In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.
Today it's nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.
America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.

That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

What's the good news?

Trust

Islamic investments into the core of America, often come with unwanted baggage. Like Sharia law for example.

And while Islamic Sharia law slowly creeps into our very lives across America, the liberal main street media continue to pretend otherwise.

Maybe if we close our eyes... it will go away.


Paper Throws Race Card, Misses Bigger Picture: Muslim Banking in America by Warner Todd Huston - NewsBusters

The Daily Record in Baltimore, Maryland recently published a story by Brendan Kearney that oddly seems to present a conflict between a bank employing Islamic Shari'ah law with its American investments and some black American borrowers and painting it as a racist issue. Sadly, the real story, that of Islamic law being imposed on American investors, is sidelined in order to pursue the race card. (Full story reprinted at BlackEnterprise.com)

As The Record reports, a black couple in Baltimore -- I identify their race because it is pivotal to how The Daily Record reports the story -- had contracted with the Church's Chicken restaurant chain to open a new outlet in Baltimore. Unfortunately for the entrepreneurial couple, as they were investing in their chicken outlet, Church's Chicken was purchased by Crescent Capital Investments Inc., the US affiliate of the Bahrain-based First Islamic Investment Bank BSC. And, upon the restaurant chain's purchase, these new Islamic corporate owners decided to institute Shari'ah laws upon their investments.

This caught the Beasleys new restaurant in a tough spot because pork products were on the morning breakfast menu for the Church's Chicken chain. Because Shari'ah law principles had been imposed on the Beasleys' new restaurant, they would be barred from serving their breakfast menu items, their corporate owners informed them. This barring from being able to serve their breakfast items, the couple maintains, contributed to the restaurant's failure and their eventual bankruptcy.
...

This race focus, however, completely misses the real issue here. The real issue is that a Muslim owned investment banking concern unfairly instituted Shari'ah laws on its American borrowers without due consideration. I should point out here, that I am on record as saying that Shari’ah based investing in the U.S. is not necessarily a bad thing. As long as the lender and borrower both agree to the terms of Shari'ah based investing and money lending, then what is the harm? If this new style of lending and banking operates in accordance with the religious tenets of both parties and both parties are in full agreement, we have no need to become alarmed. But, when an investment bank that takes possession of American companies begins to impose Shari'ah laws on its American customers, then we have a major problem.
Full Read here

U.S. Treasury fears Islamic strings on investments

The U.S. Treasury is struggling with how to handle any political or Islamic ramifications as Persian Gulf sovereign wealth funds look to make substantial investments in capital-poor American banks and securities firms.

Since the beginning of the year, Dubai and Abu Dhabi, two of the largest United Arab Emirate states, have been in discussions with the U.S. Treasury, offering reassurances that their investments in U.S. banks and security firms would not impose restrictions usually dictated by Islamic law, commonly know as sharia.

When they control our money, they control us.

Foreign investment firms are buying up America at an astounding pace. Little by little, piece by piece, city by city... the story continues... sounds of crickets chirping across the U.S..

"What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?"...

"A damn good start."


Inmate Hopes to Go Free After 26 Years in prison: Two spineless Lawyers Reveal the real Killer.


A 26-Year-Old Secret Could Free Inmate

For nearly 26 years, the affidavit was sealed in an envelope and stored in a locked box, tucked away with the lawyer's passport and will. Sometimes he stashed the box in his bedroom closet, other times under his bed.

It stayed there — year after year, decade after decade.

Then, about two years ago, Dale Coventry, the box's owner, got a call from his former colleague, W. Jamie Kunz. Both were once public defenders. They hadn't talked in a decade.

"We're both getting on in years," Kunz said. "We ought to do something with that affidavit to make sure it's not wasted in case we both leave this good Earth."

Coventry assured him it was in a safe place. He found it in the fireproof metal box, but didn't read it. He didn't need to. He was reminded of the case every time he heard that a wronged prisoner had been freed.

In January, Kunz called again. This time, he had news: A man both lawyers had represented long ago in the murder of two police officers, Andrew Wilson, had died in prison.

Kunz asked Coventry to get the affidavit.

"It's in a sealed envelope," Coventry said.

"Open it," Kunz said, impatiently.

And so, Coventry began reading aloud the five-line declaration the lawyers had written more than a quarter-century before:

An innocent man was behind bars. His name was Alton Logan. He did not kill a security guard in a McDonald's restaurant in January 1982.

