Capital switch-board, at 202-224-3121, and ask to speak to your Representative.

They will put you through to your Representative’s office and there you can ask them to co-sponsor and/or support the bill, H.C.R. 107, to help insure the President follows the law and uses the proper channels before waging a war on yet another country.

If you’re unsure who your representatives are, use this official tool to easily locate them by zip code.Read the full story here.

Lockerbie bomber Megrahi is dead.

Lockerbie bomber Megrahi is dead.(BBC).HT : AstuteBlogger.Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing above Scotland which killed 270 people, has died at his home in the Libyan capital Tripoli. Megrahi, 60, was convicted by a special court in the Netherlands in 2001. He was released from prison in Scotland in 2009 on compassionate grounds. He was suffering from cancer and was said to have only months to live. When he returned to the Libyan capital, he received a hero's welcome. Shortly before being freed, Megrahi dropped his second appeal against his conviction. His release sparked the fury of many of the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster.His brother Abdulhakim said on Sunday that Megrahi's health had deteriorated quickly and he died at home in Tripoli. He told the AFP news agency that Megrahi died at 13:00 local time (11:00 GMT). Last month, Megrahi's son said his father had been taken to hospital for blood transfusions. Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, always denied any responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. It remains the deadliest terrorist incident ever to have taken place on British soil. All 259 people aboard the plane, which was travelling from London to New York, were killed, along with 11 others on the ground. Investigators tracing the origins of scraps of clothes wrapped around the bomb followed a trail to a shop in Malta which led them, eventually, to Megrahi. He and another Libyan, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were indicted by the Scottish and US courts in November 1991.Read the full story here.

The 'Make Believe' Presidency, Bin Laden death movie "Code Name Geronimo" will be released BEFORE election

The 'Make Believe' Presidency, Bin Laden death movie "Code Name Geronimo" will be released BEFORE election.(DM).A dramatic film about the assassination of Osama Bin Laden could be controversially released before the U.S presidential elections in November, it has emerged. Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein - a supporter of the Democratic Party - is in negotiations to buy Code Name Geronimo at the Cannes Film Festival. It is believed the film producer will release the film in late September or October - which is likely to infuriate President Obama's Republican opponents. Sony Pictures has already decided not to release the film Zero Dark Thirty - also about the assassination of the Al Qaeda leader - until December. Its release date of December 19 was set after the scheduled release date for October drew criticism of the Republican party. It was feared the film would bolster Obama's re-election prospects and those concerns are likely to be raised again with Code Name Geronimo. Footage from the film was shown for the first time in Cannes on Wednesday. It is directed by John Stockwell. The film tells the story of the manhunt for Osama Bin Laden and the efforts of the Navy Seals. It is in the final stages of production and its asking price is rumoured to be $2million.Hmmmmm.......Meanwhile yesterday:"Apparently Osama Bin Laden Died Twice? Former Turkish CIA Agent states: Bin Laden Died of Disease in 2006."........Is this why no pictures or documents can be disclosed or found of the Taking down of Osama Bin Laden.........Except the White house pictures? Read the full story here.

Video - David Yerushalmi speaks with Ezra Levant on Sharia law in U.S. courts.

 HT: TundraTabloids.

Pakistan blocks Twitter over contentious material.

