With your host: Kerry Patton

---

Sunday, July 25, 2010 3PM to 4PM EST on Orion Talk Radio

This week’s guest:

Brigitte Gabriel

Brigitte Gabriel has become one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on Global Islamic terrorism. She is a member of the board of Advisors of the Intelligence Summit and lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise are sought after by world and business leaders. She has addressed the Australian Prime Minister John Howard, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, the FBI and many others. In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, ABC and various radio stations daily across America.

Her latest book:

Click on the book to purchase

---

Listen in and feel free to call into the show, and get your questions answered by Brigitte Gabriel.

Call in number: 1-716-213-6816

Gibbs in “sorry mode”...Again!

By Jessica Jaglois

Newsplex

In his daily press briefing Thursday afternoon, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the White House would have never invited Leslie Macko to pose with President Obama had they known about her criminal past.

“Had that type of information been made available,” said Gibbs. “She would not have participated in the event here.”

Macko, a Charlottesville resident, stood next to President Obama as his example of the need to extend jobless benefits.

Obama with Leslie Macko

“We need to extend unemployment compensation benefits for women like Leslie Macko, who lost her job at a fitness center last year, and has been looking for work ever since. Because she’s eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she’s doing what she never thought she’d have to do. Not at this point, anyway. She’s turning to her father for financial support,” Obama said in his speech at the White House on July 19th.

Macko was once employed at ACAC Fitness and Wellness Center in the Albemarle Square Shopping Center. However, in April 2009, a month after being found guilty of prescription drug fraud, she lost her job as an aesthetician in the spa at ACAC.

ACAC CEO Greg Wells told the Newsplex that Macko was not terminated nor discharged because of any illegal activity, but Wells would not comment on the condition of her termination.

CBS19 also learned Thursday that Macko has had more than one run-in with the law. In June of 2007, Macko was charged with grand larceny. The charge was reduced in court to petit larceny, and she was sentenced to two years probation.

Press Secretary Gibbs was also asked if the White House performed a background check on Macko before her appearance with the President.

“I don’t know the specifics,” Gibbs said. ‘But it’s safe to say, had we known [about the charges against her] she wouldn’t have been here.”

In a written statement to Fox News, a Secret Service spokesman says, “We do not comment or confirm the existence of anyone’s criminal history or lack thereof. Anyone who is granted access to the White House or any venue that we protect does so only after an assessment of dangerousness is made.”

The Legal Aid Justice Center, which represented Leslie Macko in her claim for unemployment benefits, released this statement to the Newsplex Thursday evening:

“Between March 2005 and April 2009, Ms. Macko was employed as an aesthetician by ACAC. When she was terminated in April 2009, Ms. Macko applied for unemployment benefits. On June 15, 2009, Ms. Macko was determined to be qualified for unemployment benefits. ACAC appealed that determination. After a hearing on the merits of Ms. Macko’s case, the original determination was affirmed on September 14, 2009.

Ms. Macko was convicted of two unrelated misdemeanors. Throughout the unemployment proceedings, ACAC never alleged that Ms. Macko’s termination was related to those cases.”

CBS19 contacted Leslie Macko about the conviction, and she declined to comment until she speaks with her attorney.

By MARCUS STERN ProPublica

Chron.com

The Obama administration, anticipating that Congress might not pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, is considering ways it could act without congressional approval to achieve many of the objectives of the initiative, including giving permanent resident status, or green cards, to large numbers of people in the country illegally.

The ideas were outlined in an unusually frank draft memo prepared for Alejandro N. Mayorkas, director of the federal agency that handles immigration benefits, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS). The memo lists ways the government could grant permanent resident status to tens of thousands of people and delay the deportation of others, potentially indefinitely.

See the memo here

“In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations,” said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different branches of USCIS.

The 11-page document was made public Thursday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who with six other senators wrote to Obama more than a month ago, asking for his assurance that rumors that some sort of reprieve was in the works for millions of illegal immigrants weren’t true.