"In fact," the document said, "another person was responsible."

———

They knew, because Andrew Wilson told them: He did it.

But that was the catch.

Lawyer-client privilege is not complete; most states allow attorneys to reveal confidences to prevent a death, serious bodily harm or criminal fraud. But this case didn't offer that kind of exception.

So when Andrew Wilson told his lawyers that he, and not Alton Logan, had killed the guard, they felt powerless — aware of information that could free a man they believed to be innocent, but unable to do anything with that knowledge. And for decades, they said nothing.

Full Article Here

This is why lawyers are considered the scum of the earth.

MSNBC ~ Ignore Partisanship?
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

We support Move America Forward and hope you will too.

Show your support and outrage with the City of Berkeley for their recent resolution that criticized our Marines.

Sign the Petition

Code Pinkos forcibly keep people from entering the Marines Recruiting office while the Berkeley Police stand by and watch. The police were "Staying Neutral" says one officer at the scene.
STAYING NEUTRAL? What are they, freakin' referees?


I think Berkeley is getting a bit carried away at this point. I truly can not believe the administrative powers in this city honestly believe they are going to run the Marines out of town. They must think they live in the United States of Berkeley. Idiots!

Ex-Marine and Berkeley California Councilman Max Anderson calls the U.S. Marines, President Bush's Gangsters and trained killers, as his justification to allow "Code Pink" a permit to protest in front of the U.S. Marines recruiting station.



and then there's the Mayor of Bezerkley himself, ass-wipe Tom Bates. Bates chimes in with this lovely statement at the same meeting.


Wow!

Both "America's Greatest Enemies" list and our "A-Hole of the Year" list just grew larger.

Can you name the new A$$HOLE OF THE YEAR?



That's right! The low life, left wing, nutjob Mayor of Bezerkley California
Tom Bates
Now, I'm sure most of you have heard by now, of the moronic antics of the City Council of Berkeley California and their ludicrous decision to drive the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting office out of town. These ridiculous acts of treason were lead by the one and only Thomas Bates.

That is why he has climbed to the top of our "A$$HOLE OF THE YEAR" list.

Video here of Bates at the meeting.

If you haven't heard by now. Check out "Treason in Berkeley."

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has the latest here. Talk back to Berkeley.

Crime actually does pay, especially if your rich and famous.

Wesley Snipes thumbed his nose at the IRS and the American tax payers yesterday, after walking out of court a "tax free man," when a jury acquitted him on tax evasion charges.

Snipes earned in excess of $38,000,000.00, that's right, 38 MILLION DOLLARS, in the past six years, and has NOT paid one dollar in taxes.


CRIME PAYS AS WESLEY DOESN'T

The message, fellow citizens, is: If you're rich, famous and have a stubborn streak as wide as the Suwanne River, you too don't have to pay your fair share. Take it from Wesley Snipes!

The star leaped out of federal court here like he'd just won a part in a blockbuster. And he sort of did.

"I'm happy!" crowed the man who cowed Uncle Sam. Then he saw me, and he fixed his million-dollar, tax-avoiding gaze right on mine.

"I think you were right. You know the game!" he praised, putting his hands together as if in prayer. A day earlier, I'd told my new best bud that I didn't think this jury would throw the book at him. And they didn't.

Try getting your hands on Wesley's millions now, Uncle Sam!

Way to go... Loser!.

Typical Clinton... if it's not about them, their not interested.

Bill Clinton cops a few z's during the Martin Luther King celebration at the Convent Avenue Baptist Church in Harlem, N.Y. yesterday.

From video by the New York Post titled "Clinton has a Dream."

In a recent, inadvertently released Canadian training manual on "Torture Awareness," Canada has linked the United States and Israel among others like China, Syria and Iran as countries that have prisoner interrogation techniques that include Torture. The manual mistakenly came to light during an investigation of abuse by Canadian soldiers against prisoners in Afghanistan.

Canada puts U.S., Guantanamo and Israel on torture 'watch list'

Canada has put the United States and Israel on a torture watch list, according to CTV. A Canadian government document cites the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and interrogation techniques that include "forced nudity, isolation, and sleep deprivation."
...

A Foreign Affairs Department training manual, titled "Torture Awareness Workshop Reference Materials," provides legal definitions of torture and instructs Canadian consular officials how to detect signs of abuse among detainees held abroad. It lists Guantanamo Bay and the United States, along with Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The manual was inadvertently released to lawyers working on a lawsuit involving abuse of Afghanistan detainees by Canadians, the Canadian Press reported.

