On Eve of Anniversary of Danish Mo Toons Danish Foreign Minister Meets with Muslim OIC Who Have Long Demanded a Global Islamic Blasphemy Law

They snapped, he jumped.

Spineless dhimmitude.

danish_muslim_cartoonsWednesday morning met Foreign Minister Lene Espersen with ambassadors from 17 Muslim countries to prevent a new cartoon crisis with Denmark
It was a good and constructive meeting.

That was the message from Foreign Minister Lene Espersen (K) which on Wednesday morning met with 17 Muslim ambassadors from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) in Eigtveds warehouse in Copenhagen.

The meeting [held in hopes to] prevent a repeat of the cartoon crisis. The Minister informs Wednesday morning the Parliamentary Foreign Policy Committee about the case. It happens five years after the newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed who in January-February 2006 sparked the biggest foreign policy crisis for Denmark since World War II.

It spawned, among other burning several Danish embassies and consulates in the Middle East, as well as violent demonstrations with the burning of Danish flag and photographs of former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen….

Via Kristeligt (Google translation) Gagblad (original Danish)

Now about the OIC demand for a global blasphemy law:

Statement on Islamophobia Issued by the OIC Ambassadorial Group at the UN in New York on 29 February 2008

The increasingly negative political and media discourse in the Western World targeting Muslims and Islam is a matter of grave concern for the Islamic Ummah. Over the years the growing intolerance and discrimination against Muslims, and insults against Islam have become pervasive and often condoned in certain Western countries and communities. 

Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr published the Danish cartoons of Mohamed - back in October 2005 , in the middle of Ramadan, and nothing happened. There was no outrage, no protests, no jihad, nothing in the way of a Muslim reaction.

Among the instances of Islamophobia are the publications of blasphemous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad [Islamic blasphemy laws do NOT apply to non-Muslims] (PBUH) by newspapers in Europe, multiple campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations in several European Countries including the imposition of restrictions on the construction of places of worship, and the impending screening of a documentary by a Dutch lawmaker, which insults the Holy Quran. [Geert Wilders has every right to expose the Islamic hate found in the un-holy Quran] They constitute incitements for negative sentiments and hatred against Muslims. Apathy and inaction on the part of the governments concerned in preventing such provocations and discrimination against Muslims and Islam cannot be justified by the plea of freedom of expression. Unfortunately, such insults and intolerance against Islam are being provided intellectual justification by Western scholars and political lobbies who espouse anti-Islamic agendas, [Oops you forgot to mention the Islamic; anti-west, anti-Israel, anti-Christian & anti-Freedom, --Islam's anti-everything BUT Islam agenda. Sloppy...sloppy...] hence lending support to ideological violence against Muslims. Slogans such as “Islamo-fascism”, “Islamic Terrorism” and “radical Islam” [Oh how the truth stings] are manifestations of and justifications for provocations and systematic insults against Islam . This phenomenon reflects the Islamophobia which afflicts segments of Western society.

The OIC Group believes [Free people are not in the least concerned about what you believe] that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and does not provide a license to insult and hurt the sentiments and beliefs of others. It is the obligation of all States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in accordance with Article 20 thereof, to enact the necessary legislations to prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence [Does that include the "discrimination, hostility and violence" instigated by the Quran?]. The OIC Group observes that the European Court of Human Rights has previously ruled in favour of the interference by the State to prohibit media material in cases involving other religions to guard against igniting religious sensitivities, and expects equal treatment [Islam does not have the phrase “equal treatment" in it’s vocabulary.] in cases involving Islam and Muslims’ rights.

The OIC Group in New York strongly deplores [I strongly deplore the fact that you pack of jackals think you have a right to demand that NON-MUSLIMS  in the West bow to islam] all acts of ideological and physical violence and assaults, and incitements thereto, against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, and those acts directed against the Holy symbols, sites or places of worship of all religions. The Group is particularly and deeply alarmed by the intensification of the campaign of defamation against Islam, as it impairs Muslims’ enjoyment of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, [You hypocritical sanctimonious *bleep* Where pray tell can one find the "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" within Islam? Allow me to answer, NO WHERE!] and impedes their ability to observe, practice and manifest their religions freely and without fear of coercion, violence or reprisal.

Such acts against Muslims and Islam are inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Charter which seeks to promote peaceful co-existence amongst nations. They are in violation of numerous United Nations resolutions, including General Assembly resolution 62/154 on combating defamation of religions, General Assembly resolution 55/23 on Dialogue Among Civilizations as well as the Security Council resolution 1624 (2005) which call upon all Member States, inter alia, to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures. Such acts also erode the positive momentum generated by the launch of the Alliance of Civilizations and General Assembly’s High Level Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace, which, inter alia, aim to overcome misunderstandings between Islam and the West,

In the above context, the OIC Group in New York wishes to remind the joint statement of the Secretary-General of the United Nations with the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Conference and the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union in Doha on 7 February 200& [sic — presumably intended to be “2008”] which recognized that ‘in all societies there is a need to show sensitivity and responsibility in treating issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith, even by those who do not share the belief in question.”

In particular, the OIC Group believes that lack of action to prevent the reprinting of blasphemous caricatures, and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the Holy Quran will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the United Nations system aiming at promoting understanding and respect of and among cultures and civilizations.

The OIC Group urges the Secretary General to call upon the Governments of the States that condone the publication of these blasphemous caricatures and media material as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent the repetition or continuation <- Sharia alert!] of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam. [I REPEAT: You hypocritical sanctimonious *bleep* Where pray tell can one find the "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" within Islam? Allow me to answer [again], NO WHERE!] The OIC Group requests the Secretary General to publicly express his unequivocal opposition to all acts of Islamophobia, and to declare that no government should be complicit in undermining the ongoing efforts to promote harmony and friendly relations amongst the various cultures, religious and civilizations. [Christians who are raped and murdered in the Middle East & Africa in the name of Islam "promotes harmony and friendly relations"?! I think not!]

Please visit Gates of Vienna for Baron Bodissey’s most excellent analysis of the OIC statement on Islamophobia.

The OIC’s latest demand to silence free speech in the West here: Declaration by the Annual Coordination Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of OIC Member States on Countering Islamophobia (pdf) (UN Headquarters, New York 24 September 2010)

The money quote:

We call upon the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up an observatory at her office aimed at monitoring and documenting acts that led[sic] to incitement to religious hatred, hostility and violence.

Of course the demand only applies to Islam.

More on Egyptian Newspaper Al Fagr’s publishing of the Mo Toons at Rantings of a Sandmonkey and Freedom for Egyptians.

Also see:

Each and every single, solitary, Western news outlet should have published the Mo Toons along side Jyllands Posten from the get go. Then maybe the cartoon controversy would of fizzled out as it should have. How can Western media as a whole not support full ‘freedom of speech’?

If most of the West cowers down to the Muslim bullies on the block, it will sink further down the the deep dank hole of dhimmitude.

Political correctness is used as a tactical strategic weapon.

A weapon Western leftists places in Islam’s hands, willingly.

STAND UP world leaders in the West and say in unison:

“We are not going to take it anymore”! If not, you will be accessories guilty of instigating the fall of Western civilization through your gutless lily-livered appeasing & apologizing.

Related:

New Black Panther King Shamir Shabazz: ‘Whites Use Black Babies as Alligator Bait’ [Video-Transcript]

This coming from the racist monster who shouted in the streets of Philly “You’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill their babies.”

YouTube Preview Image

“This is what King Samir, the Philadelphia Chapter, along with the guidance and leadership of Attorney Malik Shabazz has been doing that you don’t hear about from Fox Jews, I’m sorry, Fox News.”

“Standing up to neo-nazi groups who consistently threaten our people dead. Now most of them media blood-suckers lies at Crucifox Jews wanna talk about me killing white babies.”

“Ummm.”

“Well, let me tell you stop jumping up and down like the devils you are, creating negative press to keep our people from joining something black and progressive. Yes, I said if you want freedom, you’re gonna have to deal with this enemy the way he brings it to us.

“Ummm.”

You cannot tell a slave how to feel under the pressure of white supremacy.”

“That’s right!”

“I’m not a committer of reverse racism, I am a slave.”

“That’s right!”

“Born, brought stolen to the hills of North America. Let’s talk about the little black babies that YOU use as alligator bait.”

“Ooh, That’s Right!”

“HUH?”

Via Fox

Remember America, this pathetic excuse for a human being is Team Obama –approved.
Related:

An Islamic Sharia College Takes Root in Berkeley

Washington Times

Founded by three prominent Islamic scholars, Zaytuna College in Berkeley is a small school with just five faculty members and 15 students in its inaugural freshman class. The school wants to become the country’s first fully accredited Muslim academic institution.
….
Zaytuna has generated little controversy in this famously liberal college town, but some conservatives question the founders’ motives. Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative think tank, accuses the school of seeking to indoctrinate students and spread Islam in America.