Read the letter here

“The administration has failed to reassure us that the information we were hearing was inaccurate,” Grassley said in a statement to ProPublica Thursday night. “This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan.”
read more

Is Peace in the Middle East realistic?

This is the question Lt. General Tom McInerney asked when he suggested we post this story. We ask you to read this article and then ask that question yourself!

by Hagai Mazuz

Hudson

From the day Israel was established, the Muslim world has been hostile towards the State of Israel. This has been increasing over the years, despite the efforts of so many to settle the conflict. Although Israel signed Peace Agreements with Egypt and Jordan, nevertheless, many leaders in the Arab world, including Egyptian and Jordanian officials, make anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic statements, and oppose normalization with Israel. When asked why, they answer that this peace is between governments, and not between the people of their countries.

Trying to find solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict, politicians and statesmen have spent endless hours with experts on Islam to understand the roots of the conflict. They have usually heard two answers: “The root of the problem is territorial,” and “The root of the problem is religious; it stems from the classic Islamic view of Jews as evil.”

Muslims often accuse Jews of harassing and plotting against Muhammad, Islam’s founder and prophet, a charge abundantly clear since the start of classic Islamic writings, which are filled with anti-Jewish imagery.

In our “post-modern” age, most Western scholars, who are secular, find it difficult to accept the idea that medieval texts can dictate the lives of, or even inspire, people today. They criticize those who see the conflict as religious, arguing that scholars who see the conflict as religious, place too much emphasis on these ancient texts, as both the times and circumstances have changed. For them, these texts are outdated. In short, secular scholars find it difficult to believe that people even still regard religious ideas as relevant.

In talking with the common people in the Arab and Muslim world, however, it becomes clear that for them, these classical texts are as relevant today as when they were written. For the overwhelmingly majority of Muslims, these texts indicate that the conflict is indeed religious, not territorial.

As Muslims view the world, Muhammad was the ideal Muslim. How he acted is how all Muslims should act. So how Muhammad acted towards the Jews in Medina and Khaybar is how Muslims should act towards Jews.

How, then, did Muhammad act?
read more

By John J. Wall, Law Student and an American

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal*Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “The National Anthem.” I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute “Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing”, “Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World”.

We’ll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P.P.S. And you won’t have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

By Andy McCarthy

National Review Online=

On a quick read, the federal court’s issuance of a temporary injunction against enforcement of the major provisions of the Arizona immigration law appears specious.

In essence, Judge Susan Bolton bought the Justice Department’s preemption argument – i.e., the claim that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and therefore that any state measure that is inconsistent with federal law is invalid. The Arizona law is completely consistent with federal law. The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can’t do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement … which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as “a thing apart,” and that Congress had therefore “manifested a purpose … to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system” that would not unduly subject them to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. And it is not requiring them to register with the state; it is requiring proof that they have properly registered with the federal government – something a sensible federal government would want to encourage.

Judge Bolton proceeds from this misapplication of Hines to the absurd conclusion that Arizona can’t ask the federal government for verification of the immigration status of arrestees – even though federal law prohibits the said arrestees from being in the country unless they have legal status – because that would tremendously burden the feds, which in turn would make the arrestees wait while their status is being checked, which would result in the alien arrestees being treated like “a thing apart.”

The ruling ignores that, in the much later case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that

Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government, unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns.

(Emphasis added.) Furthermore, as Matt Mayer of the Heritage Foundation notes, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court similarly held in Lynch v. Cannatella (1987) that “No statute precludes other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies from taking other action to enforce this nation’s immigration laws.”

However this ruling came out, it was only going to be the first round. Appeal is certain. But the gleeful Left may want to put away the party hats. This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.

New laws would get tough on companies that affiliate with Mullahs

by Joel Mowbray

Washington Times

In the wake of enactment of major sanctions against Iran, some in Congress are looking for new ways to tighten the noose further. While Iranian government officials have mused publicly that new sanctions – not just from Washington but also from Europe and the United Nations – will slow their pursuit of nuclear weapons, much more pressure can be applied.

