Tuesday, December 06, 2022

Tom Hall, Graham Elwood

We live in a world of fake asses.  Take the 'friends' who stabbed the railroad workers in the back.  Tom Hall (WSWS) reports:


The Democratic Socialists of America has been thrown into crisis after three of its four members in the House of Representatives voted to impose a contract on the railroad workers, blocking a national rail strike. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush all voted in favor of the bill, with only Rashida Tlaib voting against.

Together with Bernie Sanders in the Senate, the DSA-backed caucus introduced a separate resolution to give railroaders seven days paid sick leave. This was purely political theater to provide the Democrats with political cover. It had no chance of passing the Senate over opposition from Republicans and even right-wing Democrats such as Joe Manchin. And it was crafted in such a way that its passage in the House but rejection in the Senate would not even delay the signing of the anti-strike law.

In the Senate, Sanders cast a meaningless “no” vote against imposing the contract, but his support was critical for the expedited procedure through which it was passed, because under Senate rules it requires the support of all 100 senators.

The role of the DSA shocked and angered many of its own members, which include sincere but politically inexperienced youth who joined in the belief that the DSA was a genuinely socialist organization.

The DSA leadership, meanwhile, is in full damage control mode. The DSA Political Committee issued a statement Monday titled “Stand with Railworkers, Build Workers Power,” which was in reality wholly devoted to whitewashing the role of the DSA in illegalizing a strike by railroaders.

“We condemn the move by President Biden and Congress to force over 100,000 rail workers to accept the TA by denying them the legal right to strike,” the statement claimed. It added, “When every major power in the country—the center, the right, and our laws—aligned against workers, DSA members in Congress introduced a legislative push for sick days, and forced a vote on the measure, which did not succeed.”

After praising Rashida Tlaib’s voted against imposing the contract, the statement then adds in passing, several sentences down, “We disagree and are disappointed with the decision of DSA members Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Cori Bush to needlessly vote to enforce the TA.”

The DSA is trying to cancel out public perception of its support for the anti-strike law by citing its support for adding seven sick days to the contract that Congress voted to impose. But even if this fig leaf had passed, it still would not have changed the fact that DSA members voted to strip workers of their democratic right to strike, which is a far more fundamental issue than sick days.

The DSA Political Committee statement tries to falsely separate the actions of Biden and the Democratic Party, of which it is a part, from the DSA. In reality, the DSA is a critical element of the Democrats’ attempts to keep workers and leftward moving youth trapped within the confines of this right-wing capitalist party. It is assisted in this role by a whole constellation of pseudo-left groups in and around the DSA, such as the Labor Notes publication, Jacobin magazine and others.


I don't get it.  My grandfather can tell you the DSA is a suckfest fake ass.  And he's told us that since I was a little boy.  How is that they continue to trick people?  How gullible and stupid are some people?


It's like they don't want to know the truth.


Here's Graham Elwood.






Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


 Tuesday, December 6, 2022.  The Supreme Court hears a case about a homophobe who hasn't been discriminated against but fear she might be one day if she expands her business, more government abuse in Iraq, Will Lehman calls for real UAW elections, and much more.


Alex Bollinger (LGBTQ NATION) reports on yesterday's Supreme Court hearing:


The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that could curtail states that seek to ban anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

Lorie Smith of Denver, Colorado owns 303 Creative, a web design business, and she sued the state preemptively to get a religious exemption to the state’s anti-discrimination law because she doesn’t want to make websites for same-sex couples’ weddings.

She says she “believes that God is calling her to promote and celebrate His design for marriage… between one man and one woman only” and her initial complaint – filed in 2016 – cited Bible passages along with legal arguments. Her case is backed by the anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom.


God's calling her?  Does Lorie Smith have a party line?  Are there other voices she's hearing in her head?

Today’s oral arguments could be cause for concern for LGBTQ+ advocates as the conservative majority questioned the strength of the state’s case.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, reportedly criticized the arguments of Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson, saying, “That’s not going to persuade me. Work on something that might” while Justice Samuel Alito said the state had made a “sliver of an argument” and that it was trying to force businesses to “espouse things they loath.”

Justice Alito has also been slammed for making a joke about Black children wearing Ku Klux Klan outfits during the discussion.

It's interesting that the case is being heard at all.  Many times, a court will deny a case based on the fact that the one bringing the suit lacks standing.  On that alone, Lorie Smith shouldn't get a day in court.


Josh Gerstein (POLITICO) explains:

Part of what sent the justices running to hypotheticals is that the case in front of them is rather sterile. Smith hasn’t actually refused service to any same-sex couple. In fact, she’s never designed a wedding website for anyone. The entire dispute is based on her stated intention to broaden her business to offer sites for impending nuptials and her fear that the state of Colorado will take action against her if she does so while publicly excluding same-sex couples.

