Libyan rebels scored their most important victory in the nearly three-month old uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, when they captured the airport in Misrata on Wednesday, virtually taking control of the city. Gaddafi’s forces had been besieging Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city, for two months and had driven the rebels into an area around the harbour, where they were subjected to constant rocket and artillery fire. Two Western journalists, one American and one British, were among the people killed by the heavy barrage during this time.

“The airport and its approaches were the last remaining pieces of significant terrain in the city to be controlled by the Qaddafi soldiers,” the New York Times reported.

NATO immediately followed up the rebel success with air strikes on Thursday on a compound in Tripoli. Three civilians were allegedly killed in the attack, but after a government-guided tour of the area, reporters suspect civilians are being used as human shields in the compound to protect a possible underground military complex.

The rebels’ capture of Misrata is important for several reasons. It is the only city the anti-Gaddafi forces hold in Western Libya and is regarded as the stepping stone to capturing Tripoli, Gaddafi’s stronghold. Located 130 miles east of Tripoli, a Misrata in rebel hands represents a knife at Gaddafi’s throat. Which is why the Libyan leader fought so bitterly to take it from rebel hands and why strenuous efforts may still be made in counterattacks to recover the lost ground there. But even if Gaddafi does succeed in containing the insurgents within Misrata, their victory will certainly add to the accumulating military strain on his forces.

Moreover, the rebels’ taking of Misrata is a huge public relations coup. In the eyes of the world, the battle for Misrata had become an important symbol of the anti-Gaddafi cause. Gaddafi is now seen to have failed to attain a goal he badly wanted and needed, and so close to home at that, while the rebels prevailed. Ultimately, if the rebels overthrow Gaddaffi, the Misrata victory may become for the Libyan conflict what Stalingrad was for the Soviets: a psychological and military turning point.

On the rebel side, probably their greatest advantage in breaking Misrata’s isolation consists in the fact they can now start to bring in food and medical supplies through the sea port for the city’s 500,000 desperate, suffering people. Only tugboats and a few Red Cross ships had risked making the trip to Misrata during the siege due to the danger.

Supplying soldiers and civilian populations, or logistics as military strategists term it, decides many wars, and some analysts believe this is what will determine the Libyan conflict’s outcome. On Wednesday, the rebels scored an important triumph in this area by opening an avenue to feed the people under their control in an important city.

Gaddafi, on the other hand, is facing a bleak future logistics-wise. Although Gaddafi’s army is believed to have enough weapons and ordnance for a year’s fighting, his ability to feed Tripoli’s one million people for that period of time is problematic. NATO has imposed a tight air and sea blockade around his stronghold. An extended period of suffering could see a renewal of the anti-Gaddafi protests the Libyan capital experienced earlier in the conflict that loyal security forces seem to have quelled. But when people become very hungry and unhappy, like in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, force will not prevent them from taking to the streets again.

While NATO countries are blocking Gaddafi’s supplies, they are helping rebel logistics significantly with shipments of food and aid to Benghazi, the rebel stronghold. The first American ship to deliver “non-lethal aid” to the rebels arrived in Benghazi this week. Among the items delivered were 10,000 ready-to-eat meals. Ships from other NATO countries have already made trips to Benghazi, delivering food and aid, while Qatar has been sending the rebels weapons, the only country reported to have done so. The rebels have asked NATO for better weapons but the alliance has been slow to respond. The United Nations has imposed an arms embargo on Libya, but some governments interpret it as applying only to Gaddafi.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (June 9) -- Gunmen torched more than 20 NATO tractor-trailers ferrying fuel and supplies into Afghanistan, killing at least seven people and leaving the charred convoy in shambles just six miles outside Pakistan's capital.

Capital city police said as many as 12 militants attacked the fleet while it was parked at a rest stop in Tarnol, using small arms and grenades to set ablaze oil tankers and military vehicles that were on their way to the Afghan border east of Peshawar. All of the attackers escaped.

Media reports differed on the number of NATO trucks involved, with Xinhua and Al-Jazeera saying more than 50 were destroyed. The Associated Press is reporting that in addition to fuel and other supplies, some of the trucks hauled trailers carrying military Humvees to troops in Afghanistan. The AP, citing police official Shah Nawaz, said the seven people killed were believed to be Pakistanis employed as drivers or assistants.

The Punjabi Taliban has taken responsibility for the attack, adding to fears among Pakistani officials that Punjab province, considered Pakistan's commercial and intellectual heartland, is increasingly vulnerable to militants. Islamabad, a virtual fortress city, has remained relatively peaceful in recent months, but the brazen midnight assault is a stark reminder that groups opposed to the war in Afghanistan can strike even minutes outside the safe zone....

Mexico’s drug war is still raging, with over 22,000 people having been killed since 2006. Now, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, often referred to as the FARC, are teaming up with the drug lords. The Marxist terrorist group’s ties to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and other organizations make the conflict to the south a major threat to the United States.

The violence in Mexico is severe. In the first two days of May, 25 people were killed in Chihuahua, with several of the murders happening in Ciudad Juarez. As the month of May began, 62 people had been killed in the city over the previous week, bringing the total to 850 lives lost in that city alone in 2010. Last year, the Joint Forces Command warned that Mexico and Pakistan were the two countries most at risk of “rapid and sudden collapse.” There have been arrests of high-profile drug lords, but the violence and corruption continues.

The latest arrest of Mario Ernesto Villanueva Madrid revealed how deeply he had corrupted Mexican law enforcement. Documents captured after his arrest found that he was bribing those commanding the police and soldiers searching him, which explains how he was able to avoid capture for 11 years. The New York Times described Madrid as running “a sophisticated counterintelligence operation.” The drug lords are growing bolder, and instead of opening fire when they are pursued, they are now on the offensive. They are directly attacking the police, soldiers, and those serving the government.