This is stealth jihad in the sense that it is about promoting in the United States incubators for sharia,” the religious law of Islam, said Mr. Gaffney, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

Zaytuna’s founders dismiss such criticism, saying it represents the views of a small minority of Americans who don’t understand Islam.

“I think Zaytuna College over time can help contribute to a healthier understanding of Islam by removing ignorance,” said co-founder Zaid Shakir, an Air Force veteran and California native. The college is seeking to “prepare morally committed human beings that can go out and make a difference in the world as Muslims.”
……
The three founders of the school are all leading Islamic scholars. Hatem Bazian is a Palestinian-American who teaches Islamic studies at the University of California, Berkeley. [Zaid] Shakir and Hamza Yusuf are American converts who spent years studying Islam overseas before becoming leading Muslim scholars in the U.S.

Zaytuna, where tuition is $11,000 a year, offers a bachelor’s degree with two majors: Arabic language and Islamic law and theology. Students take classes in subjects such as Islamic ethics, Islamic finance and Muslims in America,… >>>

The above quoted article states; “The three founders of the school are all leading Islamic scholars.” But that benign description only begins to scratch their surface:

Zaytuna College co-founder Zaid Shakir denied Frank Gaffney’s accusation of “stealth jihad” yet:

He [Zaid Shakir] said he still hoped that one day the United States would be a Muslim country ruled by Islamic law [sharia, one of the only two majors at Zaytuna], “not by violent means, but by persuasion [stealth jihad].”

Every Muslim who is honest would say, I would like to see America become a Muslim country,” he said. “I think it would help people, and if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t be a Muslim. Because Islam helped me as a person, and it’s helped a lot of people in my community.”

Is that the sort of “persuasion” Shakir has in mind when he claims “I think Zaytuna College over time can help contribute to a healthier understanding of Islam by removing ignorance,” ? To “prepare morally committed human beings that can go out and make a difference in the world as Muslims.”? That the US eventually becomes a “muslim state” via persuasion? Over my dead body.

And according to his personal website ‘New Islamic Directions’, Zaytuna College co-founder Zaid Shakir is a member of the ‘Coalition of African American Muslims (CAAM)’. Among his fellow members is Islamic extremist Imam Siraj Wahaj.

A few examples of Imam Siraj Wahaj’s radical rhetoric:

The speaker Imam Siraj Wahaj ….He is the imam of the al-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn, where he provided a platform for potential unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. He later served as a defense witness for the Sheik in the World Trade Center bombing trial. In September 1991, Wahaj stated the following:

“…And he [Allah] declared ‘Whoever is at war with my friends, I declare war on them.’ Who is a friend of Allah? [He chants a passage in Arabic] Allah. Your true friend is Allah, the messenger, and those who believe. Americans and Canadians. Hear it well. Hear what I’m telling you well. The Americans are not your friends, hear what I’m telling you, hear it well. The Canadians are not your friends, hear what I’m telling you, hear it well. The Europeans are not your friends. Your friend is Allah, the Messenger and those who believe. These people will never be satisfied with you until you follow their religion. They will never be satisfied with you…”[1][9]

addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj articulated a rather different vision from his mild and moderate invocation in the House. If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. “If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us.”

the imam [Siraj Wahaj] appeared as a defense witness in the landmarks-conspiracy trial, held in a packed Manhattan courtroom heavily fortified against possible terror attacks. The imam testified that it had been an honor to host Sheik Abdel-Rahman at Masjid At-Taqwa [his Brooklyn mosque] and described him as a “respected scholar” known for having memorized the Quran. “He is bold, as a strong preacher of Islam, so he is respected that way,” Imam Wahhaj testified.

The imam called Mr. Hampton-El “one of the most respected brothers” in his congregation. He also testified that he had met a third defendant, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, and that he had a favorable impression of a fourth, Ibrahim El-Gabrowny. All four were convicted and sentenced to prison terms.

Up next Dr. Hatem Bazian who called for an “Intifada” in America” when speaking “at a left-wing rally in San Francisco on April 10, 2004″

Hatem Bazian, a senior lecturer at Berkeley in Islamic Studies, recently went on television and was put on the defensive by Bill O’Reilly. The subject was comments Bazian had made at a left-wing rally in San Francisco on April 10, 2004, calling for an “intifada” in the United States.

…(viewable here) Bazian ungrammatically declared to a crowd of protestors, “we’re sitting here and watching the world pass by, people being bombed, and it’s about time that we have an intifada in this country that change fundamentally the political dynamics in here.”

Bazian concluded with a promise of more violence to come: “They’re gonna say, ‘some Palestinian being too radical’ — well, you haven’t seen radicalism yet![i]

More damning evidence of Bazizn’s extremist views as laid out in this expose. In July 2006 he accepted an invitation to speak at two islamic centers located in Florida, the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR) and the Islamic Center of South Florida (ICOSF) in Pompano Beach. Both by the way, were given free reign to build large mosques even after their extremism had been exposed. (see full article)

A Hamas-related charity connected to ICBR, the Health Resource Center for Palestine, was shut down; a founding director of ICBR and associate of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader Sami Al-Arian, Bassem Alhalabi, was charged by the U.S. government with illegally shipping a $13,000 piece of sensitive military equipment to Syria; the Imam that took the place of Dremali, Munir Arafat, admitted under oath that he himself was a member of PIJ; and a member of the center, Rafiq Sabir, was arrested by the FBI for being an Al-Qaeda operative, to which he is currently awaiting trial.
……
Bazian, a Palestinian himself, went on to describe the violent intifada against Israel, led by such terror groups as Hamas and PIJ, as “the most effective weapon in the hands of the Palestinians against an oppressive Israeli occupation.” Two years later, in March of 1996, he reportedly served as the spokesperson for an event where participants dressed up as suicide bombers. Also, in June of 2004, he represented KindHearts, a charity that was shut down by the U.S. government for raising millions of dollars for Hamas, in a fundraising dinner held in honor of ”Palestinians in Agony.”
……
On February 6, 2004, during a speech he [Hatem Bazian] gave at McGill University on the “New American Empire,” Bazian was quoted as saying, “The empire has to be resisted both internally and externally. The Iraqis resisted, and we must also resist, as it subjugates people around the world.” The “empire” that Bazian was referring to was, of course, the United States. His call for resistance meanwhile can reasonably be interpreted as a declaration of war against the United States and a call for violence against Americans.
……
During another speech Bazian gave, in February of 2005, titled “The New COINTELPRO Campaign Directed at Arabs, Muslims and Southeast Asians,” he defended Palestinian Islamic Jihad [PIJ] leader Sami Al-Arian, saying, “He has not committed any crime whatsoever.” Bazian then lauded what he referred to as “resistance” groups in Chicago, New York and Texas for their raising of $650,000 for Al-Arian. Al-Arian, of course, later admitted to raising funds for the PIJ and conspiring to hide the identities of other members of the terrorist group. In April of 2006, he plead guilty to conspiring to provide material support to PIJ. >>>

The third co-founder, Hamza Yusuf:

Hanson’s bigoted declamations are well recorded and widely-known.  As previously noted on FSM – [HERE] – in 1995 Hanson described Judaism as “a most racist religion.”  On September 9, 2001, two days before 9/11, Hanson hollered in Los Angeles, “This country (America) unfortunately has a great, a great tribulation coming to it.  And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall.”

In another pearl of Hansonian wisdom, the Islamist extremist side of his multiple personality babbled freely at a 1996 convention of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a paramilitary front for Pakistani jihadists.  There Hanson described America as “a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present.  I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth.  I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country.  I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights or any other element of this society that is held sacrosanct by the ill-informed peoples that make up this charade of a society… [F]undamentals of Islam are being compromised… [C]onvention resolutions are meaningless Masonic exersises (sic) devised by men who desire to engage people in forums that would insure nothing changes… [T]here should be no voting or debate… [W]e have no room for ayes or nays.”  The final lines in this quotation reflect the standard radical Islamist contempt for all forms of democratic governance.

One can only imagine what type of Islamic ‘values‘ will be taught within the walls of Zaytuna College.

This text taken directly from the Zaytuna College website under “our mission” provides insight substantiated with Quranic verses:

Islam is a religion based on a revelation from God. Despite its appropriateness for various times and places, it is a religion imbued with a deeply conservative spirit. This spirit helps to safeguard the integrity of the revelation. Muslims believe that the beloved Prophet Muhammad conveyed the last message of God to humanity. Preserving the purity of that message poses one of the greatest challenges for the community of the faithful. Perhaps the best way to preserve that message is to implement it in one’s life. Hence, one of the central precepts of the Qur’an urges the believers to adhere closely to prophetic guidance. God mentions in that regard, Follow him [the Messenger of God] in order that you may be guided (7:158).
……
These injunctions to dutifully follow the Messenger of God are coupled with strong exhortations against innovation in religious matters. The Prophet Muhammad warned in that regard:

Those of you who live after me will surely witness much dissension. It is incumbent on you to adhere to my tradition and the way of my rightly-guided successors; cling tenaciously to them. And especially beware of innovated religious practices, for every innovation [in religious affairs] constitutes straying (Sunan Abi Dawud, 607; Sunan Ibn Majah, 6).