After Smith filed suit to head off such action, both sides in the case agreed on certain facts, including a mock-up of a website she planned to offer. Notwithstanding the fact that she says she intends to make a custom site for each couple.

Some justices found the factual foundation for the case unsatisfying, because Smith’s lawyers acknowledge that she could not legally deny same-sex couples a plug-and-play website, so precisely what message she would be conveying in a custom one not yet designed is unclear.


So she might do this.  Someday.  She might not.  The case never should have been heard to begin with.  There are people actually effected by laws right now and she is not one of them.


NPR notes:


[. . .] University of Pennsylvania law professor Tobias Wolff, who filed a brief in the case siding with Colorado.

"Imagine if the website designer, the cake decorator, the wedding photographer" were to "show up at the wedding and then proceed to say to the people getting married, 'I don't like this part of your vows,' or 'These people can't be in your wedding party because I'm the speaker here.' We would think they were nuts, right?"

Nuts, he says, because these wedding vendors aren't "street corner speakers standing on a soapbox, proclaiming their own message." Instead, they have set up a business "to sell [their] talents in the commercial marketplace, and when you do that, you are placing those talents in service of your customers," Wolff says. "And that's just a very different situation and one that the First Amendment treats very differently."


From last night's THE NEWSHOUR (PBS):





  • John Yang:

     

    In 2018, the Supreme Court sided with Colorado baker Jack Phillips. He refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. That 7-2 ruling was on the narrow grounds that state officials were hostile to his religious beliefs. But Smith is making a different argument, saying that the Colorado law violates her right to free speech.

    She says that the government cannot dictate the message that a work of art conveys.

    Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser says, art or not, a business is a business.

    Phil Weiser (D), Colorado Attorney General: Anyone, Web site creator, a book writer, a baker can make whatever service products they want to. They then have to sell it to anyone who comes and asks for access to the product or service if they're open to the public.

    You could imagine a situation where Jews or Muslims or women are told, I'm sorry, I have a certain expressive interest in providing this product or service. It has to exclude you. You have gutted this basic anti-discrimination concept.

  • John Yang:

    The justices spent about two hours today working through those issues.

    Marcia Coyle was there. She's the chief Washington correspondent for "The National Law Journal."

    Marcia, thanks for joining us.

    Marcia Coyle, "The National Law Journal": Pleasure, John.

  • John Yang:

    One reason, it seemed to me, why this took so long, these arguments took so long, since there are two essential freedoms in the Constitution that are colliding here, protected speech on the one hand and equality on the other.

  • Marcia Coyle:

    Absolutely, John.

    And what also complicates this is that both sides disagree on what actually is being regulated here. Is it speech, as the Web site designer claims, or is it a business, as the Colorado government claims? And so the court spent a lot of time struggling with these two principles of anti-discrimination and free speech.

  • John Yang:

    And there was — there was also a question, a lot of questions about, whose speech was it? Whose was really speaking here, the Web site designer or the couple getting married?

  • Marcia Coyle:

    Exactly.

    That was something Justice Sotomayor pointed out, because she looked at the Web site designer's mockup of the wedding Web sites that she wants to create. And she went page by page by page and kept saying, it's — this is all about the couple. It's not about your speech. It's about the couple's story. It's not your story.

    So, yes, that was very much part of it. Whose speech is this? And the lawyer for Ms. Smith responded, well, book authors tell other people's stories, but it's still their speech.

  • John Yang:

    They also probed the question that we heard the Colorado attorney general talk about earlier, that, where's the line? If you carve out an exception to the anti-discrimination law for this, what else?

    And here's Justice Sonia Sotomayor asking that question.

  • Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice:

    But how about people who don't believe in interracial marriage, or about people who don't believe that disabled people should get married? What's — where's the line?

  • John Yang:

    Does this get down to how they write this decision?

  • Marcia Coyle:

    Oh, absolutely, because they're going to have to say, if — if they do rule for Ms. Smith, the Web site designer, they're going to have to say why what she does is different from, say, interracial marriages, for example. Why is it different from race?

    And I think both the liberals and the conservatives on the court are very much concerned about this line and where to draw it. And I got the feeling after the argument they really don't have much idea where they're going to draw, at least not now.


  • Meanwhile, in Iraq, Dilan Sirwan (RUDAW) reports:

    Iraq’s Prime Minister vowed to punish corrupt people who are in high governmental positions, and not only focus on small corruption cases.

    While visiting the Iraqi interior ministry on Monday and meeting several officials of the ministry, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani said that his government will not be busy with small corruption cases, but rather try to punish corruption on a bigger scale.

    “This government will not be busy with small corrupt people, it does not mean we leave them, there are regulations and legal cases will continue,” Sudani said, adding that it is the major corrupt officials that the government needs to adopt a stance against.