Dr. Maria Velez de Berliner, the President of the Latin Intelligence Corporation, told FrontPage that the brutality of the Mexican drug lords now surpasses that of the Colombian drug traffickers, which is quite a feat.

“If this situation continues, the time will probably come when Mexico will replace Colombia as the largest producer and exporter of cocaine,” she said.

Now, it is known that the FARC is teaming up with the drug lords, offering a major source of income for their own operations and potentially providing the criminals with the military expertise they need to further destabilize Mexico. The FARC connection also gives Hugo Chavez the ability to covertly attack Mexico and the United States and gain intelligence. It also means that other terrorist groups that are connected to FARC or the drug lords have the ability to send arms and operatives into the U.S. if they are willing to pay for it.

The leader of the FARC until 2008, the late Raul Reyes, is now known to have written a letter to his top commanders confirming that a relationship with the Mexican drug lords existed. He was enthusiastic about the new partnership, saying it would allow them to double their profits. It is estimated that FARC already makes $1 billion annually through its work with drug lords. According to Michael Braum, a former operations chief for the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Mexican criminals want to buy “multiton quantities of cocaine directly from South America.”

Dr. Maria Velez de Berliner said that the “FARC is not interested in attacking the U.S, they don’t have the field capability to do so.” However, she warns that FARC’s business with other terrorists and drug traffickers does threaten the U.S.

Olavo de Carvalho, a philosopher from Brazil who has written extensively about the activity of the Marxists in Latin America, agreed with her, saying that the FARC will not initiate military operations against the U.S. in the near-term.

“…but they can give strategic support to Mexican gangs operating in American territory, exactly as they did with several Brazilian gangs, transforming them from mere bunches of criminals into powerful and well-armed organizations. This is a serious and imminent threat,” he said.

The instability in Mexico is directly benefiting Hezbollah, which is now tied to the Venezuelan government and possibly the FARC. The smuggling routes used by the Mexican drug lords are being utilized by Hezbollah, using “the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels,” said Braun. The terrorist group has a long history of engaging in drug trafficking in order to fundraise.

“They [Hezbollah] are doing the same thing in Latin America that they are doing in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, and providing medical and social services,” Dr. de Berliner said.

She also mentioned that the FARC is working with Chinese gangs in the tri-border area of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. These gangs could potentially buy and upgrade the FARC’s semi-submersibles and use them in their human trafficking efforts, allowing them to potentially insert operatives into the U.S.

Al-Qaeda also will benefit from the FARC’s new ventures, and could conceivably pay them, or the Mexican drug lords, to help them smuggle in operatives. In fact, Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia, Al-Shabaab, may have already done so as someone connected to the group oversaw the smuggling of 270 Somalis into the U.S. through Mexico.

FARC has already begun using Al-Qaeda members in West Africa in order to deliver drugs to Europe. Three members of Al-Qaeda have been arrested in West Africa and were extradited to the U.S. in December. The DEA’s director of South America’s Andean region says that “All of the aircraft seizures that have been made in West Africa, and we’ve made about a half a dozen of them, had departed from Venezuela.”

The separatist Basque ETA terrorists of Spain have entered into an alliance with the FARC as well, an unsurprising development considering the hostile relationship between Spain and Venezuela. A Spanish court has charged a Venezuelan official and a dozen FARC and ETA members with terrorism-related offenses, and Venezuela is refusing to extradite the suspects.

The evidence against them stems from seizures made by the Colombians that provided evidence that ETA members attended FARC camps from 2003 to 2008, located near Machiques in Venezuela. The ETA members provided explosives training for at least five FARC units, and two former FARC operatives have confirmed seeing ETA members training at their camps in 2008. The ETA members traveled with Venezuelan military officers, proving that Chavez’s government is involved in the relationship. This is a reminder that Chavez and other leaders often use the terrorists they support as a liaison with other groups, providing them with deniability.

The crisis in Mexico can not be seen in isolation. The worst enemies of the United States and the West are seeing it as a platform with which to expand their own capabilities. The debate about how the open border facilitates illegal immigration must be modified, because the problem goes much further than that. Terrorist groups are using the strife in Mexico and the open border to fundraise and sneak their operatives into the U.S. as we speak.

Srinagar, June 5: The alleged blasphemous images of a mosque on undergarments sparked protests in Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian Kashmir on Saturday with the protestors clashing with police and paramilitary soldiers, who fired tear smoke shells and resorted to cane charge.

And it turns out it wasn't even a mosque:

Police said after verification it was found that the image does not resemble to any Muslim religious place or building.

The protests started in Nowhatta area of Srinagar after some people spotted brown colored sketch of a building with a huge dome fitted with a cross mast and a transept imprinted on an undergarment. Some people termed it as blasphemous depiction of holy Al-Aqsa Mosque. The residents in Nowhatta and the adjoining localities of the old city started gathering and started protesting against the incident.

Terming it the blasphemous depiction of holy Al-Aqsa Mosque, the residents of the area and adjoining localities took out a protest march and staged demonstrations. Chanting pro-Islamic, anti-Israel and anti-India slogans, the agitating people alleged that conspiracies against Muslims are being hatched across the globe.

Just to reiterate: It's a pair of underwear.

"The images of sacred places on the undergarments have hurt our sentiments. It is a conspiracy of America, Israel and other Western countries to hurt Muslim sentiments," said a protestor Javed Ahmad.

He said Muslims cannot tolerate such indecent acts.