Preparing for increased sanctions over the past several years, the Iranian mullahs have developed myriad business relationships with Western and Asian companies as an economic buffer. Taking aim at that buffer, two new bills are being designed to use the disinfectant of sunlight to help apply public pressure and, in many cases, give overworked government officials information they can use to shut down activities that run afoul of the law.

The Iran Transparency and Accountability Act (ITA), which was introduced in the House last week, would force publicly traded companies to list in their regular filings all business dealings – including the revenues and profits – that their subsidiaries and affiliates have in Iran that could be covered by various sanctions. Already on board as co-sponsors are several top Republicans and Democrats from the Foreign Affairs Committee, but the author is someone in office just three months, Rep. Ted Deutch, Florida Democrat.

Given the complexity of far-flung multinational conglomerates, sometimes the only people who can document various investments are the corporate attorneys who submit Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings. Even then, the paper trail can be murky. But that is why such legislation would greatly advance the ability of government investigators to piece together who owns what and where.

Not all the business dealings from subsidiaries and affiliates covered by the ITA would necessarily be impermissible under the new sanctions legislation, but all listed activities certainly would draw scrutiny from a very important audience: investors.

The SEC would be required to establish a website with a searchable database of listed activities, which is a powerful tool for activists and investors alike. “Simply being on that list will encourage companies to behave responsibly and enhance national security,” Mr. Deutch explains.

Despite barely having broken in his office furniture, Mr. Deutch has wasted no time inside the Beltway continuing the work he started in the Florida Senate. Working together, he and Adam Hasner, the Republican House majority leader and one of the most prominent conservatives in the Sunshine State, successfully passed bipartisan legislation to divest state pension funds from companies that do business with Iran and Sudan. More than $1 billion has been divested, including more than $200 million from Royal Dutch Shell alone.

The other key bill aiming to apply pressure on the Iranian mullahs would force oil companies seeking drilling permits in U.S. federal waters to certify that they are not investing inside Iran and disclose any joint ventures they have with Iranian-controlled businesses.

Joint ventures, whether in Europe or Asia or elsewhere, have been central to the Iranian mullahs’ efforts to blunt the impact of sanctions they’ve known for some time eventually would be enacted. Among the ways in which the Iranian regime gets access to western technical expertise are through joint ventures its firms have with BP, including a massive natural gas project in Britain’s North Sea.

The recently passed Iran sanctions legislation didn’t fully deal with joint ventures (beyond banning the transfer of technology and expertise and requiring reports which can be used to “name and shame”), in large part because not enough is known about the scope and extent of the various projects already in place.

Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (where this journalist is an adjunct fellow) has identified joint ventures and other partnerships Iranian government-controlled entities have with foreign companies in energy projects off the coast of Scotland, in Croatia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and India.

Even that, he notes, “probably barely scratches the surface of Iran’s foreign partnerships and investments.”

Rep. Ron Klein, Florida Democrat, who plans to introduce the joint-venture legislation this week, thinks his bill will help steer companies through a simple cost-benefit analysis. “Our provision says that companies must make a choice,” Mr. Klein explains: “Either do business with the U.S. government or do business with Iran, not both.”

With the momentum building against Iran, companies truly might be having to make that choice sooner rather than later.

Introduction by Del:

With near constant gnashing of teeth over what our current government leaders are trying to do to us, I needed the “kick” provided by this grateful immigrant to help me with perspective today. Many of you may benefit from a similar kick as you read the article. Let’s try to remember that there are likely millions more like this man; hopefully, we will hear from more of them and maybe, just maybe, many of our young people, especially the graduates of our liberal universities, will also see/appreciate the stories/gratitude. Let’s keep faith that we can somehow regain our greatness and continue to enjoy our limited time on this earth.

A Marine friend of mine had made contact with Mr. Quang, and was talking to him about the speech he will give tomorrow in AZ. Quang gave him permission to disseminate the speech, and you can see Quang’s comment below, and his speech under that. It’s a good speech, a very good speech that I thought was worth sharing.