Now unless they are being woefully dishonest, surely by preaching believers must “adhere closely to prophetic guidance” they are including Mohammed’s [entire body] of work. Not just  verses filled with sweetness and light, carefully cherry picked to counter criticism. For that would be oh so hypocritical…

Under “Why Zaytuna College

Islam has never become rooted in a particular land until that land began producing its own religious scholars.

Islam is, as Islam does.

Where is the Outrage? Maher Drops ‘N-Word’ on CNN; No Reaction From Larry King [Video]

Remember kids, if you can’t beat them in the arena of ideas, scream racist.

November is closing in and the Tea Party momentum has progs shaking in their jack boots.

YouTube Preview Image

(MediaResearchCntr) –On Larry King Live, Bill Maher called “Teabaggers” racists, claimed they hate black people, and said when referring to President Obama as a “Kenyan”, it’s code for “n*gger”.

Maher is an ignorant fool. Obama’s father was Kenyan. Does Maher think of all Kenyan’s as ‘n-words’? Is that how he sees them? Did you notice how the word just slid off of his tongue like butter? He was noticeably comfortable using the word. Who’s the racist?

Obama’s skin color has not a thing to do with it. If I thought a black conservative was the right man/woman for the job I would be more than happy to cast my vote for him or her. Hillary, (a white female as am I) and Obama are very close ideologically speaking and I would NOT want her as POTUS either.  Frankly I am sick and tired of being accused of being a racist by sanctimonious, self-loathing, progressive guilters wielding Obama’s skin color as a weapon. Seriously, can it get any more disgusting than that? I ask [again], what if Obama were white? What would they use to bludgeon opponents with?

bretzysdude

I can’t believe he said that!
He should let go of his radio show!
Oh, wait, that was Dr. Laura.
Well, his TV show then!
Oh, wait, that was Don Imus.
I guess I’ll just hold my breath while the crickets chirp.

Heh.

Related:

Pakistan: Muslims Build Mosque on Top of Christian Cemetery

Beyond contempt.

OneNewsNow

Muslims in Sargodha, Pakistan, were led by a hard-line cleric to construct the mosque at that particular location. It was originally believed the workers were building an addition to the already existing mosque, but the group has been desecrating Christians’ graves. According to the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA), the government issued an order to halt construction, but building resumed in spite of that.

Jonathan Racho of International Christian Concern (ICC) does not deem this news surprising.
……
He adds that Muslims use force to expel or otherwise subdue Christians, which can be carried out by placing a mosque on a Christian cemetery. But even if the Christians were able to go to court and prove wrongdoing, Racho explains that “in this particular case, according to Pakistani laws, no religious place could be demolished.”

…In addition to this desecration, Muslims have threatened to take action if the Christians challenge them. >>>

Heathens.

Related:

Breaking: 2,000 evacuated from Eiffel Tower after Bomb Threat [Update 2: Eiffel Tower False Alarm]

Hmm… I wonder if this could be retaliation against the burka ban that the French Senate unanimously passed today by a vote of  246-1. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts it is.

PARIS (AFP) – Police evacuated some 2,000 people from the Eiffel Tower and the park surrounding the Paris landmark on Tuesday following a bomb alert, the police said.

“The company managing the Eiffel Tower received an anonymous telephone call around 8:20 pm (1820 GMT),” a Paris police official told AFP.

“Special units, one with sniffer dogs, went to the site to search the Eiffel Tower floor by floor,” the official said.

“Around 2,000 people were evacuated.”
……
A police officer earlier said about 25,000 people were in the area at the time of the alert. The evacuation began shortly before 9:00 pm.

Developing…will update as soon as more information becomes available.

I had previously reported  the evacuation number at 25,000 by mistake, correction has been made. -VH

Update:

LePays – France

(Babel Fish translation)

The Saint-Michel station of the Parisian RER was evacuated Tuesday evening, fifteen minutes for the line B and nearly one hour for the line C, after a bomb scare in the form of anonymous call, one learned at the SNCF and from the RATP.

“The police force made evacuate the station of the RER C to 21:18 following an anonymous call giving a report on a bomb scare”, one indicated to the SNCF, person in charge of the management of this line which serves the Saint-Michel station, with the line B, within the competence of the RATP.

“The circulation of the trains was stopped at once between Paris-Austerlitz and Invalides. It began again on the line C with 22:10”, one specified of the same source.

Side the RER B, “there was an evacuation of 21:40 to 21:55”, indicated a spokesperson of the RATP.

It was done “at the request of the police force, following an anonymous call with bomb scare”, one specified of the same source.

“After inspection of the station by the police services, it reopened with 21:55”, one specified.

The traffic was not stopped on the line B but the trains did not mark the stop at the station for the period, one added.

Someone is playing games. Paris should be on high alert.

H/T ColorMeRed

Update 2:

PARIS – Paris’ Eiffel Tower and its immediate surroundings were evacuated Tuesday evening after an anonymous caller phoned in a bomb threat, but a police search turned up nothing suspicious, French media reported.

Related:

Full Transcript: Obama Press Conference Sept 10 2010

OBAMA: Good morning. Before I take your questions, I just want to talk a little bit about our continuing efforts to dig ourselves out of this recession and to grow our economy.

As I said in Cleveland on Wednesday, I ran for president because I believed the policies of the previous decade had left our economy weaker and our middle class struggling. There were policies that cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires, and cut regulations for corporations and for special interests, and left everyone else pretty much fending for themselves. There were policies that ultimately culminated in a financial crisis and a terrible recession that we’re still digging out of today.

We came into office with a different view about how our economy should work.

Instead of tax cuts for millionaires, we believe in cutting taxes for middle-class families and small-business owners. We’ve done that.

Instead of letting corporations play by their own rules, we believe in making sure that businesses treat workers well and consumers friendly, and play by the same rules as everyone else. So we’ve put in place common-sense rules that accomplish that.

Instead of tax breaks that encourage corporations to create jobs overseas, we believe in tax breaks for companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. And so we’ve begun to do that.

We believe in investments that will make America more competitive in the global economy — investments in education and clean energy, in research and technology — and we’re making those investments.

These are the principles that have guided us over the last 19 months, and these are the principles that form the basis of the additional economic proposals that I offered this week, because even though the economy is growing again, and we’ve added more than 750,000 private-sector jobs this year, the hole the recession left was huge, and progress has been painfully slow. Millions of Americans are still looking for work. Millions of families are struggling to pay their bills or the mortgage.

And so these proposals are meant to both accelerate job growth in the short term and strengthen the economy in the long run. These proposals include a more generous permanent extension of the tax credit that goes to companies for all the research and innovation that they do here in America. And I’ve proposed that all American businesses should be allowed to write off all the investments they do in 2011. This will help small businesses upgrade their plants and equipment, and will encourage large corporations to get off the sidelines and start putting their profits to work in our economy.

We also announced a six-year plan to rebuild America’s roads and railways and runways. Already our investments in infrastructure are putting folks in the construction industry back to work, and this plan would put thousands more back to work.

It would help us remain competitive with countries in Europe and Asia that have already invested heavily in projects like high-speed railroads.

But one thing we can do next week is end a month-long standoff on a small-business jobs bill that’s been held up in the Senate by a partisan minority. I realize there are plenty of issues in Washington where people of good faith simply disagree on principle. This should not and is not one of those issues.

This is a bill that does two main things. It gives small- business owners tax cuts and it helps them get loans. It will eliminate capital gains taxes for key investments in 1 million small businesses. It will provide incentives to invest and create jobs for 4 million small businesses. It will more than double the amount some small-business owners can borrow to grow their companies.

It’s a bill that’s paid for, a bill that won’t add to the deficit. It has been written by Democrats and Republicans. It’s a bill that’s been praised by the Chamber of Commerce. And yet a minority of Republican senators have been using legislative tactics to prevent the bill from even getting to a vote.

Now, I was pleased to see that yesterday Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio said he would refuse to support this blockade any longer. Senator Voinovich said this country is really hurting and we don’t have time anymore to play games. I could not agree more.

I understand there — there’s an election coming up. But the American people didn’t send us here to think about our jobs, they sent us here to think about theirs. And there are small businesses right now who are putting off plans to hire more workers because this bill is stalled.

That’s not the kind of leadership this country deserves.

And I hope we can now move forward to get small-business owners the relief they need to start hiring and growing again.

While we’re on the subject of economics, I also want to make an announcement about my economic team. This week, Christina Romer returned to Berkeley after a tireless, outstanding tenure as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Christy is brilliant, she is dedicated, and she was part of the team that helped save this country from a depression. So we’re going to miss her dearly.