Pakistan blocks Twitter over contentious material.(Yahoo).Islamabad(AP) — Pakistan blocked the social networking website Twitter on Sunday because it refused to remove material considered offensive to Islam, said one of the country's top telecommunications officials. The material was promoting a competition on Facebook to post images of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, said Mohammad Yaseen, chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication's Authority. Many Muslims regard depictions of the prophet, even favorable ones, as blasphemous. Yaseen said Facebook agreed to address Pakistan's concerns about the competition, but officials have failed to get Twitter to do the same. "We have been negotiating with them until last night, but they did not agree to remove the stuff, so we had to block it," said Yaseen. Instructions to block the site came from Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology, said Yaseen. "The ministry officials are still trying to make them (Twitter) agree, and once they remove that stuff, the site will be unblocked," said Yaseen.Officials from Twitter and Facebook were not immediately available for comment. A top court in Pakistan ordered a ban on Facebook in 2010 amid anger over a similar competition. The ban was lifted about two weeks later, after Facebook blocked the particular page in Pakistan. The Pakistani government said at the time that it would continue to monitor other major websites for anti-Islamic links and content. The 2010 Facebook controversy sparked a handful of protests across Pakistan, many by student members of radical Islamic groups. Some of the protesters carried signs advocating holy war against the website for allowing the page. It also sparked a good deal of soul-searching, especially among commentators, who questioned why Pakistanis could not be entrusted to decide for themselves whether or not to look at a website. Some observers noted that Pakistan had gone further than several other Muslim countries by banning Facebook, and said it showed the rise of conservative Islam in the country.Hmmmm......Turkey's 'guest' at the NATO top.....can't wait to see Turkey block twitter as well.Read the full story here.

S. Africa: W. Bank products won't be labeled Israeli, will have ‘made in Palestinian territories’ labels.

S. Africa: W. Bank products won't be labeled Israeli, will have ‘made in Palestinian territories’ labels.(JPost).Pretoria – South Africa’s Department of Trade and Industry is preparing a policy change mandating that products originating from West Bank settlements not be labeled as Israeli products. In a statement published last week in the governmental gazette, Trade Minister Rob Davies declared that consumers in South Africa should not be misled into believing that products originating from the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” originate from Israel. The minister specified in his note some “misleading labeled products” as “Ahava products, and other cosmetic brands, technology and soft drinks.”“For now, there is no decision but people should know that South Africa recognizes Israel inside the 1948 U.N. borders,” Macdonald Netshitenzhe, the trade ministry’s director for trade policies and legislations, told AFP.“Now coming to the issue of Palestine and Israel, a product from Israel has to be manufactured or produced within the borders of 1948,” he said.Any territories taken over by Israel in the wake of the war which accompanied its independence in 1948 -- such as the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which were occupied in 1967 -- would not be included in that definition.

“Therefore, for the goods or vegetables which are grown in the area where Israel invaded other Arab countries, South Africa says, you better say these products are grown in Palestine or Occupied Palestinian Territories,” Netshitenzhe added. Israel reacted furiously to the South African announcement, which the Foreign Ministry said was the first of its kind in the world. Spokesman Paul Hirschson said the ministry would call in the South African ambassador to protest the move. “The singling out of one side of one conflict out of all the conflicts in the world is verging on racism,” he said, adding that “this is sad coming from South Africa, which should know better.” Open Shuhada Street, a Palestinian international organization focusing on the issue of “rules of origin,” has been campaigning in South Africa for several months against products manufactured by Israelis in the West Bank. It has been threatening legal action whose goal would be to require the South African government to declare the labeling of these products as “illegal” and “consumer misleading.” The Palestinian lobby group specifically targets Dead Sea beauty products made in Mitzpe Shalem.The Israeli Embassy in Pretoria criticized the proposal on Saturday, saying, “We regret the decision to adopt this notice, which carries an unpleasant scent of singling out Israel on a national and on a political basis.”Ben Swartz, the spokesman of the South African Zionist Federation, said the Jewish community in South Africa was deeply concerned about the proposal. Swartz said that the content of the notice is “highly political and politicized, and has been prepared without proper public debate and discussion.” He added that he did not believe that this proposal reflected the policy of all governing parties in South Africa, nor of the African National Congress as a whole.Read the full story here, more @ IsraelMatzav and here.

Obama's NATO 'buddy' Turkey's invited Pakistan to Chicago....result...Pakistan seeks $5,000 transit fee for each NATO container.