One Canadian prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Omar Khadr, is due before a U.S. military commission in early February. The Pentagon has charged him with "murder by an unprivileged belligerent" for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed U.S. Delta Force soldier Christopher Speer in Afghanistan in 2002. Khadar was 15 at the time.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dated Dec. 13, 2007
by 100 prominent Scientists from around the world.
Full Report in PDF Form - Click here
*********************************************

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,
[List of signatories]

Say "Thank You" to our troops this Thanksgiving.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.
[10/26/07]: An exclusive new report is now available for download from the NEFA Foundation website focusing on "The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States" by NEFA Senior Investigator Douglas Farah, NEFA Director of Research Ron Sandee, and NEFA Senior Analyst Josh Lefkowitz. The report is based upon exhibits from the recent criminal investigation targeting the Holy Land Foundation (HLF). On Oct. 22, 2007, a federal judge in Dallas declared a mistrial on most counts in the federal case against HLF. Despite this outcome, the case still offers an unprecedented inside look into the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, as well as its goals and structure.

Rod Dreher, an editorial columnist with the Dallas Morning News has this spot on observation of the farce we called a trial, of the Holy Land Foundation.

Holy Land trial revealed a covert Islamist agenda

Holy Land Foundation trial was a disaster, but it did reveal a dangerous and covert Islamist agenda behind some Muslim organizations

What an embarrassment the Holy Land Foundation mistrial was. Yes, it was a disappointment for us who wanted to see that Hamas-loving bunch convicted. But no matter which side you were on, the jury's deadlock and post-trial revelations of utter cluelessness made our system look shabby and pathetic.

Trial observers had noted all along that some jury members appeared to be as glazed and placid as a box of Krispy Kremes. At least one repeatedly dozed off. After the trial ended, frustrated juror William Neal, who voted to acquit the defendants, revealed that only a handful bothered to discuss the evidence in deliberations, and that one clod spent her time snacking and napping, as if, in Mr. Neal's words, "this was her vacation."

Think about that. The U.S. government's signature terrorist financing trial – the culmination of 15 years of investigation – depended on people like that woman. The defendants' freedom and their families' welfare depended on people like her. Like I said, an embarrassment.

But the trial – which, don't forget, did not produce an exoneration for most defendants – was by no means a wash. Despite the absence of verdict, what emerged was highly valuable and deeply damaging evidence that the radical Muslim Brotherhood is the guiding light behind the U.S. Muslim community's leadership. It is impossible for any intellectually responsible person to regard as positive or even benign organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim American Society or others who presume to speak on behalf of all American Muslims.

As Douglas Farah, the former Washington Post reporter who now works as a counterterrorism consultant for the nonprofit Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation, put it after the Holy Land verdict, the evidence shows "definitive proof that CAIR, ISNA, ICNA and all the Muslim Brotherhood groups in this country came here with a markedly different purpose from what they claim, and they have gone through decades of deceit to conceal their true identities and purposes."

(For an eye-opening look at government evidence from the Holy Land trial, including the infamous Muslim Brotherhood "general strategic memo" outlining the organization's strategy to use front groups to wage a "civilization-jihad" against the West, see www.nefa foundation.org/hlfdocs.html).

But don't take it from an infidel. Earlier this month in Washington, a handful of prominent Muslims gathered to explain to an American audience why the Muslim Brotherhood was a clear and present danger both to American Muslims and the nation. Naser Khader, a Muslim parliamentarian from Denmark living under death threat for speaking out against Islamic radicals, even called U.S. government officials "useful idiots" for continuing to succor extremists.

The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928 and dedicated to promoting a worldwide Islamic state, now exists in at least 70 nations. Boston University professor Husain Haqqani told the conference that the Brotherhood established itself in the U.S. when Muslims began coming here in significant numbers to work and study in the 1950s and 1960s. Those immigrants needed mosques and other services. The Brotherhood saw an opportunity – as did the Saudis, who funded its missionary work in America.

One of the most important things the Brotherhood did back then, Mr. Haqqani explained, was translate key radical Islamic texts into a wide range of languages and make them available to mosques and Islamic centers across America. When the foreignness of American life understandably prompted ordinary Muslims to reconnect with their faith, the version of Islam on offer at local Islamic institutions was a radical one.