---

By Quang Nguyen

Prologue:

35 years ago, if you were to tell me that I am going to stand up here speaking to a couple thousand patriots, in English, I’d laugh at you. Man, every morning I wake up thanking God for putting me and my family in the greatest country on earth.

I just want you all to know that the American dream does exist and I am living the American dream. I was asked to speak to you about my experience as a first generation Vietnamese American, but I rather speak to you as an American.

If you hadn’t noticed, I am not white and I feel pretty comfortable with my people.

I am a proud US citizen and here is my proof… It took me 8 years to get it, waiting in endless lines, but I got it and I am very proud of it. Guess what, I did legally and it ain’t from the state of Hawaii.

I still remember the images of the Tet offensive in 1968, I was six years old. Now you might want to question how a 6 year old boy could remember anything. Trust me, those images can never be erased. I can’t even imagine what it was like for young American soldiers, 10,000 miles away from home, fighting on my behalf.

The Speech:

35 years ago, I left south Vietnam for political asylum. The war had ended. At the age of 13, I left with the understanding that I may or may not ever get to see my siblings or parents again. I was one of the first lucky 100,000 Vietnamese allowed to come to the US. Somehow, my family and I were reunited 5 months later, amazingly, in California. It was a miracle from God.

If you haven’t heard lately that this is the greatest country on earth. I am telling you that right now. It is the freedom and the opportunities presented to me that put me here with all of you tonight. I also remember the barriers that I had to overcome every step of the way. My high school counselor told me that I cannot make it to college due to my poor communication skills. I proved him wrong. I finished college.

You see…

All you have to do is to give this little boy an opportunity and encourage him to take and run with it. Well, I took the opportunity and here I am. This person standing tonight in front of you could not exist under a socialist/communist environment. By the way, if you think socialism is the way to go, I am sure many people here will chip in to get you a one way ticket out of here. And if you didn’t know, the only difference between socialism and communism is an AK-47 aiming at your head. That was my experience.

In 1982, I stood with a thousand new immigrants, reciting the pledge of allegiance and listening to the National Anthem for the first time as an American. To this day, I can’t remember anything sweeter and more patriotic than that moment in my life. Fast forwarding, somehow I finished high school, finished college, and like any other goofball 21 year old kid, I was having a great time with my life, I had a nice job and a nice apartment in Southern California. In someway and somehow, I had forgotten how I got here and why I am here.

One day I was at a gas station, I saw a veteran pumping gas on the other side of the island. I don’t know what made me do it, but I walked over and asked if he had served in Vietnam. He smiled and said Yes. I shook and held his hand. The grown man began to well up. I walked away as fast as I could and at that very moment, I was emotionally rocked. This was a profound moment in life. I knew something had to change in my life. It was time for me to learn how to be a good citizen. It was time for me to give back.

You see… America is not a place on the map, it isn’t a physical location. It is an ideal, a concept. And if you are an American, you must understand the concept, you must buy into this concept and most importantly, you have to fight and defend this concept. This is about Freedom… and not free stuff. And that is why I am standing up here. Brothers and sisters, to be a real American, the very least you must do is to learn English and understand it well. In my humble opinion, you cannot be a faithful patriotic citizen if you can’t speak the language of the country you live in. Take this document of 46 pages…

Last I looked on the internet, there wasn’t a Vietnamese translation of the US constitution. It took me a long time to get to the point of being able to converse and until this day, I still struggle to come up with the right words. It’s not easy, but if it’s too easy, it’s not worth doing.

Before I knew this 46 page document, I learned of the 500,000 Americans who fought for this little boy. I learned of the 58,000 names scribed on the black wall at the Vietnam Memorial. You are my heroes. You are my founders.

At this time, I would like to ask all the Vietnam veterans to please stand. I thank you for my life. I thank you for your sacrifices, and I thank you for giving me the freedom and liberty I have today. I now ask all veterans, firefighters, and police officers, to please stand. On behalf of all first generation immigrants, I thank you for your services and may God bless you all.