As the protestors amidst chanting of anti-India and anti-Israeli slogans tried to march towards city centre, police and paramilitary soldiers swung into action. They fired tear smoke shells and resorted to heavy baton charge to disperse the agitating people.

The clashes also broke out between the cops and protestors at Nowpora, Khayam, Rainawari, Maisuma, Koker Bazar and other other places in Indian Kashmir. At least a dozen persons including some protestors were injured in the clashes that continued for quite some time.

The shopkeepers in old city and some other parts of Indian Kashmir closed shutters of their business establishments as a mark of protest against the alleged blasphemous images.

However, police spokesman said the undergarment did not bear imprints of any Islamic workshop place.

"The underwear garment in question was produced and examined and it was found that it carries the imprints and sketches of various buildings on it which resemble places like Big Ben in London, St. Paul's Cathedral of London and other places. No sketch has any likeness to any Muslim religious place or building. The attempt to create tension in the society is a deliberate move to disturb the situation by indulging in blasphemous rumors.

St. Paul's Cathedral? When was the Christian riot? Oh, wait...

The general public is advised to remain calm and caution against such elements," he said.

Israel celebrated “Jerusalem Day” last week, which commemorates the 1967 reunification of the city following the Six Day War.  The celebrations and speeches were especially poignant in view of the Obama Administration’s decree that Israel must cease building in Jerusalem.

For Jews, Jerusalem is, has been, and always will be the symbol and the heart and soul of their national identity.  Jerusalem is mentioned almost 900 times in the Bible (767 in the King James Version and not a single mention of the city in the Koran) including Psalms (“If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning” – Psalm 137:5) and in the Passover Haggadah with the words “Next Year in Jerusalem” concluding the Passover service.  Through pilgrimages and prayers, Jews have demonstrated their love and yearning for Jerusalem for more than two millennia.  Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, is derived from Zion, another name for Jerusalem.

King David made Jerusalem his capital in 1000 BCE and unified the nation around it.  The city became the political and spiritual center of Jewish life, with the Temple at its heart.  But it took one of King David descendants, King Josiah, crowned 2650 years ago, to fortify the Jewish nation with a memory of Jerusalem that has kept the Jewish people united together during the Babylonian exile and beyond.

At the age of twenty, King Josiah understood that the assimilation of Jews into the idol-worshipping cultures that surrounded them might doom his kingdom and his people. He, therefore, enacted religious and political reforms aimed at establishing a unified national and religious worship.

The struggle between Jewish particularism and universalism is as long as Jewish history itself.  On one side, there were those who sought to assimilate into the neighboring (or prevailing) culture and on the other side, there were those who were dedicated to preserving the Jewish particularistic nature. We all know the story of Hanukkah and the Maccabean revolt against Greek rule and their agents from within. It was King Josiah, whose father King Amon was an idol-worshipper, who helped to create a Zion-oriented, national and religious Jewish particularism.

Following King Solomon’s death, the unified kingdom of Israel split up.  The Kingdom of Israel turned its back on Jerusalem and adopted the idol-worshipping universalist culture of the surrounding lands.  It did not survive.  Conversely, the Kingdom of Judea, with Jerusalem as its capital, survived for almost a century-and-a-half thereafter.  Josiah’s particularistic Jewish kingdom prepared the Judeans and future generations against ultimate defeat and exile by rededicating the lost Book of Deuteronomy to the people.

Josiah’s revolutionary actions were based on shifting the focus of religious worship from the physical domain (sacrifices) to the spiritual domain with the reading of the Torah.  Josiah did in his time what Martin Luther did in 16^th century Europe.  By removing the exclusivity of the priests (in sacrifices) and the scribes, who read for the entire community, the common people were now compelled to learn how to read, altering their role as passive participants.

The Book – The Torah, which maintained a unitary focus on Zion, had a centralizing impact on Judaism.  Whereas sacrifices could be made at any place and for all “gods” or sovereigns, Josiah provided the Jews with a particularistic culture that is eternal and accessible to all the people.   Josiah was in a sense fulfilling Moses’ command in the Book of Deuteronomy 31:19, “Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it to the Children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the Children of Israel.”

Josiah’s great achievement is in facilitating the rise of the synagogue as a replacement for the destroyed Jerusalem Temple.  The practice of reading from the Torah began with Josiah and continues to this day among all Jews. King Josiah was greatly aided and strengthened by the Prophet Jeremiah who preached during his reign.  Jeremiah tied together the notion that worshipping God in the City of David (Jerusalem) and the freedom from foreign oppressors the city afforded them, are connected by an unbreakable chain.  It was an essential Zionist message.

The full extent and meaning of Josiah’s revolution is seen with the returnees from the Babylonian exile, Ezra and Nehemiah.  While they were dedicated to the rebuilding of the Second Temple, they understood that the essence of public worship was concentrated in public prayer.  Ezra stood on top of a wooden platform and opened the book while the masses of Jews rose to their feet; he read from the Torah and translated it to the masses (many of whom had lapsed in their practice of Judaism in the absence of strong Jewish leadership following the general expulsion to Babylon.)

The sacrificial alters (used by Jews and idol-worshippers alike) were replaced by a new institution, namely the synagogue, where Jews assembled for worship without the sole orchestration of priests who came from Aaron’s lineage (Moses’ brother). Instead, they were led by scribes from all walks of life and from any tribe.

Josiah’s contribution to Judaism and Zionism is in having forged an intellectual revolution based on three elements: Concentrating the kingdom (nation) around Jerusalem or Zion, from which all spirituality emanates; abolishing the foreign idol-worshipping and foreign cultural influences that erode the national and religious strength; and transferring the centrality of religious worship from the physical (sacrifices of animals) to a spiritual and intellectual worship.