Read More

The U.S. Judicial system at work again. How pathetic!

More than 100 fliers, like this one, were posted around George Washington University this past week.

The posters, which read, "Hate Muslims? So Do We!!!," claim to promote Islamo-Fascism Awareness week, a week-long series of events sponsored by the student conservative group, Young America's Foundation.

The YAF openly condemn radical Islam as being evil and reprehensible. They claim these fliers are fakes, and were designed to stir hatred, rather then rationally discuss issues regarding the threat of radical Islam.

It's obvious the posters intent was malicious. The bottom of the flier, reads "Brought to you by Students for Conservativo-Fascism Awareness," and under it, the very last line reads "PS Seriously, do a Google video search for 'The Power of Nightmares'."

"The Power of Nightmares" is a BBC documentary that compares the American neo-conservative movement to the radical Islamist movement. This film attempts to make the argument that the threat of radical Islamism is in fact, a myth perpetrated by politicians world wide, particularly American Neo-Conservatives, in an attempt to unite.
George Washington University President Steven Knapp said in a statement, “There is no place for expressions of hatred on our campus.” He went on and called the posters reprehensible.

Buried beneath the busy streets of New York City, lay as many as 20,000 African Slaves.

For over 300 years this burial site has been ignored and forgotten, along with the stories of the slave trade, and how it helped build the City.


New York opens slave burial site

A burial ground for African slaves, which had been forgotten for almost two centuries, has been opened to the public in New York.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and poet Maya Angelou attended a dedication ceremony for a monument at the site.

The late 17th Century burial site was gradually built over as New York expanded, but was rediscovered during an excavation in 1991.

Some 400 remains, many of children, were found during excavations.

Half of the remains found at the burial site were of children under the age of 12.

The entire project has cost more than $50 million (£24 million) to complete.

The burial site in Manhattan was rediscovered during excavations for a federal building.

Forgotten sacrifice

Now a 25ft (7.6 metre) granite monument marks the site.

It was designed by Rodney Leon and is made out of stone from South Africa and from North America to symbolise the two worlds coming together.

The entry to the monument is called The Door of Return - a nod to the name given to the departure points from which slaves were shipped from Africa to North America.

"The tragedy was that for so many years, for centuries, people passing by this site did not know about the sacrifices they [the slaves] had made," Mr Leon said.

"Now we have an opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past."

Enslaved Africans helped create the city of New York.

They worked in the docks and as labourers building the fortification known as Wall Street, which protected the city against attack from Native Americans.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that the excavations had revealed "one of the most uncomfortable and tragic truths in our city's history. For two centuries, slavery was widespread in New York."

Are you ready for another eight years of this?



Just say No!

Move away from MoveOn.org

Fight the bully smear merchants at MoveOn.org

This is one of the logos MoveOn.org doesn’t want you to see: Go ahead. Sue.

Earlier in the week, the LA Times reported that MoveOn.org, the infamous left-wing thugs who sponsored the “General Betray Us” ads, had unleashed its lawyers on Internet retailer Cafe Press, which allows folks to sell custom-designed t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. The anti-military smear merchants don’t take kindly to be being mocked and satirized on homemade items and knick-knacks:

MoveOn... Sue this!

It's seems to be a daily occurrence in the U.S. lately. Another slap in the face of the U.S. Military, just to show they are against the war. Listen up people.

• Snubbing our Military... will NOT stop this war.
  
• Interfering with the recruiting efforts of our Military... will NOT stop this war.
  
• Denigrating our Military personnel... will NOT stop this war.

Try supporting them... it may get us out quicker.

Marines Denied Permission To Film Commercial

SAN FRANCISCO, Sep. 24, 2007 (KGO) - New York said "yes," but we said "no." Why were the U.S. Marines denied permission to film a recruiting commercial on the streets of San Francisco?

San Francisco is, once again, the center of a controversy over how city leaders treat the U.S. military. This time, it involves an elite group of Marines who wanted to film a recruitment commercial in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11.

The tension has been building in the two weeks since the city turned away members of the Silent Drill Platoon, and it boiled over Monday afternoon at a meeting of the San Francisco Film Commission.

The U.S. Marine Silent Drill Platoon performed Monday morning in New York's Times Square. They filmed part of a recruitment commercial through the start of the morning rush hour -- something they could not do in San Francisco on the anniversary of 9/11.

