Iran's "peaceful" nuclear reactor; Intolerance part of Islam; Feds to sue Joe Arpaio?

1) Iran starts nuclear reactor, says intent peaceful Right… BUSHEHR, Iran – Trucks rumbled into Iran's first reactor Saturday to begin loading tons of uranium fuel in a long-delayed startup touted by officials as both a symbol of the country's peaceful intentions to produce nuclear energy as well as a triumph over Western pressure to rein in its nuclear ambitions. The Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant will be internationally supervised, including a pledge by Russia to safeguard it against materials being diverted for any possible use in creating nuclear weapons. Iran's agreement to allow the oversight was a rare compromise by the Islamic state over its atomic program. Western powers have cautiously accepted the deal as a way to keep spent nuclear fuel from crossing over to any military use. They say it illustrates their primary struggle: to block Iran's drive to create material that could be used for nuclear weapons and not its pursuit of peaceful nuclear power. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100822/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear 1a) Arab Sources Say a Major Military Surprise Is Close, Iran On Full Alert "The world's going to war over this." - Lawrence Eagleburger, former US Secretary of State, speaking about the activation of Iran's first reactor at Bushehr Saturday, Aug. 21. War preparations are reported by debkafile's military sources in Tehran and Damascus, debkafile's military sources report. In Tehran, Iran's Revolutionary Guards announced Friday, Aug. 20 that the "IRGC is in full readiness to encounter firmly with the stupidity of the US and the Zionist regime." In Damascus, Syrian prime minister Naji al-Otari gathered his ministers and heads of security and emergency services Thursday and ordered them to place all their services on immediate war readiness. And sources close to the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas quoted him as saying that direct talks with Israel were not in the offing because "a big military surprise awaits the Middle East." On Thursday, too, Tehran pitched its threat level high by warning that any attack on Iran's nuclear sites would be met by the IRGC "targeting the interests of the enemies in any part of the world." Some Iranian sources have suggested that Israel's obsessive preoccupation with the Galant scandal (over a forged document designed to influence the choice of the next Israeli chief of staff) is a smokescreen for masking preparations for an imminent attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. In the United States, respected commentators this week talked and wrote openly about a possible war over Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb capability. Former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, who has excellent connections in Washington and Jerusalem, wrote: "The United States is more likely than Israel to launch an attack on Iran." Lawrence Eagleburger, former US Secretary of State, had this to say about the activation of Iran's first reactor at Bushehr Saturday, Aug. 21: "The world's going to war over this. If Iran gets the weapon it's going to use it." He urged an attack on Iran before it obtained a bomb." See: http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/middle-east-update.htm 2) The Tolerant Pose Intolerance is not just part of al-Qaeda, it is part of Islam. I encourage you to read the entire article. It is that good. Excerpts are below. Non-Muslims are barred from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina — not merely barred from building synagogues or churches, but barred, period, because their infidel feet are deemed unfit to touch the ground. This is not an al-Qaeda principle. Nor is it an “Islamist” principle. It is Islam, pure and simple. “Truly the pagans are unclean,” instructs the Koran’s Sura 9:28, “so let them not . . . approach the Sacred Mosque.” This injunction — and there are plenty of similar ones in Islam’s scriptures — is enforced vigorously not by jihadist terrorists but by the Saudi government. And it is enforced not because of some eccentric sense of Saudi nationalism. The only law of Saudi Arabia is sharia, the law of Islam. As Sunni scholarly commentary in the version of the Koran officially produced by the Saudi government explains, only Muslims are sufficiently “strict in cleanliness, as well as in purity of mind and heart, so that their word can be relied upon.” Thus, only they may enter the holy cities. Authoritative Shiite teaching is even more bracing. As Iraq’s “moderate” Ayatollah Ali Sistani — probably the world’s most influential Shiite cleric — has explained, the touching of non-Muslims is discouraged, because they are considered to be in the same “unclean” category as “urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors, and the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things].” These teachings are worth bearing in mind as we listen to the staunch defenses of religious liberty that have suddenly become so fashionable among proponents of the Cordoba Initiative, a planned $100 million Islamic center and mosque to be built on the hallowed ground where remains of the nearly 3,000 Americans killed by Muslim terrorists on 9/11 continue to be found. The most prominent proponent of the project, President Obama, was in high fashion Friday night, as one would expect at a White House gala in observance of Ramadan. “This is America,” he intoned, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.” The president’s commitment is to a vacant abstraction, not to actual liberty. If his resolve to defend religious freedom were truly unshakable, the last thing he would endorse is the construction of a gigantic monument to intolerance in a place where bigots devastated a city they have repeatedly targeted because of the pluralism and freedom it symbolizes. You can’t aspire to religious freedom by turning a blind eye to the reality of sharia (emphasis mine). …Sura 9:29, the verse of the Koran that immediately follows the commandment to exclude non-Muslims from holy sites, instructs: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians], until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The jizya