Modern celebrations of Jerusalem serve a two-fold purpose: to remember that 2000 CE Jerusalem marked its 3000 birthday and 2010 marked the 43^rd anniversary of the reunification of city.

The Obama administration’s attempted imposition of a building halt in Jerusalem and his anticipated division of the city is once again pitting universalist Jews (those who seek to be accepted and liked by the world) against particularistic Jews, (who see Jerusalem as the heart and soul of Jewish sovereignty and faith).  The Netanyahu government is currently in the midst of a debate on the building freeze.  In Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Jerusalem Day” speech he vowed never to allow the division of Jerusalem. It remains to be seen, however, whether Netanyahu will follow the particularistic actions of King Josiah or succumb to the universalist culture and accept Obama’s foreign idols.

Cloward and Piven had chosen their target wisely. George Wiley and his welfare radicals terrorized social workers all over the country, but their greatest success came in New York. Newly elected in 1966, New York City’s liberal Mayor John Lindsay was no match for Wiley. He capitulated to every Wiley demand. New York’s welfare rolls had already been growing by twelve percent per year before Lindsay took office. The growth rate jumped to 50 percent annually in 1966. “By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy,” wrote Sol Stern in the City Journal.

As a direct result of its reckless welfare spending, New York City – the financial capital of the world – was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. Leftist agitators reveled in their in triumph. The strategy had proved its effectiveness.

Crucial to the campaign’s success was the cooperation – indeed, the collusion – of radical elements within the federal government, who supplied Wiley with cash grants, training and logistical assistance, such as free legal aid and free office space from the famously leftwing Legal Services division of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Some readers may wonder why the federal government would have extended a helping hand to a program such as Wiley’s whose stated purpose was to bankrupt and cripple the federal government. The answer is that the War on Poverty was permeated with radicals whose goals were very much in alignment with Wiley’s. This was a reflection of the way activists involved in poverty programs had been inspired by the theories of Saul Alinsky the author of a manual called Rules for Radicals and a mentor to Hillary Clinton.

– The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party

If you have a favorite Horowitz quote you want to highlight for others then please submit it here. Please include:

1. “Horowitz Quote of the Day” in subject line.
2. A link to where the quote is from. (No need to include this if it’s from a book.)
3. Any remarks you’d like published explaining what value you take from it.
4. Your preferred name and a link to your blog or homepage (if you have one.)

New York, 29 May (AKI) - Three United Nations human rights experts have called on the Pakistani Government to ensure the safety of religious minorities after the violent attacks on the Ahmadi minority in the eastern city of Lahore on Friday.

The independent experts - Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief Asma Jahangir, Independent Expert on minority issues Gay McDougall and Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Philip Alston - report to the UN Human Rights Council.

In a statement they said that numerous early warning signs had not been properly heeded before the deadly attacks on the two prayer halls.

"Members of this religious community have faced continuous threats, discrimination and violent attacks in Pakistan," the experts said in a joint statement on the attack, which was also condemned by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The attacks occurred during Friday prayers, when gunmen armed with grenades attacked two Ahmadi mosques in the city of Lahore. At least 80 people were killed and scores of others were injured.

In Pakistan and elsewhere, Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslims and have been subject to restrictions and in many instances institutionalised discrimination....

Jakarta (AsiaNews) - The women of the District of West Aceh can no longer wear jeans or tight skirts, considered indecent and against Islam. From yesterday in the city of Meulaboh, Wilayatul Hisbah (special police for the enforcement of Sharia), are patrolling the streets forcing people wearing the offending clothing to wear a tunic tailored to Islamic rules. The restrictions also affect men, who can not wear shorts in the tropical country.

Ramli Mansur, head of the district, said: "To enforce the Sharia, for the next days the special police will carry out raids against women who offend Islamic law." He adds that agents have purchased more than 20 thousand coats to be distributed in public places and created a series of checkpoints along the roads to the city to stop travellers....

The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials.

Ties between the alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and elements of the Pakistani Taliban have sharpened the Obama administration's need for retaliatory options, the officials said. They stressed that a U.S. reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient.

"Planning has been reinvigorated in the wake of Times Square," one of the officials said.

At the same time, the administration is trying to deepen ties to Pakistan's intelligence officials in a bid to head off any attack by militant groups. The United States and Pakistan have recently established a joint military intelligence center on the outskirts of the northwestern city of Peshawar, and are in negotiations to set up another one near Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Afghan Taliban is based, according to the U.S. military officials. They and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding U.S. military and intelligence activities in Pakistan....

MADRID -- The Spanish city of Lleida has barred women from wearing face-covering Islamic veils inside its municipal buildings.

The move makes the northern city of Lleida -- population of 135,000 -- the first in Spain to regulate the garments that have triggered debate across Europe.

Lleida's town hall passed the ban Friday with 23 votes in favor, one against and two abstentions.

The gesture is largely symbolic, because town hall spokeswoman Inma Martos said only about 3 percent of the population is Muslim and only a handful of Muslim women in Lleida actually wear body-covering burqas or face-covering niqab garments.

Martos told The Associated Press the idea behind the ban is that such veils are degrading to women.

[...] She soothes everyone with a free trip to an Abu Dhabi resort where the rooms are worth $22 grand a night. Carrie actually delivers the line, "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore!" and writer-director Michael Patrick King's pun dependence becomes as unbearable as the gilt décor. "I'm going to turn this inter-friend-tion into an inter-fun-tion!" . . . "Bedouin, bath and beyond" . . . Blah, Blah, Blahnik.

