Obama Printed Flyers for Speech in Germany IN GERMAN!

How dare a presidential candidate have the audacity to use any other language than American? Ever?!
Patrick Ruffini, another one of those puzzlingly well-placed Republican blogger-consultant-columnist-Webmaster-operatives, as well as a general all-around cigar cutter and Kool-Aid drug mule, thinks he's found a good one:

Obama Campaign Prints German-language Flyers for Berlin Rally
by Patrick Ruffini | July 22, 2008 at 10:36 PM This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday. This flyer can be found on a bilingual page on BarackObama.com advertising the event:

The German flyers bear Obama's campaign logo and say "Paid for by Obama for America."

Get that? ...For America! For America! But it's in German!!!

I'm surprised at this lapse in judgment in an otherwise well-oiled and professional Obama campaign. The last time they printed up campaign paraphenalia in a foreign language, it didn't work out so hot for them.

Here he's referring to the tongue spoken in Lata, and also in its former colonies in Latin America. This attempt to pander to the Latts was widely derided by fellows such as Patrick Ruffini (whose name means "Patrick, the Little Ruff" in his native dialect of Miscegenated Catholic Immigrant). When English is declared as the official language of the United States, there'll be no more of this 'Novus Ordo Seclorum' and 'Semper Fidelis,' not to mention 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc' or what's that other one? Oh yeah, 'E Pluribus Unum.' It's a veritable Tower of Babel; it's tearing this country apart.

So, this isn't just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America.

Tactics like telling people where the event will be, and at what time.

This after Obama's campaign said this:
"It is not going to be a political speech," said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. "When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.
"But he is not president of the United States," a reporter reminded the adviser.

And he therefore has no right to travel overseas and speak to foreigners. Has he forgotten that there are foreigners who want to kill us? This unconditional meeting-with-foreigners sends a dangerous message, emboldening those who have rejected America by choosing to back foreign regimes, etc.

The sea of Germans drummed up by the Obama campaign will be used as props to tell us Americans how to vote, and the campaign isn't trying to pretend otherwise.

As is demonstrated by the campaign saying otherwise without declaring it to be Backwards Day -- because if it is Backwards Day, they must backwardsly not declare it to be; and you can see how their little scheme falls apart from there.
But the campaign is clearly attempting to make it seem as if Obama can attract an audience, using the crowds that attend Obama events as pawns in their crooked game. These cynical attempts to make the candidate look good, and thus to tell us how to vote, are beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse.
On the other hand, do you know who else used to drum up a sea of Germans to be used as props, and who did not try to pretend otherwise? I'm not going to say, but he sure did cause quite a "furor."

That's breathtakingly arrogant, and par for the course for Barack Obama.

So to sum up: The sea of Germans drummed up will be used as props, and while this is breathtaking, it is par for the course. That would be a geographic metaphor, a music or sales metaphor, a stage or film metaphor, a metaphor based on a bodily sensation, and then a golf metaphor, all smashed together like the cars of a wrecked circus train.
Yes, we'll go for the cheap shot. 'Arrogance' is writing a broadside like Ruffini's, and doing it in such crappy English.

Ayatollah Will Not Allow US-Iraq Deal

Iraq's most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a 'security accord' between the US and Iraq.

The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.
The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.
The remarks were made amid reports that the Iraqi government might sign a long-term framework agreement with the United States, under which Washington would be allowed to set up permanent military bases in the country and US citizens would be granted immunity from legal prosecution in the country.
While the mainstream media keep mum about the accord, critics say the agreement would virtually put Iraq under the US tutelage and violate the country's sovereignty.
The source added Ayatollah Sistani, however, backed PM al-Maliki's government and its efforts and that of the nation to establish security in the country.
The mandate of US troops in Iraq will expire in December 2008 and al-Maliki's government is under US pressure to sign 'a mutual security agreement' which would allow the long-term presence of US troops in Iraq.
Washington's plan has so far faced fierce protests by religious figures including Ayatollah Seyyed Kazem Haeri, another senior Shia cleric, and it is expected that other religious figures join the efforts to prevent the deal.
The US has signed similar agreements with countries like Japan and South Korea and thousands of US troops are now stationed in the countries.
The main goals of the agreement:

- A part of the agreement covers issues regarding 'sustainable security': this section of the agreement will allow the US to build 3 to 12 military bases on Iraq's soil to maintain control over the country's military for an indefinite period. Under the agreement Iraqi military and security forces would not be able to carry out any operations independently and they would have to ask for permission from the US Military Command in Iraq. This section of the agreement would virtually result in the colonization of Iraq and would undermine the sovereignty of the country.

- Another section of the agreement would regulate the authority of US troops in Iraq: thorough this section the US would extend the privileges given to its troops and not only its military forces but also private US contractors like Black Water would be granted immunity from prosecution. All visa restrictions would be lifted for US nationals and they could freely travel to the country. In fact such humiliating conditions have never been imposed on any country even the defeated ones after World War II.

- The US would also be able to decide on agreements between Iraq and other nations and it would have the authority to veto any agreements between Iraq and US opponents. This section was in sharp contrast with Iraq's national interests and would have dire consequences for the nation's ties with other Middle Eastern states.