But today I’m happy to announce Austan Goolsbee as her replacement. Austan’s been one of my good friends and close economic advisers for many years. He’s one of the finest economists in the country, and he’s worked as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers since we arrived here in Washington. He’s not just a brilliant economist; he’s someone who has a deep appreciation of how the economy affects everyday people, and he talks about it in a way that’s easily understood. He already knows and works with the rest of the team very well. I have complete confidence he’s going to do an outstanding job as CEA chair.

And finally, tomorrow we will commemorate not only the heartbreak of September 11th but also the enduring values and resilient spirit of America. Both Michelle and I will be joining our fellow citizens in remembering those who were lost on that day and honoring all who exhibited such extraordinary heroism in the midst of tragedy.

I’ll have further remarks tomorrow, but for now let me just note that tomorrow’s a national day of service and remembrance, and I hope each of us finds a way to serve our fellow citizens, not only to reaffirm our deepest values as Americans but to rekindle that spirit of unity and common purpose that we felt in the days that followed that September morning.

And now, I’d be happy to take some questions. And I’m going to start with Darlene Superville, of AP.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You said this week that Democrats wouldn’t do well in the November elections if it turns out to be a referendum on the economy, but with millions of people out of work and millions of people losing their homes, how could it not be a referendum on the economy and your handling of it? And why would you not welcome that?

OBAMA: Well, the — what I said was that if it was just a referendum on whether we’d made the kind of progress that we need to, then people around the country would say we’re not there yet. If the election is about the policies that are going to move us forward, versus the policies that will get us back into a mess, then I think the Democrats will do very well.

And here’s why. As I just indicated, middle-class families had been struggling for a decade — before I came into office. Their wages and incomes had flatlined; they were seeing the costs of everything from health care to sending their kids to college going up; job growth was the weakest of any economic expansion between 2001 and 2008 since World War II — the pace was slower than it’s been over the last year. So these policies of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, of stripping away regulations that protect consumers, running up a record surplus to a record deficit — those policies finally culminated in the worst financial crisis we’ve had since the Great Depression.

And for 19 months, what we have done is steadily worked to avoid a depression, to take an economy that was contracting rapidly and making it grow again — a situation where we were losing 750,000 jobs a month and now we’ve had eight consecutive months of private-sector job growth — and made investments that are going to strengthen the economy over the long term.

But we’re not there yet. I mean, we — we lost 4 million jobs in the six months before I was sworn in, and we lost 8 million jobs total during the course of this recession. That is a huge hole to dig ourselves out of.

And people who have lost their jobs around the country and can’t find one, moms who are sending out resumes and not getting calls back, worried about losing homes, not being able to pay bills — you know, they’re not feeling good right now. And I understand that. And I ran precisely because I did not think middle-class families in this country were getting a fair shake, and I ran because I felt that we had to have a different economic philosophy in order to grow that middle class and grow our economy over the long term.

Now, for all the progress we’ve made, we’re not there yet, and that means that people are frustrated, and that means people are angry. And since I’m the president and Democrats have controlled the House and the Senate, it’s understandable that people are saying, you know, “What have you done?” But between now and November, what I’m going to remind the American people of is that the policies that we have put in place have moved us in the right direction.

And the policies that the Republicans are offering right now are the exact policies that got us into this mess.

It’s not a situation where they went and reflected and said to themselves, “You know what, we didn’t do some things right, and so we’ve got a whole bunch of new ideas out here that we want to present to you that — that we think are going to help put us on the path of strong growth.” That’s not what happens. The chairman of their committee has said we would do the exact same things as we did before Obama took office. Well, we know where that led.

And — and a perfect example is the debate we’ve having on taxes right now. I have said that middle-class families need tax relief right now, and I’m prepared to work on a bill and sign a bill this month that would ensure that middle-class families get tax relief. Ninety-seven percent of Americans make less than $250,000 a year, $250,000 a year or less, and I’m saying we can give those families — 97 percent — permanent tax relief. And by the way, for those who make more than $250,000, they’d still get tax relief on the first $250,000; they just wouldn’t get it for income above that.

Now, that seems like a common-sense thing to do. And what I’ve got is the Republicans holding middle-class tax relief hostage because they’re insisting we’ve got to give tax relief to millionaires and billionaires to the tune of about $100,000 per millionaire — which would cost, over the course of 10 years, $700 billion, and that economists say is probably the worst way to stimulate the economy.

That doesn’t make sense. And that’s an example of what this election is all about.

If you want the same kinds of skewed policies that led up to this crisis, then, you know, the Republicans are ready to offer that. But if you want policies that are moving us out, even though you may be frustrated, even though change isn’t happening as fast as you’d like, then I think Democrats are going to do fine in November.

Okay. Karen — (inaudible).

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. You’re looking for Republican help on the economic proposals that you unveiled this week. And you also mentioned the small-business bill. But you’re at odds with them over tax cuts. Is there room for a middle ground, whereby, for example, the tax cuts on the wealthy could be extended for a period of time and then allowed to expire?

OBAMA: Well, certainly there’s going to be room for discussion. My hope is, is that on the small-business bill that is before the Senate right now, that we actually make some progress. I still don’t understand why we didn’t pass that two months ago. As I said, this was written by Democrats and Republicans. This is a bill that traditionally you’d probably get 90 percent or a hundred percent Republican support.

But we’ve been playing politics for the last several months. And if the Republican leadership is prepared to get serious about doing something for families that are hurting out there, I would love to talk to them.

Now, on the high-income tax cuts, my position is let’s get done what we all agree on. What they’ve said is they agree that the middle-class tax cuts should be made permanent. Let’s work on that. Let’s do it. We can have a further conversation about how they want to spend an additional $700 billion to give an average of $100,000 to millionaires. That, I think, is a bad idea.

If you were going to spend that money, there are a lot better ways of spending it, but more to the point, these are the same folks who say that they’re concerned about the deficits. Why would we borrow money on policies that won’t help the economy and help people who don’t need help?

But setting that aside, we got an area of agreement, which is, let’s help families out there who are having a tough time. We — as I said, we could this month give every American certainty and tax relief up to $250,000 a year. Every single American would benefit from that.

Now people who make $250,000 a year or less, they’d benefit on all their income. People who make a million dollars would benefit on a quarter of their income. But the point is, is that that’s something that we can all agree to. Why hold it up? Why hold the middle class hostage in order to do something that most economists don’t think makes sense?

Q: So you’re ruling out a deal with the Republicans on tax cuts for the wealthiest?

OBAMA: What I’m saying is, let’s do what we agree to and that the Americans — people overwhelmingly agree to, which is let’s give certainty to families out there that are having a tough time.

Okay. Chip Reid.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. On the economic package that you rolled out earlier this week, first, on the business tax cuts, why did you wait until this superheated campaign season to roll it out?

A lot of your critics, and even some Democrats, say, well, clearly, he’s just using this for political purposes; he doesn’t have any expectation it’s actually going to be passed, it’s a political weapon. Why did you wait so long to bring that out?

And on the stimulus part, we can’t get people in the White House to say it is a stimulus — $50 billion for roads and other infrastructure, but they avoid the word “stimulus” like the plague. Is that because the original stimulus is so deeply unpopular? And if so, why is it so unpopular?

OBAMA: Well, let — let me — let me go back to when I first came into office. We had an immediate task, which was to rescue an economy that was tipping over a cliff. And we put in place an economic plan that 95 percent of economists say substantially helped us avoid a depression.

A third of those were tax cuts, by the way — a third of that economic plan was tax cuts for individuals and for small businesses. So we haven’t — this notion that we waited until now to put forward a series of plans, Chip, we — we’ve — just on the small-business issue alone, we have cut taxes for small businesses eight times during the course of the last 18 months. So we’re hardly Johnny-come-latelys on this issue.

Now, when you put all the things we’ve done together, it has made a difference. Three million people have jobs that wouldn’t have them otherwise, had we not taken these steps. The economy would be in much worse shape.

But, as I said before, we’re not where we need to go yet, which means that if we’re not there yet, what else can we do? And the proposals that we’ve put forward are ones that historically, again, have garnered bipartisan support: a — a research and development tax credit, so that companies that are investing in research here in the United States, which is part of what’s going to keep us growing and keep us innovative.

Let’s make sure that, you know, companies are strongly incentivized to do that. Making sure that their expensing, accelerated business depreciation, is happening in 2011, so that if companies are sort of sitting on the sidelines right now, not sure whether they should invest, let’s give them an incentive to go ahead and invest now to give that a jump-start.

On infrastructure, we’ve got a highway bill that traditionally is done every six years, and what we’re saying is, let’s ramp up what we’re doing, let’s beef it up a little bit, because we’ve got this infrastructure all across the country that everybody from governors to mayors to economists to engineers of all political stripes have said is holding us back in terms of our long-term competitiveness. Let’s get started now, rebuilding America.

And in terms of paying for some of these things, let’s stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Let’s stop incentivizing that and let’s give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the United States of America.

Those are all common-sense approaches. Historically, as you know — you’ve — you’ve been around this town for a long time — usually Republicans and Democrats agree on infrastructure. Usually Republicans and Democrats agree on making sure that research-and- development investments are made right here in the United States. And so let’s get it done.