The girls aren't interested in anything except shopping, drinking and strutting through the desert in slo-mo, but what's most appalling is that they vamp to "I Am Woman" in this land of sand Nazis. A veil "cuts back on the Botox bill!" chirps Samantha. Har. In Abu Dhabi husbands can legally beat their wives -- and Carrie thinks this place is Oz, a cure for her boredom with a zillionaire husband who, she complains, eats too much takeout. (She won't cook because she's more "Coco Chanel than Coq au vin." Waiter: one divorce, please)....

Once again Western feminists throw Muslim women under the bus. It's their culture, doncha know.

"Sex And The City 2 Blasted As 'Anti-Muslim,'" from SkyNews, May 25 (thanks to Twostellas):

The first reviews of Sex And The City 2 have been published, with one critic claiming the new film featuring Carrie and the girls is "anti-muslim"....

The film sees the four New Yorker friends travelling to the Middle East for a trip to Abu Dhabi, but the Hollywood Reporter says it conjures up a "scathing portrayal of Muslim society".

Carrie, played by Sarah Jessica Parker , Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall ), Charlotte York Goldenblatt (Kristin Scott ) and Miranda Hobbes (Cynthia Nixon ) get caught up in moments there which the review says shows the region as "puritanical and misogynistic".

"The rather scathing portrayal of Muslim society no doubt will stir controversy, especially in a frothy summer entertainment," read the review by Hollywood Reporter.

One scene even features the four main characters being rescued by Muslim women who strip off their burkhas to reveal the stylish Western outfits they are concealing beneath their black robes.

While in another scene, the ladies perform a karaoke version of Helen Reddy's I Am Woman in an Abu Dhabi nightclub, as man-eater Samantha shocks the locals with her sexual escapades.

Officials in the United Arab Emirates had denied the production team permission to film within the city, as did Dubai and instead the Abu Dhabi scenes were recreated in Morocco.

Abu Dhabi is currently considering whether to ban the film.

Islamic Tolerance Alert from modern, moderate Indonesia: "West Java: Islamic authorities shut down church, Christians celebrate in the street," by Mathias Hariyadi for AsiaNews, May 24 (thanks to C. Cantoni):

Jakarta (AsiaNews) - Bogor authorities (West Java province) ordered the closure of a local church building that belongs to Gereja Kristen Indonesia (GKI), a Christian group also known as Gereja Kristen Yasmin Bogor. This has outraged hundreds of faithful and induced the Indonesian Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) to file an official protest.

In an official statement, GKI followers called the decision to ban their religious and social meetings unlawful. They note, "The mayor of Bogor granted the IMB (building permit) back on 13 May 2006."

The closure had initially been ordered by Bogor's City and Gardening authority in February 2008, but was overturned because the matter falls under the mayor's jurisdiction.

After a series of protests by local extremist Islamic groups, the city decided to close the church and suspend the GKI despite the fact that the Christian group had all the necessary permits to build its church and practice its faith.

For some time, local Islamic groups had been protesting publicly and violently against Christians, accusing them of "proselytising". They are certainly opposed to Christians having any building, even if the latter did not have a religious purpose.

At the end of April, extremists attacked and set fire to a Christian centre in Bogor on the ground that Christians wanted to build a house of prayer disguised as an educational facility. Instead of stopping the rioters, the authorities banned Christians from engaging in any activities....

More recently, the arrest of Faisal Shahzad in the attempted bombing of Times Square forced American officials to look closely at links between the suspect, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, and militants in the thriving southern port city, which is closer to the border with India than Afghanistan.

One of Shahzad's Pakistani contacts -- a member of the Jaish-e-Mohammad militant group called Mohammad Rehan -- was subsequently picked up by Pakistani intelligence officials in Karachi. Jaish-e-Mohammad is among the Islamic groups with a history of sending volunteers to fight for the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as with Islamic separatists in India's predominantly Muslim border state of Kashmir.

Rehan is being questioned on his role in facilitating a visit by Shahzad in the summer of 2009 to the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, previously known as the north west frontier province (NWFP), along the Afghan border. Investigators believe he met there with hardcore Taliban militants who taught him how to build crude bombs. A senior Karachi police official says the arrest of as many as eight suspects, including Rehan, is at the center of Pakistan's ongoing investigation into Shahzad's Pakistan links.

"We all want to know exactly how these people facilitated Faisal Shahzad," the official told CBS News on condition of anonymity. "Once we have a solid knowledge of the way these people operated in Faisal Shahzad's case, and in other cases of militancy too, our ability to penetrate militant groups will undoubtedly improve."...

Combined with these practical, if circumstantial, red flags, is strong anti-U.S. sentiment in parts of Karachi, particularly in the poverty stricken neighborhoods. Though statistics on the number of poor people in Karachi have not been compiled formally in recent years, local officials say anywhere between a quarter to a third of the city's residents live in poverty.

Typically, these are people who face daily electricity cuts that can last eight hours, many are unemployed, and there's no air conditioning in their homes as summer daytime temperatures in Pakistan's tropical south soar above 104 degrees.

That's why there are so many suicide bombers in Haiti.

On Thursday, protesters gathered in Karachi's streets to demonstrate against Facebook, the social networking site which has infuriated many Muslims by hosting a web page featuring caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Images of Muhammad are strictly forbidden by the tenets of Islam, and illegal under Pakistan's Islamic government.

The rage expressed by the Karachi residents underscored the anti-Western sentiment, and the deep tension festering in the city.

"America is against Muslims and we are now protesting because Facebook, which is based in America, has insulted Muslims," Sabir Umar, a Karachi shopkeeper, told CBS News. "I am a poor man, but I shut down my shop to join this protest because it is time for us to demonstrate against the Americans." he said.

That's not poverty-breeds-terrorism, which is what CBS News is trying to establish here. That's terrorism-breeds-poverty.