- Iraq's cultural affairs would be controlled by the US. In this way the US would be able to undermine the Islamic identity of Iraq, westernize the country and replace Islamic values with the Western ones.

US Laying Foundation For Iraq Colonization

'Selling Iraq to the US' is what best describes a secret security accord between the Bush administration and the government of Iraq.
Washington drew out a draft proposal for a security deal in January 2008, a preliminary part of which was signed by officials of the two countries on March 17. The negotiation, set to conclude in late July, will not only establish the basis for a long-term US occupation of Iraq, but will also turn the country into a US colony and yet another military base for Washington in the Middle East.
The accord with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government will replace the UN mandate and allow multinational military presence in the country. This 'firm handshake' between the US president and the Iraqi prime minister is referred to by the Western media as the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

While every revealed article of the agreement is tied to security and military arrangements, Western media portrays the accord as mere cooperation in the areas of politics, economics, culture and security. All the provisions of the agreement have been introduced in a haze of ambiguity as transparency in the issue would certainly provoke an outcry among the weary people of Iraq.
One look at Article 10 of the treaty makes it apparent that the US administration hopes to quietly impose the binding contract and legitimize its indefinite military presence in the country. "As long as Iraqi security/military forces are not well-trained, security hasn't been ensured, the neighboring states pose a threat, and terrorist attacks continue, the treaty will be officially binding and both parties are obliged to implement it."

The first article of the treaty allows the US Army to carry out military operations in Iraq at any time and any place.

Under Article 2, American and British troops can arrest suspects at any time without the consent of the Iraqi government.

Article 3 reinforces Article 10 by asserting that there are no time limits for the presence of American forces, thus annulling the 1790 UN Security Council anti-occupation Resolution.

The contents of the treaty will dissipate all hopes of a sovereign Iraq, turning the country into a US colony.

According to Article 4, American servicemen and non-servicemen are not obliged to attend any court hearings in Iraq, literally granting them capitulation privileges.

Article 7 puts the Iraqi ministries of defense, interior and intelligence under the direct supervision of US officials, ensuring Iraq will be officially governed by the United States.

Article 6 allows the US to set up 14 military bases in Iraq; Article 8 provides American forces with the authority to supervise arms sales as well as train Iraqi military and law enforcement personnel.

Article 9 argues that as a member of the international community Iraq must recognize Israel and unconditionally support Washington's Middle East policies.

Which government can claim it has the right to delegate the fate of the nation that has entrusted it with executive powers?
Yet, there is but a shred of a doubt that this treaty has no objective other than handing Iraq over to the United States. One must ask what has made al-Maliki and political leaders of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and al-Dawa party sink so low as to consider signing such a degrading and demeaning accord. The US has clearly been successful in duping certain Iraqi officials into launching a crackdown on the resistance fighters of Mahdi Army, claiming the lives of a myriad of innocent civilians.
It is evident that Washington deliberately dragged Iraqi echelons into the battlegrounds as part of a devious plot to cause a rift between Shia parties in the hope of debilitating resistance movements. These extortionist plots, however, considering the current situation in the war-torn country and the growing hatred toward the occupiers seem to have been in vain.
According to senior Iraqi politician Mohsen Hakim, the Iraqi government conceded to the accord only on certain conditions: US forces should not establish large-scale military bases in the country, should avoid using Iraqi territory for military purposes, and need to recognize Iraq's right to secure deals with other countries. These conditions, although deficient, do not counter the humiliating effects of the other contractual obligations of the treaty, thus compelling Iraq to go under the yoke of the United States. SOFA is yet another US attempt to gain tacit support of two main Shia parties al-Dawa and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council in a bid to foment discord and manipulate public opinion regarding the county's Islamic resistance movement, setting the stage for a new puppet government in the country.
What is even more astonishing is that Iraqi political leaders are falling for this political legerdemain and are willingly digging their own graves. Of course, one should not forget that if the US conspiracy succeeds, the same people who brought the current Iraqi leaders to power will withdraw their support and entrust their future to another Islamic government.

Can President Bush be next at the ICC?