It has nothing to do with the notion that somehow what we did previously didn’t work. It worked; it just hasn’t done as much as we need it to do. We’ve still got a long ways to go. And — and we’re going to keep on doing it.

Q: So this is a second stimulus? (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (Chuckles.) You know, the — here’s — here’s how I would — there is no doubt that everything we’ve been trying to do — everything we’ve been trying to do — is designed to stimulate growth and additional jobs in the economy. I mean, that — that’s our entire agenda. So — so I — I have no problem with people saying, “The president is trying to stimulate growth and hiring.” Isn’t that what I should be doing? I would assume that’s what the Republicans think we should do: to stimulate growth and jobs. And I will keep on trying to stimulate growth and jobs for as long as I’m president of the United States.

Hans Nichols.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. I can ask — (inaudible) — and I can follow up with my real question.

It’s now been more than two months since the financial reform bill has passed. A centerpiece of that was what you talked about as a consumer financial protection bureau; and yet, you haven’t named a head. Is Elizabeth Warren still a leading candidate? And if not, are you worried about some sort of Senate hurdle for her confirmation? Thank you.

OBAMA: Yeah. This is a great opportunity to talk to the American people about what I do think is going to be hugely helpful to middle-class families in the years and decades to come, and that is a — an agency that has been set up — an independent agency whose sole job is to protect families in their financial transactions.

So, you know, if you are getting a credit card, we are going to have an agency that makes sure that that credit card company can’t jack up your rates without any reason, including on old balances. And that could save American consumers tens of billions of dollars, just in the first couple of years.

If you are out there looking for a mortgage — and we all know that part of the problem with the financial crisis was that folks were peddling mortgages that were unstable, that had these huge balloon payments, that people didn’t fully understand well — now there’s going to be some oversight in terms of how mortgages are shaped, and people are going to actually have to know what they’re getting, what they’re buying into. That’s going to protect the economy as well as individual consumers.

So this agency, I think, has the capacity to really provide middle-class families the kind of protection that’s been lacking for too long.

Now, the idea for this agency was Elizabeth Warren’s. She’s a dear friend of mine; she’s somebody I’ve known since I was in law school. And, you know, I have been in conversations with her. She is a tremendous advocate for this idea. It’s only been a couple of months, and this is a big task standing up this entire agency. So I’ll have an announcement soon about how we’re going to move forward. And, you know, I — I think what’s fair to say is — is that I have had conversations with Elizabeth over the course of these — over these last couple of months, but I’m not going to make an official announcement until — until it’s ready.

Q: Are you unofficially concerned about a Senate confirmation?

OBAMA: You know, I’m concerned about all Senate confirmations these days. I mean, if I nominate somebody for dog- catcher —

Q: But with respect — (chuckles) — but with respect to Elizabeth Warren, are you —

OBAMA: Well — Hans, I — I wasn’t trying to be funny. I am concerned about all Senate nominations these days. I’ve got people who’ve been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can’t get a vote on them. We’ve got judges who are pending.

We’ve got people who are waiting to help us on critical issues like homeland security.

And it’s very hard when you’ve got a determined minority in the Senate that insists on a 60-vote filibuster on every single person that we’re trying to confirm — even if after we break the filibuster it turns out that they get 90 votes. They’re just playing games. And, you know, as I think Senator Voinovich said very well, it’s time to stop playing games.

All right, Chuck Todd.

Q: Given the theme, I think, of all your answers, I’ve just got a short question for you. How have you changed Washington?

OBAMA: Well, I’ll tell you how we’ve changed Washington. Prior to us getting here, as I indicated before, you had a set of policies that were skewed towards special interests, skewed towards the most powerful, and ordinary families out there were being left behind.

And since we’ve gotten here, whether it’s making sure that folks who can’t get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition can now get health insurance or children who didn’t have coverage now have coverage, whether it’s making sure that credit card companies have to actually post in understandable ways what your credit card rates are and they can’t jack up existing balances in arbitrary ways, whether it’s making sure that we’ve got clean water and clean air for future generations, whether it’s making sure that tax cuts go to families that need it as opposed to folks who don’t, on a whole range of issues, over the last 18 months, we’ve put in place policies that are going to help grow a middle class and lay the foundation for long-term economic growth.

Now if — if you’re asking why haven’t I been able to create a greater spirit of cooperation in Washington, yeah, I think that’s fair. I’m as frustrated as anybody by it. I think part of it has to do with the fact that when we came into office, we came in under very tough economic circumstances, and I think that some of the Republican leaders made a decision — you know, we’re going to sit on the sidelines and let the Democrats try to solve it — and so we got a lot of resistance very early.

I think what’s also true is — is that when you take on tough issues like health care or financial regulatory reform, where special interests are deeply entrenched, there’s a lot of money at stake for them. And where the issues are so complicated that it drags on for a long time, you end up having a lot of big fights here in town, and it’s messy, and it’s frustrating. And — and —

Q: (Off mike.)

OBAMA: Well, the —

Q: Yeah.

OBAMA: — and so, you know, there is no doubt that an option that was available to me when I came in was not to take on those issues. I mean, we could have decided: You know what? Even though we know that the pace of accelerating health-care costs is going to bankrupt this economy and bankrupt businesses and bankrupt individuals, and even though we know that there are 30 million people — and that’s a growing number of people — who don’t have health insurance, we could have said: You know what? That’s just too controversial; let’s not take it on.

And we could have said, with respect to financial regulatory reform: You know know what? We’re just going to get too much resistance from Republicans; we shouldn’t take that on.

I don’t think that’s the kind of leadership that the American people would want from their president.

And, you know, are there things that I might have done during the course of 18 months that would, you know, at the margins have improved some of the tone in Washington? Probably. Is some of this just a core difference in approach in terms of how we move this country forward between Democrats and Republicans? I’d say the answer is a lot more the latter.

Anne Kornblut.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President.

Nine years after the September 11th attacks, why do you think it is that we are now seeing such an increase in suspicion and outright resentment of Islam, especially given that it has been one of your priorities to — to improve relations with the Muslim world?

OBAMA: You know, I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then, you know, fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society. And so I think that plays a role in it.

One of the things that I most admired about President Bush was, after 9/11, him being crystal clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam.

We were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts. And I was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion: that we are not going to be divided by religion; we’re not going to be divided by ethnicity; we are all Americans; we stand together against those who would try to do us harm.

And that’s what we’ve done over the last nine years, and we should take great pride in that. And I think it is absolutely important now for the overwhelming majority of the American people to hang onto that thing that is best in us: a belief in religious tolerance, clarity about who our enemies are — our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies, who are trying to kill us but have been — have killed more Muslims than just about anybody on Earth.

You know, we have to make sure that we don’t start turning on each other. And I will do everything that I can, as long as I am president of the United States, to remind the American people that we are one nation, under God. And we may call that god different names, but we remain one nation. And, you know, as somebody who, you know, relies heavily on my Christian faith in — in my job, I understand, you know, the — the passions that religious faith can — can raise.

But I’m also respectful that people of different faiths can practice their religion, even if they don’t subscribe to the exact same notions that I do, and that they are still good people, and they are my neighbors and they are my friends, and they are fighting alongside us in our battles. And you know, I — I want to make sure that this country retains that — that sense of purpose, and I think tomorrow is a wonderful day for us to remind ourselves of that.

Natasha Mozgovaya, where — of — of Haaretz. Is she here? Natasha, there you are back there.

Q: Mr. President, back in the region, the Palestinian and Israeli leaders, they sound a bit less ready for this historic compromise. President Abbas, for example, said the Palestinians won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The question is, if these talks fail at an early stage, will this administration disengage? Or maybe you’re ready to step up and deepen your personal involvement.

OBAMA: President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu were here last week, and they came with a sense of purpose and seriousness and cordiality that, frankly, exceeded a lot of people’s expectations. What they said was that they were serious about negotiating. They affirmed the goal of creating two states living side by side in peace and security.

They have set up a schedule where they’re going to meet every two weeks.

We are actively participating in that process. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be flying to the Middle East for a — the first series of next meetings on September 14th and — and 15th. And so what we’ve done is to bring the parties together, to try to get them to recognize that the path for Israeli security and Palestinian sovereignty can only be met through negotiations.

And these are going to be tough negotiations. There are enormous hurdles between now and — and our end point. And there are going to be a whole bunch of folks in the region who want to undermine these negotiations. We saw it when Hamas carried out these horrific attacks against civilians and explicitly said, “We’re going to try to do this to undermine peace talks.” There are going to be rejectionists who suggest that it can’t happen, and there are also going to be cynics who just believe that the mistrust between the sides is too deep.

We understood all that. We understood that it was a risk for us to promote these discussions. But it is a risk worth taking, because I firmly believe that, you know, it is in America’s national-security interests, as well as Israel’s national-security interests as well as in the interests of the Palestinian people, to arrive at a peace deal.