Sami Khattak, a bicycle store owner who also joined the protests, went a step further. "If I had to help my brother Muslims from Afghanistan or Iraq, where the U.S. has attacked Muslims, I will of course do everything to help them. That is my right and also my duty."

That's standard and universal Islamic doctrine: if a Muslim land is attacked, defensive jihad becomes an obligation of every individual Muslim.

Such feelings show a potential sympathy for Islamic hardliners prevalent in many Karachi neighborhoods....

No kidding, really?

The O’Reilly Factor last night invited two pro-immigration activists to address the overheated racial hostilities that are coming more out into the open, as the debate over what to do about illegal immigration intensifies.  Not surprisingly, they added fuel to the fire with blatant distortions of Arizona’s new immigration law.

“You’re absolutely right that tension is rising,” said one of the activists Enrique Morones, “and this bill in Arizona adds to the tension. It allows racial profiling and allows civilians to act as federal immigration agents. I believe people should be able to wear the flag of any country they wish, but not in a provoking manner. It’s important to not antagonize.”

The other activist, Francisco Hernandez, the tensions on the media and extremists.

There is no tension between Hispanics and Anglos or Hispanics and blacks; it is being fueled by extremists on both sides who are just nuts.

This is typical left-wing race-baiting .  Leftists also love to point fingers at everyone but themselves.  And that includes President Barack Obama whom, like his predecessors, has done nothing to stop the flow of illegal immigration and yet blames states bearing the brunt of his failure for taking measures to protect their citizens from harm.

Anyone who has actually read Arizona’s law carefully and has reasoning ability would understand that it merely reinforces what the federal government should be doing in the way of enforcement of federal immigration laws but hasn’t.  In fact, if President Obama and Attorney General Holder go ahead and sue Arizona for alleged racial profiling and discrimination as they have hinted they might do, Arizona should come right back with a claim against the U.S. government for violating Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution by not protecting the borders against the invasion of illegal aliens:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion

As for the the Los Angeles City Council, which decided to boycott Arizona as punishment for daring to pass a law to protect its citizens, it deserves one of O’Reilly’s pinhead awards.  Council members actually compared Arizona’s action to Nazi Germany and the beginning of the Holocaust.  I would like to ask Francisco Hernandez if the LA City Council members who spout such nonsense are the extremists he had in mind.

Don’t these dimwits realize that their boycott will only end up hurting the average working people of Arizona who may lose their jobs because of the reduced demand for Arizona products and services?  Don’t they realize that Hispanics will be among these residents who may be hurt the most by their boycott, particularly as it affects the service industry?  Have they thought about the possibility that their boycott may boomerang on them if cities in border states like Texas and Arizona decide to reciprocate?  How does the boycott square with the constitutional provision saying that the citizens of each state are entitled to all of the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states – i.e., no official discrimination in picking out the citizens of only one state to boycott?

Even if the LA City Council and others calling for a boycott realized the implications of their actions, it would make no difference.  That is because all the Left cares about is its abstract vision of a socially just society, not the harm the steps taken to achieve that vision may cause individuals along the way.

I am State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, which was signed by Governor Jan Brewer.  Fear mongering and misinformation is the tool of the Left against this common sense legislation.

Paul Kantner of the 1960s rock band Jefferson Airplane once remarked, “San Francisco is 49 square miles surrounded by reality.”  When I first heard that San Francisco was planning to boycott Arizona over the SB 1070, this description seemed apt.

However, when neighboring Oakland’s city council voted 7-0 to boycott Arizona last week, and President Pro Tem of the California State Senate Derrell Steinberg announced a campaign in the legislature to boycott us, it became clear that San Francisco is merely ahead of the California crazy curve.

Why did I propose SB 1070?  I saw the enormous fiscal and social costs that illegal immigration was imposing on my state.  I saw Americans out of work, hospitals and schools overflowed, and budgets strained.  Most disturbingly, I saw my fellow citizens victimized by illegal alien criminals.

The murder of Robert Krentz—whose family had been ranching in Arizona since 1907—by illegal alien drug dealers was the final straw for many Arizonans.  But there are dozens and dozens of other citizens of our state who had been murdered by illegal aliens. Currently 95 illegal aliens are in Maricopa County jail for murder.  When do we stand up for Americans and the rule of law? If not now, when?  We are a nation of laws, a Constitutional Republic.

Most of the hysterical critics of the bill do not even know what is in it. SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states’ inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal “sanctuary” policies.

The law does not allow police to stop suspected illegal aliens unless they have already come across them through normal “lawful conduct” such as a traffic stop, and explicitly prohibits racial profiling.  Illegal is not a race, it is a crime.

Aside from the unfounded accusation of racial profiling, the chief complaint about the bill is that it infringes on federal jurisdiction by enforcing laws.  Arizona did not make illegal, illegal.  It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law. States have had inherent authority to enforce immigration laws when the federal government has failed or refused to do so.

For all their newfound respect for the authority of federal immigration law, the open borders advocates who oppose SB 1070 have no problems with “sanctuary cities” across the country that explicitly obstruct federal immigration authorities to protect illegal aliens, even though are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373.)

In 2008, San Francisco began a campaign to encourage illegal aliens to take advantage of the city’s public services.  Mayor Gavin Newsom stated, “We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know the city won’t target them for using city services.”

The results were tragic. A few months after the campaign, Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien and member of the MS 13 gang, murdered San Francisco resident Tony Bologna and his two sons who he mistook for rival gang members.  Ramos had a lengthy criminal record including a felony assault on a pregnant woman.  He was arrested on gang and weapons charges and promptly released just three months before the murder.  Not once did San Francisco report him to immigration authorities.