is a poll-tax imposed on dhimmis. Those are non-Muslims permitted to live in Islamic territories. The concept is that all the world will eventually be under the thumb of sharia authorities, with dhimmis tolerated so long as they accept their subordinate legal and social status (“and feel themselves subdued”). The alternative for dhimmis is war or death. Yep. Definitely a religion of peace. See: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243899/tolerant-pose-andrew-c-mccarthy 2a) Imam Rauf's Newly Discovered Explosive Audio Tapes Steve Emerson has unearthed 13 hours of audio tape of Imam Rauf. Emerson and his team of investigators has spent the past four weeks going through the newly found material. Rauf is a "radical extremist cleric who cloaks himself in sheep's clothing." Among the shocking revelations Emerson's team will reveal next week -- they found Rauf: Defending wahhabism - a puritanical version of Islam that governs Saudi Arabia Calling for the elimination of Israel by claiming a one-nation state, meaning no more Jewish State. Defending Bin Laden's violence Demonstrating that there is a lot more to this man than merely a cleric. The American public now sees the "deception perpetrated by all these Islamic groups that claim they are against violence and terrorism and insist that their rights be respected but in reality are fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood." Emerson states there is "definitely fraud involved in the entities that Rauf created in the last decade that are co-mingled." Emerson took it to the IRS, who said, "you have a case." There is intel that the shady developers, the Gamal brothers, will be going to radical Islamic organizations to serve as connectors -- CAIR, MPAC -- so that they do their bidding for the money. The mosque "is going to be a magnet for radicals." Emerson is not opposed to the building of mosques. He is "opposed to the building of radical mosques." ......"Unfortunately 80% of the mosques in the United States are controlled by the Wahhabists. That's the reality. No one wants to admit it. They're the ones that attract terrorists." See: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/08/imam-raufs-newly-discovered-explosive-audio-tapes.html 2b) Nancy Pelosi, house speaker, wants investigation into Ground Zero mosque opposition funding Nancy Pelosi wants some answers. The house speaker is calling for an investigation into groups protesting the building of the Ground Zero mosque. "There is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some," she told San Francisco's KCBS radio on Tuesday. Pelosi added that she joins "those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded." …Pelosi is one of few House Democrats to make a statement on the mosque. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) broke from the president on Monday and said the mosque should be built "someplace else." The move occurred shortly after his Republican opponent Sharron Angle asked where he stood. Way to go, Sharron Angle! Make Harry Reid follow YOUR lead! …Pelosi said the matter is a "zoning issue" in New York City and would like the matter to be determined by city residents. She said the issue might be "ginned up" in order to help Republican candidates. Ginned up? Republicans are the ones who want to build a mosque at Ground Zero and hold its grand opening on the TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11! See: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/18/2010-08-18_nancy_pelosi_house_speaker_wants_investigation_into_ground_zero_mosque_oppositio.html 2c) George W. Bush on the Ground Zero mosque? GLENN: All right. Maureen Dowd is now begging George W. Bush to speak up on the mosque. I love this story. PAT: Yeah, I do, too. She says it's time for W to weigh in. And, you know, she refers to him as W out of sheer affection. You know she does. GLENN: She wants him to weigh in on the mosque because she thinks that George W. Bush is going to agree with Barack Obama. PAT: So that Obama's got a little bit of a cover. Because he's getting some flack. GLENN: Why would you want cover from a guy who is too stupid to know PAT: Right. GLENN: exactly how to tie his own tie? PAT: Yeah, yeah. STU: That was they painted him as the dumbest man in America for eight years. See: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44446/ 2d) By Faith: I Am Proud of Franklin Graham …Specifically, this week Graham noted that Barack Obama was born a muslim. “I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name,” Graham told CNN’s John King in a televised interview that aired Thursday night. Likewise, Graham said if the State Department paid him or another Christian to do outreach, there’d be all sorts of outcry. But, due to double standards, there was no outcry over the State Department putting the Ground Zero mosque imam on the payroll. Lastly, his words about Islam from last year have come back into focus due to his opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. Last year, he said, in part about Islam, “I speak out for people who live under Islam, who are enslaved under Islam, and I want them to know they can be free by Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone.” First, about Barack Obama’s faith — it is clear when he was enrolled in school in Indonesia his parents listed his faith as Islam. The New York Times, in 2008, buttressed that. One is not born into Islam (Rev. Graham got that point technically wrong), but as Streiff has pointed out, at one time his parents listed his religion as “Islam.” ..By faith we believe, we persevere, and we know that there will be a last day and a final judgment. On that day we who persevere win because Christ wins against this world. It is that simple. It is that offensive. It is precisely that which our secular media and political elites do not understand and cannot grasp. That is why they dwell on Franklin Graham and the political impact of his words. These people live for the now. Franklin Graham and all those who follow Christ live for eternity. See: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/08/22/by-faith-i-am-proud-of-franklin-graham/ 3) U.S. may sue Arizona's Sheriff Arpaio for not cooperating in investigation A federal investigation of a controversial Arizona sheriff known for tough