Part of the reason that I think Prime Minister Netanyahu was comfortable coming here was that he’s seen during the course of 18 months that my administration is unequivocal in our defense of Israel’s security.

And we’ve engaged in some unprecedented cooperation with Israel to make sure that they can deal with any external threats. But I think he also came here understanding that, to maintain Israel as a Jewish state that is also a democratic state, this issue has to be dealt with.

I think President Abbas came here despite grave misgivings and pressure from the other side because he understood the window for creating a Palestinian state is closing. And there are a whole bunch of parties in the region who purport to be friends of the Palestinians, and yet do everything they can to avoid the path that would actually lead to a Palestinian state — would actually lead to their goal.

And so the two parties need each other. That doesn’t mean it’s going to work; ultimately, it’s going to be up to them. We can facilitate, we can encourage, we can tell them that we will stand behind them in their efforts and are wiling to contribute as part of the broader international community in making this work. But ultimately, the parties have to make these decisions for themselves. And I remain hopeful, but — but this is going to be tough. And I — I don’t want anybody out there thinking that it’s going to be easy.

The main point I want to make is, it’s a risk worth taking because the alternative is a status quo that is unsustainable. And so if these talks break down, we’re going to keep on trying. Over the long term, it has the opportunity, by the way, also, to change the strategic landscape in the Middle East in a way that would be very helpful. It would help us deal with an Iran that has not been willing to give up its nuclear program.

It would help us deal with terrorist organizations in the region.

So — so this something in our interests. You know, we’re not just doing this to feel good; we’re doing it because it’ll help secure America as well.

Jake Tapper.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. A couple questions. First, were you concerned at all, when you — when the administration had Secretary of Defense Gates call this pastor in Florida, that you were elevating somebody who is clearly from the fringe?

And then, more substantively, on health-care reform, this is six months since health care passed. You pledged, A, that you would bend the cost curve, and B, that Democrats would be able to campaign on this. And CMS reported yesterday that the cost curve is actually bending up from, 6.1 percent to 6.3 percent, post-health-care legislation. And the only Democrats I’ve seen talking about health- care legislation are running TV ads saying that they voted against it.

Thank you.

OBAMA: With respect to the individual down in Florida, let me just say — let me repeat what I said a couple of days ago. The idea that we would burn the sacred texts of someone else’s religion is contrary to what this country stands for. It’s contrary to what this country — this nation was founded on. And you know, my hope is that this individual prays on it and refrains from doing it.

But I’m also commander in chief, and we are seeing today riots in Kabul — riots in Afghanistan that threaten our young men and women in uniform.

And so we’ve got an obligation to send a very clear message that this kind of behavior or threats of action put our young men and women in harm’s way. And it’s also the best imaginable recruiting tool for al Qaeda.

And although this may be one individual in Florida, part of my concern is to make sure that we don’t start having a whole bunch of folks all across the country think this is the way to get attention. This is a way of endangering our troops, our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives who are sacrificing for us to keep us safe. And you don’t play games with that.

So, you know, I — I — I hardly think we’re the ones who elevated this story, but it is, in the age of the Internet, something that can cause us profound damage around the world. And so we’ve got to take it seriously.

With respect to health care, what I said during the debate is the same thing I’m saying now, and it’s the same thing I will say three or four years from now. Bending the cost curve on health care is hard to do. We’ve got hundreds of thousands of providers and doctors and systems and insurers, and what we did was we took every idea out there about how to reduce or at least slow the costs of health care over time.

But I said at the time it wasn’t going to happen tomorrow, it wasn’t going to happen next year. It took us decades to get into a position where our health-care costs were going up 6, 7, 10 percent a year. And so our goal is to slowly bring down those costs.

Now, we’ve done so also by making sure that 31 million people who aren’t getting health insurance are going to start getting it. And we have now implemented the first phase of health care in a way that, by the way, has been complimented even by the opponents of health-care reform. It has been smooth. And right now, middle-class families all across America are going to be able to say to themselves, starting this month, “You know, if I’ve got a kid who is under 26 and doesn’t have health insurance, that kid can stay on my health insurance; if I’ve got a child with a pre-existing condition, an insurer can’t deny me coverage; if I get sick and I’ve got health insurance, that insurance company can’t arbitrarily drop my coverage.”

There are 4 million small businesses around the country who are already eligible and in some cases will be receiving a 35-percent tax break on health care for their employees. And I’ve already met small businesses around the country who say, “You know, because of that I’m going to be able to provide health care for my employees. I thought it was the right thing to do.” So —

Q: (But ?) the CMS study from February predicted a 6.1-percent increase, and now, post-health care, 6.3 percent. So it seems to have bent it up.

OBAMA: No, as I said, Jake, the — I haven’t read the entire study. Maybe you have. But, you know, if — if you — if what — the reports are true, what they’re saying is, is that as a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that’s going to increase our costs, we knew that.

We didn’t think that we were going to cover 30 million people for free, but that the long-term trend in terms of how much the average family is going to be paying for health insurance is going to be improved as a consequence of health care.

And — and so our goal on health care is, if we can get. instead of health-care costs going up 6 percent a year, it’s going up at the level of inflation, maybe just slightly above inflation, we’ve made huge progress.

And by the way, that is the single most important thing we could do in terms of reducing our deficit. That’s why we did it. That’s why it’s important, and that’s why we’re going to implement it effectively.

Q: (Word inaudible) — and then the House Democrats running against health care, if you could comment on that.

OBAMA: Well, you know, there are — we’re in a political season, where every candidate out there has their own district, their own makeup, their own plan, their own message. And, you know, in an environment where we’ve still got 9.5 percent unemployment, you know, people are going to make the best argument they can right now, and they’re going to be taking polls of what their particular constituents are saying and trying to align with that, oftentimes. You know, that’s — that’s how political races work.

April Ryan.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President.

I want to ask a couple questions. On the economy, could you discuss your efforts at reviewing history as it relates to the poverty agenda, meaning LBJ and Dr. King?

And also, since Senate Republicans are holding up the issue of Cobell, and Pigford, too, can you make any assurances before you leave office that you will make sure that those awards are funded?

OBAMA: Good. Let me take the second question first. For those who aren’t familiar, Cobell and Pigford relate to settlements surrounding historic discrimination against minority farmers, who weren’t oftentimes provided the same benefits as everybody else under the USDA. It is a fair settlement. It is a just settlement. We think it’s important for Congress to fund that settlement. We’re going to continue to make it a priority.

With respect to, you know, the — the history of fighting poverty, you know, I got my start in public service as — as a community organizer working in the shadow of a steel plant that had been closed in some of the poorest neighborhoods on the South Side of Chicago. That — that’s what led me to want to serve. And so, you know, I am constantly thinking about: How do we create ladders for communities and individuals to climb into the middle class?

Now, I think the history of antipoverty efforts is, is that the most important antipoverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there — single most important thing we can do. It’s more important than any program we could set up. It’s more important than any transfer payment that we could have.

If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle.

And if the economy’s shrinking and things are going badly, then the folks who are most vulnerable are going to be those poorest communities.

So what we want to focus on right now is broad-based job growth and broad-based economic expansion. And we’re doing so against some tough headwinds because, as I said, we are coming out of a very difficult — very difficult time. We’ve started to turn the corner, but we’re not there yet.

And so that is going to be my central focus: How do I grow the economy? How do I make sure that there’s more job growth?

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some targeted things we can do to help communities that are especially in need. And probably the most important thing we can do after growing the economy generally, and — is, how can we improve school systems in low-income communities? And I am very proud of the efforts that we’ve made on education reform, which have received praise from Democrats and Republicans. This is one area where actually we’ve seen some good bipartisan cooperation.

And the idea is very simple. If we can make sure that we have the very best teachers in the classroom, if we can reward excellence instead of mediocrity and the status quo, if we can make sure that we’re tracking progress in — in — in — in real, serious ways, and we’re willing to make investments in what goes on in the classroom and not the school bureaucracy and — and — and reward innovation, then schools can improve.

There are models out there of schools in the toughest inner-city neighborhood that are now graduating kids, 90 percent of whom are going to college.

And the key is, how do we duplicate those?

And so what our Race to the Top program has done is, it said to every state around the country: You know, instead of just getting money based on a formula, we want you to compete. Show us how you are reforming your school systems to promote excellence, based on proven ideas out there. And if you do that, we’re going to reward you with some extra money.

And just the competition alone has actually spurred 46 states so far to initiate legislation designed to reform the school system.

So we’re very proud of that, and that, I think, is going to be one of the most important things we can do.

It’s not just, by the way, K through 12. It’s also — it’s also higher education. And as a consequence of a battle that we had — and it was a contentious battle — in Congress, we’ve been able to take tens of billions of dollars that were going to banks and financial intermediaries in the student loan program and said we’re going to give that money directly to students so that they get more help going to college. And obviously poor kids are the ones who are going to benefit most from those programs.