One month after the murder of Bologna, illegal alien Alexander Izaguirre stole Amanda Keifer’s purse and then intentionally ran her over with an SUV, laughing as she hit the pavement and fractured her skull.   Four months earlier, Alexander Izaguirre had been arrested for felony dealing of crack cocaine.  Not only did San Francisco refuse to turn him over to immigration authorities, they expunged his record and helped get him a job, which is criminal in and of itself.

Keifer asked the obvious question, “If they’ve committed crimes and they’re not citizens, then why are they here?  Why haven’t they been deported?”

The answer is that politicians like Gavin Newsom and Phoenix Mayor Gordon put the interests of illegal aliens before the safety of American citizens.

Our law is already working.  One can just scan the newspapers and see dozens of headlines like “Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law: Tough, Controversial New Legislation Scares Many in Underground Workforce Out of State,”

In contrast, American citizens are leaving California.  For the last four years, more Americans have left the state than have moved in.

In criticizing the SB 1070, Barack Obama said, “Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others.”  There is nothing irresponsible about enforcing our law, but President Obama is right in that this is only necessary because the federal government does not do its job.

But the solution is not “comprehensive immigration reform,” a euphemism for amnesty. This will only encourage more illegal immigration.  And making illegal aliens legal does nothing to change the social and fiscal costs they impose on Arizona or the nation as a whole.  The Heritage Foundation’s research puts the cost of amnesty at over $2.5 Trillion dollars.

The federal government simply needs to enforce its immigration laws by cracking down on employers of illegal aliens, securing our borders, and deporting illegal alien criminals.

If states understand states rights and our Constitutional duty and responsibility to our citizens this legislation in Arizona will be a model for states across the nation and the federal government, it will end illegal immigration to America, but President Obama is looking towards San Francisco instead.

State Senator Russell Pearce represents Arizona’s 18^th Legislative District.

Kunduz, 11 May (AKI) - At least 30 schoolgirls were poisoned on Tuesday in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz, the third such attack on a girls' school in the city in less than a month, officials said. It is unclear who was behind the attacks.

"A masked man, dressed in black, came into the classroom and threw a small box at us. When we saw the box, we tried to run away, but I passed out. When I regained consciousness, I was in hospital," said 13-year-old Nafeesa, quoted by Pajhwork Afghan News.

The girls who fell ill on Tuesday were taken to a local hospital. Some of them were unconscious and in a critical condition, head of the city hospital, Homayoon Khamosh, told Pajhwok.

He said the cause of their sickness was a poisonous gas, similar to the one that had been used at Khodeja-ul-Kubra and Fatima-tu-Zahara girls' schools in Kunduz last month.

Pajhwok quoted provincial police chief, Brig. Gen. Mohammad Razaq Yaqubi blaming the attacks on reactionaries who opposed education for girls...

"Clerics protest "Judaization" of J'lem," by Ahmad al-Beheri for Al-Masri Al-Youm, May 9:

Taysir el-Tamimi, Palestine's chief Islamic judge, called on Muslims and Christians from all over the world to visit Jerusalem to combat the ongoing "Judaization" of the city by Israeli authorities.

"The Palestinian cause is not for the Palestinians alone," el-Tamimi said at the Fifth International Forum of Al-Azhar Alumni on Sunday. "It is also for all the Muslims and Christians of the world."

"Religious edicts forbidding Muslim and Christian worshipers from visiting Jerusalem have only served to isolate the city more and allowed Israel to continue with its Judaization schemes," he added, pointing to a subway tunnel that Israel is reportedly building under Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa Mosque.

"Israel has injected the walls of the mosque with certain chemicals that will speed erosion of the building," he said.

Recently-appointed Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, for his part, said he remained adamant in his refusal to visit Jerusalem under current circumstances. "Visiting the city amounts to an acknowledgment of the Israeli occupation," he said.

People often say there is nothing worse than losing a child. Yes there is. Losing a child is only the beginning of the grief. How that child died is the other half. That knowledge will either bring a modicum of comfort, or intensify the pain.

While the Left uses their usual tactics to muster feelings of public outrage, pity, and defiance for their new class of victims—illegal immigrants in Arizona—the Shaw family is still mourning the death of their son, a real victim of illegal immigration.

Jamiel Shaw II was murdered two doors down from his home, just minutes after talking to his father. He was shot by an illegal alien who was a known gang member.

His mother, Army Sgt. Anita Shaw was looking forward to coming home from Iraq, that is, until the she got the news she would be going home to bury her son, along with his dreams.

Jamiel was a promising young football player. The very day he was murdered, he spent the morning in an invitation-only football training camp, designed for star players to prepare for college, and become NFL hopefuls.

The man accused of killing Jamiel had been released from jail just the day before on gun charges, he had been in and out of the system, and was on probation. He was here illegally.

Jamiel Shaw Sr. told NewsReal:

If the Arizona law would have been in effect in California, my son would be alive today.

The Shaw family and their supporters are trying to pass Jamiel’s Law. This law would take away “sanctuary city” status for gang members. Los Angeles currently grants “sanctuary” for illegal aliens by way of city policies that prohibit the LAPD from investigating violations of federal immigration laws.

The proposed law reads in part:

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles is unsafe for law-abiding citizens, legal aliens and illegal aliens due to the prevalence of gangs that routinely commit crimes including but not limited to murder, extortion, robbery, rape, theft, drug-trafficking, and vandalism;

WHEREAS, many, if not most, of the members of the gangs in Los Angeles are illegal aliens; and

WHEREAS, there is no legitimate public policy reason for the City to extend “sanctuary city” protection to illegal aliens in the gangs that are ravaging our city…

. . . .