immigration enforcement has intensified in recent days, escalating the conflict between the Obama administration and officials in the border state. Justice Department officials in Washington have issued a rare threat to sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he does not cooperate with their investigation of whether he discriminates against Hispanics. The civil rights inquiry is one of two that target the man who calls himself "America's toughest sheriff." A federal grand jury in Phoenix is examining whether Arpaio has used his power to investigate and intimidate political opponents and whether his office misappropriated government money, sources said. The standoff comes just weeks after the Justice Department sued Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R) because of the state's new immigration law, heightening tensions over the issue ahead of November's midterm elections. The renewed debate has focused attention on Arpaio, a former D.C. police officer who runs a 3,800-employee department, and a state at the epicenter of the controversy over the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081703637.html 4) Obama challenges GOP on campaign finance ruling …You'd think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections wouldn't be a partisan issue," said Obama. "But the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote. "This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark," said the president. "They don't want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., scoffed at the president's message. "Americans want us to focus on jobs, but by focusing on an election bill, Democrats are sending a clear message to the American people that their jobs aren't as important as the jobs of embattled Democrat politicians," McConnell said. "The president says this bill is about transparency. It's transparent all right. It's a transparent effort to rig the fall elections (emphasis mine)." AND THE SUPREME COURT AGREES, BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100821/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_campaign_finance 5) Report Accuses Obama Administration of ‘Covert and Expensive’ Propaganda President Obama’s consummate campaign skills just might cost him. According to a report released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Obama has orchestrated more propaganda activities to promote his agenda than any modern president — and he’s used federal funds to do it. “In 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives,” the House Oversight Committee staff writes. “The Obama administration’s propaganda is covert and expensive to taxpayers.” According to the report, members of the administration — including Yosi Sergant, formerly of the National Endowment of the Arts, and Tracy Russo of the Department of Justice — have misused federal agency resources to promote the president’s agenda. Sergant, the former communications director for the NEA, used his position — and, by extension, the powerful incentive of NEA grant money — to formally encourage artists to utilize their artistic abilities to promote presidential issues. Russo, a new media specialist in the Department of Justice, posted fake and anonymous comments on message boards and blogs to attack bloggers critical of the president’s agenda. The two are part of a wider pattern, according to the report. “The President’s right to sell his policy recommendations to Congress and the public is not disputed,” the report states. “[H]owever, using the resources of the federal government to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of office.” See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/17/report-accuses-administration-of-covert-and-expensive-propaganda-efforts/ 6) Dems retreat on health care cost pitch Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to "improve it." The messaging shift was circulated this afternoon on a conference call and PowerPoint presentation organized by FamiliesUSA — one of the central groups in the push for the initial legislation. The call was led by a staffer for the Herndon Alliance, which includes leading labor groups and other health care allies. It was based on polling from three top Democratic pollsters, John Anzalone, Celinda Lake and Stan Greenberg. The confidential presentation, available in full here and provided to POLITICO by a source on the call, suggests that Democrats are acknowledging the failure of their predictions that the health care legislation would grow more popular after its passage, as its benefits became clear and rhetoric cooled. Instead, the presentation is designed to win over a skeptical public and to defend the legislation — in particular, the individual mandate — from a push for repeal. "Straightforward ‘policy’ defenses fail to [move] voters’ opinions about the law," says one slide. "Women in particular are concerned that health care law will mean less provider availability — scarcity an issue." The presentation also concedes that the fiscal and economic arguments that were the White House's first and most aggressive sales pitch have essentially failed (emphasis mine). …The presentation's final page of "Don'ts" counsels against claiming "the law will reduce costs and [the] deficit." The presentation advises, instead, sales pitches that play on personal narratives and promises to change the legislation. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html 7) Prop. 8 ruling ignores precedent, evidence and common sense Even some who support same-sex marriage worry that, in striking down California's voter-approved proposition defining marriage as between one man and one woman, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker went too far. They are right -- and not the only ones who should be concerned. Walker's ruling is indefensible as a matter of law wholly apart from its result. By refusing to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent, substantial evidence produced at trial that was contrary to the holding and plain common sense, the ruling exhibits none of the requirements of a traditional decision. This opinion is arbitrary and capricious, and its alarming legal methodology and overtly policy-driven tenor are too extreme to stand. Regardless of whether one agrees with the result, structurally sound opinions always confront binding legal precedent. Walker's is a clear exception because the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on whether a state's refusal to authorize same-sex marriage violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings. …Despite ample evidence introduced into the record that only a union of a man and woman can produce offspring (as if that needs proof), Walker's opinion denied the relevance of that biological fact. That difference has been the main reason civilization recognized the uniqueness of marriage as between a man and woman, and why courts have repeatedly relied on that common-sense truth (emphasis mine). Despite voluminous evidence and common sense pointing to the contrary, the judge also declared that opposite sexes were never part of the "historical core of the institution of marriage"; "evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different than opposite-sex couples"; traditional marriage is an "artifact"; and, also without reference to the monumental evidence to the contrary, that it is beyond "any doubt that parents' genders are irrelevant to children's developmental outcomes." These assertions appear in the opinion's "findings of fact" section, yet they are not facts. These "findings" derive from arbitrary and capricious non-analysis and are forcefully contradicted by evidence in the court record. No appellate court should allow the ruling to stand. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010081604254.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 8) White House says Obama is Christian, prays daily WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is a Christian who prays daily, a White House official said Thursday, trying to tamp down growing doubts about the president's religion. A new poll showed that nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, believe Obama is Muslim. That was up from 11 percent who said so in March 2009. The survey also showed that just 34 percent said Obama is Christian, down from 48 percent who said so last year. The largest share of people, 43 percent, said they don't know his religion. By their fruit, you will know them… See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_poll_obama_s_religion 9) Bam's lousy economic record: Let's just look at the facts, shall we? …At 9.5%, the unemployment rate is 1.8 percentage points higher today than when the President took office. There are 3.3 million fewer U.S. jobs than there were in January 2009. The U.S. economy has lost jobs in 12 of the 18 months he has been office, including the last two months. In early August of last year, the President declared that, thanks in part to his policies, the U.S. economy was "pointed in the right direction." We have lost jobs in six of the 12 months since then, for a net decline of 52,000 jobs. The 9.4% unemployment rate when he made this statement climbed to 10.1% and has since declined to 9.5%, still higher than it was last August. The President signed into law an $862 billion stimulus law and two health laws that will create $788 billion of new entitlements over the next decade. Combine these with countless other smaller spending bills, several of which were labeled as emergencies and therefore not paid for, and the U.S. government is $2.5 trillion more in debt than on the day this President took office. That's $8,000 more debt for every American man, woman, and child. See: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_bams_lousy_economic_record.html 10) Sweden withdraws warrant for WikiLeaks founder STOCKHOLM – Swedish prosecutors withdrew an arrest warrant for the founder of WikiLeaks on Saturday, saying less than a day after the document was issued that it was based on an unfounded accusation of rape. They said that for the moment Julian Assange remains suspected of the lesser crime of molestation in a separate case. The accusations have been labeled a dirty trick by Julian Assange and his group, who are preparing to release a fresh batch of classified U.S. documents from the Afghan war. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100821/ap_on_hi_te/eu_sweden_wikileaks 11) Russian Deployment of S-300 Missiles Threatens U.S. Interests in the Caucasus On Wednesday, Gen. Alexander Zelin, the commander of the Russian Air Force, announced that Moscow had deployed a state-of-the-art S-300 (SA-20 Favorit) long- range air defense system in Abkhazia, a region of the Republic of Georgia that Russia has occupied since the August 2008 war. Since then, Russia recognized breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent republics. According to Zelin, the task of the air defense systems is “to prevent violation of Abkhaz and South Ossetian airspace and to destroy any aircraft intruding into their airspace no matter what their purpose might be”. …However, with this move Russia is yet again flagrantly violating the August 2008 ceasefire agreement, negotiated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. It called upon both countries to withdraw troops to pre-war positions and restore status-quo ante bellum. In addition, Russia has built up to five military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the past two years alone. …Most importantly from the perspective of the United States, Russian actions are aimed at denying the United Space airspace and over-flight options. The surveillance aspect is no less important—depending on the actual deployment of the air defenses: associated radars will be able to picture or “paint” much of western Georgia and the adjoining Black Sea coastline. The ultimate objective for Moscow is to become an uncontested hegemon in the South Caucasus. And of course this has potential implications in case of an Iranian contingency. The Russians are committed to deployments in the Caucasus that lead to the strategic denial of U.S. power projection in that region. This bears on the U.S.’s future ability to resupply Afghanistan; to use power to disarm a nuclear Iran; to ensure energy supply from the Caspian; and to help pro-Western friends and allies. These are hardly great accomplishments for the Obama “reset” policy”. See: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/13/russian-deployment-of-s-300-missiles-threatens-us-interests-in-the-caucasus