Helene Cooper.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Two questions. One, on Afghanistan, how can you lecture Hamid Karzai about corruption when so many of these corrupt people are on the U.S. payroll?

And on the Middle East, do you believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamid — Benjamin — (chuckles) — Benjamin Netanyahu should extend the settlement moratorium as a gesture to peace? And if he doesn’t, what are you prepared to do to stop the Palestinians from walking?

OBAMA: Okay. The — on Afghanistan, we are in the midst of a very difficult but very important project. I just want to remind people why we’re there, the day before September 11th: we’re there because that was the place where al Qaeda launched an attack that killed 3,000 Americans, and we want to make sure that we dismantle al Qaeda and that Afghanistan is never again used as a base for attacks against Americans and the American homeland.

Now, Afghanistan is also the second-poorest country in the world. It’s got a(n) illiteracy rate of 70 percent. It has a multi-ethnic population that mistrusts, oftentimes, each other. And it doesn’t have a tradition of a strong central government.

So what we have done is to say we are going to — after seven years of drift, after seven years of policies in which, for example, we weren’t even effectively training Afghan security forces, what we’ve done is to say we’re going to work with the Afghan government to train Afghan security forces so they can be responsible for their own security. We are going to promote a political settlement in the region that can help to reduce the violence. We are going to encourage a(n) Afghan government that can deliver services for its people. And we’re going to try to make sure that, as part of helping President Karzai stand up a broadly-accepted, legitimate government, that corruption is reduced.

And we’ve made progress on some of those fronts. I mean, when it comes to corruption, I’ll just give you an example. Four years ago, 11 judges in the Afghan legal system were indicted for corruption. This year, 86 were indicted for corruption. We have seen Afghan-led efforts that have gone after police commanders, significant businesspeople in Afghanistan. But we’re a long way from where we need to be on that.

And every time I talk to President Karzai, I say that, as important as it is for us to help you train your military and your police forces, the only way that you are going to have a stable government over the long term is if the Afghan people feel that you’re looking out for them. And that means making sure that the tradition of corruption in the government is reduced. And we’re going to keep on putting pressure on him on that front.

Is it going to happen overnight? Probably not. Are there going to be occasions where we look and see that some of our folks on the ground have made compromises with people who are known to have engaged in corruption? You know, we’re reviewing all that constantly, and there may be occasions where that happens. And I think you’re certainly right, Helene, that we’ve got to make sure that we’re not sending a mixed message here.

So one of the things that I’ve said to my national security team is, let’s be consistent in terms of how we operate across agencies.

Let’s make sure that our efforts there are not seen as somehow giving a wink and a nod to corruption. If we are saying publicly that that’s important, then our actions have to match up across the board. And — but it is a challenging environment in which to do that.

Now, with respect to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Middle East, a major bone of contention during the course of this month is going to be the potential lapse of the settlement moratorium. The irony is, is that when Prime Minister Netanyahu put the moratorium in place, the Palestinians were very skeptical. They said, ah, it just doesn’t do anything.

And it turns out, to President Netanyahu’s credit and to the Israeli government’s credit, the settlement moratorium has actually been significant. It has significantly reduced settlement construction in the region. And that’s why now the Palestinians say: You know what; even though we weren’t that keen on it at first or we thought it was just window dressing, it turns out that this is important to us.

What I’ve said to Prime Minister Netanyahu is that, given so far the talks are moving forward in a constructive way, it makes sense to extend that moratorium so long as the talks are moving in a constructive way, because ultimately the way to solve these problems is for the two sides to agree what’s going to be Israel, what’s going to be the state of Palestine; and if you can get that agreement, then you can start constructing anything that the people of Israel see fit, in undisputed areas.

Now, I think the politics for Prime Minister Netanyahu are very difficult. His coalition — I think there are a number of members of his coalition who’ve said, we don’t want to continue this. And so I’ve — you know, one of the things that I’ve said to President Abbas is you’ve got to show the Israeli public that you are serious and constructive in these talks so that the politics for Prime Minister Netanyahu, if he were to extend the settlement moratorium, would be a little bit easier.

And — and, you know, one of — one of the goals I think that I’ve set for myself and — and for my team is to make sure that President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu start thinking about how can they help the other succeed, as opposed to how do they figure out a way for the other to fail. Because if they’re going to be successful in bringing about what they now agree is the best course of action for their people, the only way they’re going to succeed is if they are seeing the world through the other person’s eyes. And that requires a personal relationship and — and building trust. Hopefully these — these meetings will help do that.

Okay. Ann Compton?

Q: Mr. President, what does it say about the status of Americans’ system of justice when so many of those who are thought to be plotters for September 11th or accused of — suspected terrorists are still awaiting any kind of trial?

The — are you — why are you still convinced that a civilian trial is correct for Sheikh — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? And why has that stalled? And will Guantanamo remain open for another year?

OBAMA: Well, the — you know, we have succeeded on delivering a lot of campaign promises that we made. One where we’ve fallen short is closing Guantanamo. I wanted to close it sooner. We have missed that deadline. It’s not for lack of trying. It’s because the politics of it are difficult.

Now, I am absolutely convinced that the American justice system is strong enough that we should be able to convict people who murdered innocent Americans, who carried out terrorist attacks against us. We should be able to lock them up and make sure that they don’t see the light of day.

We — we — we can do that. We’ve done it before. We’ve got people who engaged in terrorist attacks who are in our prisons — maximum-security prisons all across the country. But, you know, this is an issue that has generated a lot of political rhetoric. And people understandably, you know, are fearful.

But — but one of the things that I think is worth reflecting on after 9/11 is, you know, this country is so resilient; we are so tough. We can’t be frightened by a handful of people who are trying to do us harm, especially when we’ve captured them and we’ve got the — the goods on them.

So you know, I’ve also said that there are going to be circumstances where a military tribunal may be appropriate. And the reason for that is — and I’ll just give a specific example. There may be situations in which somebody was captured in theater, is now in Guantanamo; it’s very hard to piece together a chain of evidence that would meet some of the evidentiary standards that would be required in an Article III court, but we know that this person is guilty. There’s sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction. So what I’ve — have said is, you know, the military commission system that we set up, where appropriate, for certain individuals that would make it — it would be difficult to try in Article III courts, for a range of reasons, we can reform that system so that it meets the highest standards of due process and prosecute them there.

And so I’m prepared to work with Democrats and Republicans, and we, over the course of the last year, have been in constant conversations with them about setting up a sensible system in which we are prosecuting, where appropriate, those in Article III courts; we are prosecuting others, where appropriate, through a military tribunal. And in either case, let’s put them in prisons, where our track record is, they’ve never escaped.

And by the way, just from a purely fiscal point of view, the costs of holding folks in Guantanamo is massively higher than it is holding them in a supermax maximum security prison here in the United States.

Q: Is that all for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Will that trial ever happen?

OBAMA: Well, the — I think it needs to happen. And we’re going to work with members of Congress — and this is going to have to be on a bipartisan basis — to move this forward in a way that is consistent with our standards of due process, consistent with our Constitution, consistent also with our image in the world of — of a country that cares about rule of law. You can’t underestimate the impact of that.

You know, al Qaeda operatives still cite Guantanamo as a justification for attacks against the United States — still, to this day. And you know, there — there’s no reason for us to give them that kind of talking point when, in fact, we can use the various mechanisms of our justice system to prosecute these folks and to make sure that they never attack us again.

Okay. Ed Henry.

Q: Mr. President, thank you very much. You mentioned something about some of the al Qaeda leaders that you have captured. One that you have not is Osama bin Laden.

OBAMA: Mm-hmm.

Q: Tomorrow’s going to be nine years since he was the mastermind of 3,000 Americans being killed, and what you said — obviously the last administration had seven years and couldn’t do it. But what you said as president-elect to CBS is, quote, “I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al Qaeda. He is not just a symbol; he’s also the operational leader of an organization planning attacks against the U.S.”

OBAMA: Mm-hmm.

Q: Do you still believe it’s a critical part of your policy to capture or kill him?

And do you think it’s a — isn’t it a failure of your administration that, here it’s almost two years in, you campaigned saying you were going to run a smarter war on terror than the Bush administration; you haven’t captured him, and you don’t seem to know where he is?

OBAMA: Well — (chuckles) — Ed, I — I think capturing or killing bin Laden and Zawahiri would be extremely important to our national security. It doesn’t solve all our problems, but it remains a high priority of this administration. One of the things that we’ve been very successful at over the last two years is to ramp up the pressure on al Qaeda and their key leaders. And as a consequence, they have been holed up in ways that have made it harder for them to operate. And part of what’s happened is, is bin Laden has gone deep underground. Even Zawahiri, who is more often out there, has been much more cautious.

But we have the best minds, the best intelligence officers, the best special forces, who are thinking about this day and night. And they will continue to think about it day and night as long as I am president.

Q: But do you think Americans are going to face another nine years of this terror threat, another generation? What’s your message, then?