"It's insulting, it's demeaning. This woman is going to insult these young heroes by just arbitrarily saying, 'no, you're not going to film any Marines on California Street," said Captain Greg Corrales of the SFPD Traffic Bureau.

He says Film Commission Executive Director Stefanie Coyote would only allow the Marine's production crew to film on California Street if there were no Marines in the picture. They wound up filming the empty street and will have to superimpose the Marines later.

The city's treatment of the Marines is making many people angry, from local conservatives like Christine Hughes with the San Francisco Republican Party who told us, "it's an embarrassment. I'm a fourth generation San Franciscan and I don't even recognize my city right now."

"The city of San Francisco made a statement saying, 'we don't like the war' by shutting down the troops. I don't think that was the right thing to do," explained Eric Snyder, a U.S. Marine.

This liberal attitude that, "We're not at war, our military is," is not only disgusting, but down right dangerous.

Contact the Film Commission, Executive Director, Stefanie Coyote.
Make sure and select FILM SERVICES.

Almost 48 hours after the fiasco at Columbia University, it should be crystal-clear to Lee Bollinger that his invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ivy League campus was a huge mistake. His personal attacks on the Iranian President during his most craven and unprofessional introduction on Monday, are making a bigger stir then the ridiculous statements made by Ahmadinejad. Go figure.

I think the eye of Columbia University is blackening as we speak.

World reaction so far are quite emphatic.

I find nothing courageous about the Bollinger's insulting introductory remarks. On the contrary, they amount to a monumental cheap shot and pandering to a biased audience. It would have been far more appropriate, and much more in keeping with the presumable spirit that led to the invitation in the first place, to have thanked Ahmadinejad for his willingness to address the audience and to have welcomed a forum for discussion.

David Herlihy, Boston USA

***

Respecting guests _ whoever they are is a universal principle. Either you invite somebody or if you do you have to respect them. Bollinger's violation of this etiquette was nothing but lack of culture in a professor, hopefully not in good people of America.

Farzad, Iran

***

Not very fund of Mr. AhmadiNejad but the introduction by the Univ. President was in accordance with neither of:

a)typical univ dialogue manner
b)accepted treatment of an invited guest
c)diplomacy
d)setting a good example for students

He discredited the Univ. by reading a political statment and insulting the president of Iran. Any other leader of a country with cold relations to the U.S. should be a fool to walk to that podium. It's a shame how media impacts a person of his statue.

Jaami, Toronto

***

Iranian president was a invited guest to Columbia University and was invited by its president Bollinger and should have been treated as such. He was insulted and humiliated which was wrong. In future do not invite anybody to your home and then insult him in your home. It is a disgrace to Columbia University.

Pundalik Shenoy, Parsippany, NJ

***

It is a cruel cruel act to Insult a head of State of any country and that too after inviting him. If it was a street protest that was something else. Mr Bollingers should have not invited him in the first place if his intention was to insult him. He has not only lost a chance of creating peace but has made it even worse.

[ssami80], Toronto, Canada

***

Although Ahmadinejad (AJad) is no saint, he managed to score some very good points. He stayed composed in the face of childish insults from Bolwinkel:),he made some very good points on hypocrisy of US with regards to terrorits & Nuclear issue. As he pointed out, US has designated the MEK as a terrorist organization yet it harbors them in Iraq because they serve its purpose. AJad's speech showed the hypocrisy of the West and media that were trying so hard to discredit him by spinning the outcome!

Bahram, San Jose

***

Mr. Bollinger should not have given the Iranian president the benefit of his anger. Ahmadinejhad knows that the best way for him to gain attention on the world stage is to deny the Holocaust- it shocks people, it makes the news, people listen to him. If any leader had the guts to say, well you have a right to your opinion, I'm interested to know why you think that way sir, I'm sure Ahmadinejad would drop his silly act. Bollinger only made the man looked insulted and himself lowered.

Michelle, Albuquerque

***

This was not an invitation to embrace freedom of speech. It was a propaganda campaign organized by Mr. Bollinger and co. - one which they lost to Ahmadinejad. How can the president of a famous university be so "astonishingly uneducated" as to take it upon himself to dictate to his audience what to think of his guest? Is this freedom of thought, common courtsey?
Rather than insulting a nation by insulting its elected president, Mr. Bollinger should take a look at his own president right at home.

hamid, Toronto

***

Although I strongly disagree with Mr. Ahmadinejad's politics, I believe it was right to allow him to speak at Columbia. To deny him his right to speak freely is to deny him the right in which Americans most strongly believe. We do not need to agree with Mr. Ahmadinejad, but when we are accusatory and insulting, it does no good for the already strained relationship between our country and many others, including Iran. Diplomacy must be tried before all else-mission is definitely not accomplished.