Obama's NATO 'buddy' Turkey's invited Pakistan to Chicago....result...Pakistan seeks $5,000 transit fee for each NATO container.(Wired).Washington believes it has a deal, finally, to reopen Pakistan’s resupply routes for the Afghanistan war, saving a bunch of cash. But not before its Pakistani frenemies drive the price up.
Pakistan wants a $5,000 fee on every shipping container that passes through what NATO calls the Ground Lines of Communication, or GLOCs, on its territory. The old fee? $0. But that was before a U.S. commando raid in November on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead. (Never mind that a U.S. investigation found that the Pakistani troops fired on the Americans first and repeatedly.)
Islamabad shut its gates immediately afterward, and kept them shut. The U.S. and its allies adjusted, resupplying the war through air routes running from the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan. But that’s much, much more expensive: the Pentagon says the air route costs $15,800 per container, compared to $6,200 per container trucked through Pakistan.
And so Pakistan has leverage. The Pentagon has tried to limit that leverage as negotiations to reopen the GLOCs have ground on, refusing to disclose exactly how much the GLOC closure has cost taxpayers, or even how many containers actually pass through Manas. (NBC’s Richard Engel reported on The Rachel Maddow Show on Wednesday that Pakistan’s fee will amount to $1 million per day from the United States — plus another $1.1 billion for “services rendered” in the 10-year war.) But that can only mitigate Pakistan’s leverage, not eliminate it. A $5,000 container fee will still be less than what it costs to ship through Manas.

You cannot hate the player here. Pakistan has something the U.S. wants: cheaper resupply for the war. And it has its own needs: simply reopening the route like nothing happened in November would be politically unacceptable; to say nothing of straight-up dumb. And the U.S. still operates its drone war over Pakistan, so Islamabad can always play that card, too.
If you want to hate, hate the game. The U.S. has given Pakistan something like $15 billion worth of mostly-military aid since the Afghanistan war began — sometimes literally in cash — and as long as the war grinds on, Pakistan has every incentive to keep its hand out.
The Washington Post reports that Pakistan’s desired $5,000 container fee “has been difficult for the Pentagon to swallow.” Get ready to swallow. Next week is NATO’s big summit on Afghanistan, occurring in Chicago — which, by the most astonishing of coincidences, is the home base of President Obama’s reelection campaign. Pakistan is invited and will attend. The cost for the show of unity on the war that the U.S. — and the Obama campaign — wants is the fee for the GLOCs that Pakistan will impose.
Maybe U.S. negotiators will get Pakistan to bring the fee down before the summit. Maybe they won’t. But it’s just another cost of doing business for a decade-long war that is increasingly dependent on the interests of the unreliable ally next door.Hmmmm.......Bend over.........."FORWARDS" lets milk the infidel.Read the full story here.

Afghanistan "The Untold Story" Bonded labour a.k.a. slavery ensnares entire families.

Afghanistan "The Untold Story" Bonded labour a.k.a. slavery ensnares entire families.(Irin).Kabul - - Bonded labour in Afghanistan’s brick kilns is one of the most common forms of hazardous labour in the country. More than half of the brick kiln workers surveyed in a recent report by the International Labour Organization (ILO) were children, with most under 14. Few are getting any education to allow them to develop skills needed to break out of work in the kilns.Most children began working at the age of seven or eight, and almost 80 percent are under 10. According to the ILO, the kilns rely on debt bondage: Workers and their families are tied to a kiln by the need to pay off loans taken out for basic necessities, medical expenses, weddings and funerals. The ILO report found that basic subsistence needs force families to repeatedly take out loans, often paying for a winter’s food with a loan which they pay back over an entire season. Of the families surveyed, 64 percent had worked in the kilns for 11 years or more, and 35 percent had done so for more than 20 years. The exact number of kilns in Afghanistan is unknown, but reports suggest that in Nangarhar Province’s Surkhroad District alone there are about 90, with 150-200 children working in each one. ILO estimates that Kabul Province’s Deh Sabz District has 800 kilns. “It is out of necessity and extreme poverty that households enlist their children from an early age to work in the kilns,” said Sarah Cramer, lead author of the ILO report. “There are four cycles prevalent in the situation of bonded labour in Afghanistan - the cycle of debt, cycle of vulnerability, cycle of dependence and the cycle of poverty.”Hmmmm.....Obama: "If We Work Hard, Afghanistan Could Be a Success...Like Iraq!"......yup sounds like a great 'success story'......Women and Children first i presume?Read the full story here.