OBAMA: Well, here — here — here — here’s what I think. I think that, in this day and age, there are going to be — there is always going to be the potential for an individual or a small group of individuals, if they are willing to die, to kill other people. Some of them are going to be very well organized, and some of them are going to be random. That threat is there.

And it’s important, I think, for the American people to understand that — and not to live in fear; it’s just a reality of today’s world that there are going to be threats out there. We have, I think, greatly improved our homeland security since 9/11 occurred.

You know, I am constantly impressed with the dedication that our teams apply to this problem. They are chasing down every thread, not just from al Qaeda but any other actor out there that might be engaging in terrorism. They are making sure that even a — what might appear to be a lone individual who has very little organizational capacity — if they make a threat, they follow up.

But one of the things that I want to make sure we do as long as I’m president and beyond my presidency is to understand America’s strength in part comes from its resilience, and that we don’t start losing who we are or overreacting if, in fact, there is — there is the threat of terrorism out there. We go about our business. We are tougher than them. Our families and our businesses and our churches and mosques and synagogues and our Constitution and our values, that’s what gives us strength. And we are going to have this problem out there for a long time to come, but it doesn’t have to completely distort us, and it doesn’t have to dominate our foreign policy.

What we can do is to constantly fight against it.

And I think ultimately we are going to be able to stamp it out. But it’s — it’s going to take some time.

ROBERT GIBBS (White House press secretary): Last question.

OBAMA: Wendell.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President.

I wonder if I can get you to weigh in on the wisdom of building a mosque a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. We know that the organizers have the constitutional right. What would it say about this country if they were somehow talked out of doing that?

And hasn’t the Florida minister’s threat to burn a couple hundred copies of the Koran — hasn’t the threat itself put American lives in danger, sir?

OBAMA: Well, on the second — on your second question, there’s no doubt that when someone goes out of their way to be provocative in ways that we know can inflame the passions of over a billion Muslims around the world, at a time when we’ve got our troops in a lot of Muslim countries, that’s a problem. And it has made life a lot more difficult for our men and women in uniform, who already have a very difficult job.

With respect to the mosque in New York, you know, I think I’ve been pretty clear on my position here. And that is, is that this country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights; one of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely. And what that means is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site.

Now, I recognize the extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11. You know, I — I’ve met with families of 9/11 victims in the past. You know, I can only imagine the — the continuing pain and anguish and sense of loss that they may go through. And tomorrow, we as Americans are going to be joining them in prayer and remembrance.

But I go back to what I said earlier: We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts. And we’ve got to be clear about that. We’ve got to be clear about that because, if we’re going to deal with the problems that Ed Henry was talking about, if we’re going to successfully reduce the terror threat, then we need all the allies we can get. The — the — the — the folks who are most interested in a war between the United States or the West and Islam are al Qaeda. That’s what they’ve been banking on.

And fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world are peace-loving, are interested in the same things that you and I are interested in: how do I make sure I can get a good job, how can I make sure that my kids get a decent education, how can I make sure I’m safe, how can I improve my lot in life. And so they have rejected this violent ideology for the most part, overwhelmingly.

And so from a national security interest, we want to be clear about who the enemy is here. It’s a handful, a tiny minority of people who are engaging in horrific acts — and have killed Muslims more than anybody else.

The other reason it’s important for us to remember that is because we’ve got millions of Muslim-Americans, our fellow citizens, in this country. They’re going to school with our kids. They’re our neighbors. They’re our friends. They’re our coworkers. And, you know, when we start acting as if their religion is somehow offensive, what are we saying to them?

I’ve got Muslims who are fighting in Afghanistan, in the uniform of the United States armed services. They’re out there putting their lives on the line for us. And we’ve got to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sakes and their sakes: They are Americans. And we honor their service. And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that we don’t differentiate between “them” and “us.” It’s just “us.” And — and — and that is — is a principle that I think is — is — is going to be very important for us to — to sustain. And I think tomorrow is an excellent time for us to — to reflect on that.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Also see:

The first paragraph of Obama’s speech today – enough lies for an entire article. -Kimberly Morin – Boston Conservative Independent Examiner

Quran Burning Controversy an Exercise in Selective Outrage

A few examples of acts desecrating a holy book. Not the Quran –the Bible. Acts that are not vilified by the left, acts that are not a cause of progressive sanctimonious outrage. The left fall over themselves when it comes to defending Islam. Free speech stands between the free and tyrants, a right that is non-existent in Islam. What does that make Islam? What does that make progressives who unconditionally defend Islam, no questions asked, thank you very much, move along, nothing to see here?

Saudis Do Destroy Bibles, Think Tank Affirms

Saudi Arabia Desecrates Hundreds of Bibles Annually

Muslim Students Urinate, Spit On Then Burn Bible

Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses

Muslims burn Bible in Pakistan

North Carolina church plans Halloween Bible burning

U.S. military destroys soldier’s Bibles

Since it is not ok to burn Qurans, I assume it would not be ok to immerse a Quran in a jar of urine, or an create a piece consisting of Mohammed surrounded by genitalia.

More to the point, we live in a world where “Piss Christ” is considered a work of art suitable for public viewing. It’s creator hailed as a hero of free expression by the NY Times, became a celebrity in the art world. (More examples here)

And this, the burning of a Quran is considered a highly provocative, intolerant act. Click here to view a video of  a Quran burning protest in Iran and learn why it has been set on fire.

It’s time to ask. Why?

Perhaps the Florida pastor should of promoted his Quran burning as “art”. Heh.

Does the pastor in Florida have a right to burn Quran’s? Most certainly. Should he proceed with such a provocative act? That is entirely up to him. Even fools have the right of free expression. And I will always remain on the side of free speech. Regardless of the individual expressing his/her view. Of course, I also reserve the right to speak out in opposition of those which I disagree. That is the beauty of free speech. It works both ways. That is how it is supposed to work anyways. Picking and choosing who should have the right to free speech is not free speech.

The touchy-feely left speaking out against the Quran burning, are more concerned with the tender sensibilities of Muslims, than they are with free speech.

IowaHawk said it best:

1st war in 10,000 years of human history where one side was afraid of hurting the other’s feelings.

Muslims who are protesting the burning of the Quran’s are demanding (in so many words) that non-Muslims abide by THEIR laws against blasphemy. Are you prepared to slide down that slippery slope? Just so you know, there has been a concerted effort by the OIC through the UN that has been underway for years to install a global blasphemy law protecting Islam against ANY and ALL criticism. And by the way, the Ground Zero mosque Imam’s Cordoba Initiative sponsored an Islamic anti-free speech conference in 2008.

Should we worry ourselves with possible retaliation caused by the Quran bonfire? Let’s remind ourselves of the death count which came in at over 100 during the Muhammed cartoon riots (over cartoons people, CARTOONS despite this ), the murder of Theo Van Gogh over his film “Submission”. The fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders and Lars Vilks have Fatwa’s of death placed upon them for their having “offended” Islam and are under protection 24/7.

Where do we draw the line??? This list of things that offends the ‘religion of perpetual outrage’ may or may not astound you, depending on your level of awareness.

Here’s the scoop people. Even if not one American (or any non-Muslim for that matter) [ever] spoke out against Islam, it would remain hell bent on our destruction.

Freedom is the ultimate enemy of Islam.

Our very existence as a free republic, with a demographic majority of non-Muslims offends Islam. No [other] provocation is necessary.

Not standing up to the Muslim bullies is fueling their fire. Their goal is to have the entire globe submit to Islam. We need a united front. Not yellow bellied, weak kneed appeasing cowards bowing down or pandering apologists. Or the submission will continue down a path that, trust me no matter how liberal you are you do not want to take.

It is a dead end road.
Be warned.

Truth is our ultimate weapon.

Wield it.

Related:

Also see:

Quran Burning Protest: 2007 Iranian Video of Quran Burning in Protest Against Iranian Mullahs & Islam

Check this out, in 2007 an Iranian lit a Quran on fire in protest of “Iran’s abysmal human rights record”.

I have decided to set Quran on fire as long as Islamic dictatorship of Iran:

1. doesn’t commit to Universal Declaration of Human Rights rules;
2. doesn’t stop executions;
3. doesn’t free students and opposition from prison;
4. doesn’t bring justice in Judiciary system and society.

I believe religious disobedience is the key to save Iranian people from ruling mullahs. They preach that Islam is religion of peace and freedom which is a hypocrisy in reality.

So as long as this hypocrisy goes in Iran, this fire is on Quran and I will continue to do so for unlimited time. Also I encourage you to set fire on Quran in every corner and leave the rest of it in the city because this movement should spread itself among everyday people.

I chose this date because it’s Islamic sacred month in the Islamic calendar which in this month the Hajj Pilgrimage takes place. So setting Quran on fire, I am writing this message to mullahs (clergies) who live in hypocrisy that Islam has not brought peace and prosperity in Iran for Iranians, so we should get rid of it like what I am doing.

Video of the burning Quran:

YouTube Preview Image

This took brass ones. Big brass ones. I pray he is still alive and well.