SK, New York City

***

The reactions and actions of American unlearned society and their institutional behaviour at Columbia University shows how arrogant Americans are. American education is geared toward bully rather than the pursuit of knowledge. By insulting Ahmadinejad Americans have shown the world their shallow, hallow cognition. I had predicted this would happen. American politics, civil administration and social institutions are intertwined. You are with us or against us is the thinking. What a dementia hell

Obwota Omwony, Magwi, Sudan

***

Bollinger acted disgracefully, in a way all too typical of loud, obscene Americans. What a poor example to give to the students of the university! Mr Ahmadinejad was invited to express his opinions and should have been welcomed as a guest rather than insulted and ridiculed by a petty uni president.

Anthony Nixon, Dundalk, Ireland

***

So the president of the University called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a petty and cruel dictator. This is so typical of the ignorance of world affairs by US citizens. How rude can Americans get?

[cunnind], La Chatre, France

***

Mr. Lee was not only rude but also ungentlemanlly. I gather the impression that the Iraninan President was not invited for purely academic reasons as the host would like us the beleive. Rather it was intended to make him a public redicule / spectacle and to emphasise the extent of hate Americans have towards him. such a move in my is a disgrace to modern diplomacy.I wonder if Bush would not receive the same reception in Cameroon.

Kwendi, Buea, Cameroon

***

Mr Lee Bollinger's was not agood Amaricans representative when he presented his rudly speech against Irans president.He showed that what U.S always tell about Iran coming true about it self.Mr.Ahmadinejat defeted the iranians rights logicaly,camly and ofcourse politly.He prove that Iranians want to achieve their rights in this way but the U.S want to privant Iran from it's right in such way Mr Lee Bollinger's talked to him ...illogical and rude.

mitra, Shiraz

***

Ahmadinejad is an elected president of my country. I may not agree with him on many things but I would hate to see him being disrespected by a few idiots who haven't set a foot outside a coutry that doesnt know what culture, etquete and knowledge really is.

Leyli Karima, Tehran, Iran

***

"This was not an invitation to embrace freedom of speech. It was a propaganda campaign organized by Mr. Bollinger and co. - one which they lost to Ahmadinejad. How can the president of a famous university be so "astonishingly uneducated" as to take it upon himself to dictate to his audience what to think of his guest? Is this freedom of thought, common courtesy?"

hamid, toronto

Ugly... but true!

The Iranian president, Mahmod Ahmadinejad, came to the U.S. this week to address the United Nations and to speak, by invitation, at a prestigious U.S. University.

Much has already been written about the Iranian President, so I will refrain from stating the obvious, to which we all know about this dictator of Iran and his feeling about the Holocaust and Israel. I want to speak to the way he was treated as an invited guest to Columbia University.

To begin, I want to say that I personally think the President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, made a mistake inviting Ahmadinejad to Columbia at this time, with regard to the current political atmosphere and world events. However he made his decision and stood by it, claiming he would take the leader of Iran to task on many issues like the Holocaust, Human rights, Nuclear war etc. etc.. I respected him for that.

But what I saw from Lee Bollinger in his introduction of the Iranian President, was, to say the least, a surprising and stunning displayed of calculated disrespect and belligerence toward an invited foreign leader.

During his introduction he called the Iranian President a "petty and cruel dictator."

He continued with his harangue and monologue as students listened attentively to his every word, with the suggestion that Ahmadinejad was either "brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated," because of his continued denial of the Holocaust.


Click Video
This was an obviously craven and cowardly capitulation to outside pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. He should have challenged Ahmedinejad’s many ridiculous and absurd statements in a manner that was not abusive or insulting. His behavior was completely inappropriate. It presented to the world, the face of an arrogant and bullying America.

Ahmadinejad was finally introduced and allowed to speak. He was obviously shocked at how he was being treated, before being allowed to speak.

Through an interpretor, he began his speech,

“At the outset I want to complain a bit from the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite to be a speaker we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment and we don't think it's necessary before this speech is even given to come in with a series of claims...”

An eruption of applause interrupted the President.

Ahmadinejad continued: “...I think the text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all.

Certainly he took more than all the time I was allo