The decision by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, to charge the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir with genocide and war crimes continues to stir controversy with critics saying that the requested indictment sets a dangerous precedent. It is the first time that the Hague-based court issues charges against a sitting head of state.
Moreno-Ocampo charged on July 14 that President al-Bashir waged a campaign of extermination against three Darfur tribes, the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa that has allegedly claimed up to 300,000 lives and displaced more than 2.2 million people since the conflict erupted in February 2003. Sudan claims that 10,000 have been killed. Moreno-Ocampo filed 10 charges against al-Bashir for masterminding a campaign of extermination and rape specifically targeting three Darfuri tribes. The charges include three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of war crimes.
On 31 March 2005, the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, adopted Resolution 1593, referring "the situation in Darfur since 1 July 2002" to the prosecutor of the ICC. In May 2007, the ICC issued arrest warrants for two Sudanese suspects, Ahmed Harun, the current Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, and Ali Kushayb, a militia leader. The arrest warrants refer to crimes allegedly committed between August 2003 and March 2004 in the Darfur region. The ICC urged the Sudanese government to arrest them both and to hand them over to the Court. The government of Sudan, however, announced the suspension of all its cooperation with the ICC in March 2007, refusing to surrender the men. Sudan, which is not a party to the ICC, argues that the court has no jurisdiction over the case and that the matter relates to the Sudanese judicial system.
Although Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC, UN Security Council Resolution 1593 obligates Sudan to fully cooperate with the Court and to provide any necessary assistance to it and its prosecutors. The reaction to the ICC's requested indictment of President al-Bashir was mixed. Sudan's ambassador to the UN, Abdal Mahmood Abdal Haleem Mohamed, told Press TV on July 9th that the ICC is perpetuating 'insurgency' in Sudan as the Darfur rebels would not enter into talks with a government branded 'criminal'.
US President George W. Bush, whose country is not a member of the ICC, offered only an ambivalent reaction. He said he wanted to see how an international prosecutor's arrest warrant for al-Bashir "plays out." Bush also warned that Khartoum could face more sanctions. Observers say the US administration is reluctant to take steps that lend legitimacy to a court whose jurisdiction it has questioned and whose treaty it refuses to sign.
"The requested indictment marks a major step forward in international justice," said Jean-Marie Fardeau, head of the NGO Human Rights Watch France. Fardeau believes the indictment against a serving president indicates the end of impunity for world leaders. Ayman El-Amir, a former correspondent for the Al-Ahram in Washington says the ICC decision may be a blessing in disguise for the multi-ethnic population who have endured untold suffering.
Many critics have said that the decision by the ICC prosecutor was influenced by political intents. At a July 17 UN press conference, part of a series of events held at the UN to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Rome Statute establishing the court in 1998, Moreno-Ocampo rejected charges that it was a politically motivated decision to ask the court for an arrest warrant for al-Bashir just in time for the 10th anniversary celebration of the court. The decision stirred negative reactions specifically in the Arab and African countries not only because it could derail the already fragile peace talks in the troubled region of Darfur but also for its repercussions for Sudan's sovereignty and the dangerous precedent it sets. The African Union (AU) expressed "concern" over the consequences for the shaky peace process in Sudan.
In an emergency meeting on July 19th, the Arab League foreign ministers criticized the ICC move as unbalanced, saying it would undermine the country's sovereignty. In a strongly-worded statement, the Arab League voiced solidarity with Sudan "in confronting schemes that undermine its sovereignty, unity and stability and their non-acceptance of the unbalanced, not objective position of the prosecutor general of the Internal Criminal Court". Djibouti Foreign Minister Mahmoud Ali Youssef, who chaired the meeting, criticized the decision by the ICC prosecutor as "double standards" adopted by the international community. He said "the world watches Palestinian suffering without moving" to end it. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) also warned that the indictment of al-Bashir could further complicate the already tense situation in Darfur. Former Algerian President Ahmed Ben Bella has said that the charges could be "an unconstitutional way of pushing aside a head of state."
China expressed "grave concern and misgivings about the ICC prosecutor's indictment of the Sudanese leader." Expressing concerns over the internal ramifications of the move for Sudan, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said, "The ICC's actions must be beneficial to the stability of the Darfur region and appropriate settlement of the issue, not contrary." Others, including the spokesman for the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council, Nsereko Mutumba believe the ICC move "is another US-driven and economically-motivated move to steal Sudan's oil resources."
Algerian daily Algerie-News wrote, "The International Criminal Court is charging the Sudanese president... But what is it doing about the other crimes committed in the world and those carried out by the American administration in Iraq." The ICC's proposed indictment of al-Bashir also gives ammunition to critics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who say war crimes and massive human rights violations have been committed in these two countries as a result of the US invasion. They rightly argue that the casualty and refugee figures dwarf those of Darfur. They also argue that the ICC decision is a reflection of double standards and a Western-model of universal justice. Roland Marchal, an expert on Sub-Saharan Africa at the French-based CNRS research center says "The developing world sees the ICC and Western law as unrelentingly hounding the (African) continent." L. Ali Khan, Professor of Law at the Washburn University School of Law says the ICC ignores "the crimes" of Western leaders and generals. "The ICC has so far shown no interest in prosecuting President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and State Secretary Colin Powell for the crimes they planned, organized, incited, and committed with the help of lethal weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq," Ali Khan says.
A majority (over 62%) of 2382 respondents surveyed in an online poll said the ICC should first hear the case of President Bush's war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Paul Craig Roberts, who was a US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, says he wonders why Pres. al-Bashir is picked by the ICC from the assortment of war criminals. He asks, "Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn't the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals."
Moreno-Ocampo's office reported in February 2006, that it had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. In response to the communications, Moreno-Ocampo explained that the legality of the invasion was not within his competence because crimes against peace have not yet been incorporated into the Rome Statute; and that in the other cases none of them were of 'sufficient gravity' to warrant forwarding to the ICC. He, however, did not explain what level of gravity the cases should have to allow them to be brought up at the ICC.
Michael Kelly of Creighton University School of Law asks, "Now that Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes, could George W. Bush be next?" Kelly says the American exceptionalism is more the rule than the exception in modern international law.