No Sanctuary For Gang Members.  The policy of this City from this point forward is, and shall be, to deny any “sanctuary city” protection to illegal aliens in gangs.  Neither the Mayor, the Chief of the Police nor any other City employee shall prohibit or inhibit Los Angeles Police Department officers from lawfully investigating possible violations of federal immigration laws by gang members.

For this the Shaw family is fielding the typical tactics of the Left. They have been accused of racism, and endured death threats over the Internet. These grieving parents have been told that they should feel sorry for those that are here illegally; after all, they suffer separation.

To which Jamiel Shaw Sr. says:

We’ve been separated—we would love to cross a border to see my son.

“Immigration equality” organizations would have us believe that anyone living within our borders deserves the right to work and to organize, regardless of immigration status.

Mr. Shaw raised his son to obey the laws of the land, to work hard in school.

Everything that they say they’re fighting for—my son was stripped of.

Jamiel Shaw Sr. said he was trying to turn his grief into energy and right this wrong. To learn more about Jamiel’s Law, click here.

This article is reprinted from City Journal

Supporters of Arizona’s new law strengthening immigration enforcement in the state should take heart from today’s New York Times editorial blasting it. “Stopping Arizona” contains so many blatant falsehoods that a reader can be fully confident that the law as actually written is a reasonable, lawful response to a pressing problem. Only by distorting the law’s provisions can the Times and the law’s many other critics make it out to be a racist assault on fundamental American rights.

The law, SB 1070, empowers local police officers to check the immigration status of individuals whom they have encountered during a “lawful contact,” if an officer reasonably suspects the person stopped of being in the country illegally, and if an inquiry into the person’s status is “practicable.” The officer may not base his suspicion of illegality “solely [on] race, color or national origin.” (Arizona lawmakers recently amended the law to change the term “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention or arrest” and deleted the word “solely” from the phrase regarding race, color, and national origin. The governor is expected to sign the amendments.) The law also requires aliens to carry their immigration documents, mirroring an identical federal requirement. Failure to comply with the federal law on carrying immigration papers becomes a state misdemeanor under the Arizona law.

Good luck finding any of these provisions in the Times’s editorial. Leave aside for the moment the sweeping conclusions with which the Times begins its screed—such gems as the charge that the law “turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects” and is an act of “racial separation.” Instead, let’s see how the Times characterizes the specific legislative language, which is presumably the basis for its indictment.

The paper alleges that the “statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.” False. The law gives an officer the discretion, when practicable, to determine someone’s immigration status only after the officer has otherwise made a lawful stop, detention, or arrest. It does not allow, much less require, fishing expeditions for illegal aliens. But if, say, after having stopped someone for running a red light, an officer discovers that the driver does not have a driver’s license, does not speak English, and has no other government identification on him, the officer may, if practicable, send an inquiry to his dispatcher to check the driver’s status with a federal immigration clearinghouse.

The Times then alleges that the law “empower[s] police officers to stop anyone they choose and demand to see papers.” False again, for the reasons stated above. An officer must have a lawful, independent basis for a stop; he can only ask to see papers if he has “reasonable suspicion” to believe that the person is in the country illegally. “Reasonable suspicion” is a legal concept of long-standing validity, rooted in the Constitution’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It meaningfully constrains police activity; officers are trained in its contours, which have evolved through common-law precedents, as a matter of course. If the New York Times now thinks that the concept is insufficient as a check on police power, it will have to persuade every court and every law enforcement agency in the country to throw out the phrase—and the Constitution with it—and come up with something that suits the Times’s contempt for police power.

On broader legal issues, the Times is just as misleading. The paper alleges that the “Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states cannot make their own immigration laws.” Actually, the law on preemption is almost impossibly murky. As the Times later notes in its editorial, the Justice Department ruled in 2002, after surveying the relevant Supreme Court and appellate precedents, that “state and local police had ‘inherent authority’ to make immigration arrests.” The paper does not like that conclusion, but it has not been revoked as official legal advice. If states have inherent authority to make immigration arrests, they can certainly do so under a state law that merely tracks the federal law requiring that immigrants carry documentation.

The Times tips its hand at the end of the editorial. It calls for the Obama administration to end a program that trains local law enforcement officials in relevant aspects of immigration law and that deputizes them to act as full-fledged immigration agents. The so-called 287(g) program acts as a “force multiplier,” as the Times points out, adding local resources to immigration law enforcement—just as Arizona’s SB 1070 does. At heart, this force-multiplier effect is what the hysteria over Arizona’s law is all about: SB 1070 ups the chances that an illegal alien will actually be detected and—horror of horrors—deported. The illegal-alien lobby, of which the New York Times is a charter member, does not believe that U.S. immigration laws should be enforced. Usually unwilling for political reasons to say so explicitly, the lobby comes up with smoke screens—such as the Times’s demagogic charges about SB 1070 as an act of “racial separation”—to divert attention from the underlying issue. Playing the race card is the tactic of those unwilling to make arguments on the merits. (The Times’s other contribution today to the prevailing de facto amnesty for illegal aliens was to fail to disclose, in an article about a brutal 2007 schoolyard execution in Newark, that the suspected leader was an illegal alien and member of the predominantly illegal-alien gang Mara Salvatrucha.)

The Arizona law is not about race; it’s not an attack on Latinos or legal immigrants. It’s about one thing and one thing only: making immigration enforcement a reality. It is time for a national debate: Do we or don’t we want to enforce the country’s immigration laws? If the answer is yes, the Arizona law is a necessary and lawful tool for doing so. If the answer is no, we should end the charade of inadequate, half-hearted enforcement, enact an amnesty now, and remove future penalties for immigration violations.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal, the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the coauthor of The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s.