    “This is an official that makes decision, has major responsibilities, and is responsible for a large number of employees, they are tasked by the government to look at this case, if they get out of line and get corrupt, the matter is not only about me dismissing them,” Sudani added. “They will be punished in a way that goes with the size of their responsibility that they have neglected.”

    Iraq is ranked as one of the world’s top ten most corrupt countries, according to a report by Transparency International published in January. The Berlin-based NGO ranked the perceived levels of corruption in Iraq as equal to the levels of abuse of power for private gain in Zimbabwe, Cambodia, and Honduras.


    He's going to punish them.  How?  By making them suffer through Patrick Cockburn's writing?  Cockburn 'rediscovers' Iraq today -- in his Christopher Columbus way -- to announce that the 'heist of the century' (2.5 billion of public money stolen by officials) is nothing, why in England . . .  Oh, shut up Patrick Cockburn.  You're an anti-Arab, you can't report from there anymore because of your well earned reputation.  They're suffering and you're dismissing it.  Go back to obsessing over Donald Trump and your other garbage topics.  While Patrick tells the Arab world yet again that their issues don't matter and aren't as important as what takes place in Europe, ASHARQ AL-AWSAT reports:

    The Iraqi judiciary sentenced on Monday an activist to three years in prison for “insulting state institutions” after criticizing the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). 


    In a Facebook post, Haidar al-Zeidi, 24, said he had been previously arrested by the PMF and detained for two weeks before being released on bail. 


    He can appeal the ruling. 


    Article 226 of the penal code, which dates back to the Baath era and the rule of late President Saddam Hussein, stipulates the imprisonment of no more than seven years of anyone who openly insults the parliament, government, judiciary, armed forces or any other state institutions. 


    Penalties may also include detention or fines. 


    The article had long been criticized by rights and civil groups that have compared it to dictatorial practices. 


    Zeidi’s sentence was widely condemned by activists, who slammed the PMF for carrying out duties that should be limited to the interior ministry and security agencies. 


    Head of the Beit Watani (National Home) party, Hussein al-Ghorabi said: “Welcome to dictatorship. Haidar al-Zeidi was sentenced to three years in jail over a tweet criticizing one of the political gods in Iraq. No to the stifling of freedoms.” 


    Journalist Hamed al-Sayyed said the sentence is “the worst offense against any martyr.” 


    Let's wind down with this from Will Lehman's campaign:


     



     New content at THIRD:

    The following sites updated:







    Graham Elwood, COMMON DREAMS, COUNTERPUNCH

    First up, Graham Elwood.


    Now let's note how Democratic politicians are selling out railroad workers.  Jack Rasmus (COUNTERPUNCH) notes:

    Probably the most important US labor event of 2022 has been the 115,000 US railroad workers and their unions attempt to bargain a new contract with the super profitable Railroad companies. As of December 2, 2022, however, that negotiations has not turned out well for the workers. The US government—the Biden administration and Democrat controlled US Congress with the help of virtually all the Republicans—have repeatedly intervened on the side of the management in the negotiations.

    Beginning last September, that intervention has ensured that the workers would not be able to strike in order to advance their interests and demands. This past week both the administration and Congress have made a railroad strike illegal by passing legislation to that effect.

    The right of workers to strike has been under attack at least since 1947 when Congress passed what was called the ‘Taft-Hartley’ Act that year. That legislation ensured that government and politicians reserved the right to force workers back to work for 90 days in the event contract negotiations failed and a strike was imminent. During a 90 day ‘cooling off’ period, as it was called, government mediators had the opportunity to join the negotiations, try to browbeat the parties to get them to settle, and to make a recommendation as to the terms of a settlement. During the ‘cooling off’ management of course also had 90 more days to prepare to prepare to defeat a strike once the 90 days was up.

    Taft-Hartley limited the right to strike in many other ways as well. It prohibited sympathy strikes by unions. That’s where unions go on strike to support workers in other unions already on strike.  The 1947 law also required any union about to negotiate, and potentially later to strike, to notify the federal government and give it a ‘heads up’ of the pending bargaining and potential strike. A special government body, the Federal Mediation Service, was established to allow government direct intervention in negotiations thereafter if it so decided. Taft-Hartley also embedded in legislation prior anti-strike court decisions, including a Supreme Court decision prior to 1947 that ruled workers could no longer legally engage in what were successful ‘sit down’ strikes of the 1930s and early 1940s.

    The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act and its many anti-Labor provisions was patterned after the earlier anti-union, anti-strike Railway Labor Act in 1926 that specifically targeted railroad workers and their unions. Railroad workers’ right to strike has thus been curtailed and denied even before it was for the rest of the US private sector work force by Taft-Hartley in 1947.

    After 1926 and 1947 the right to strike was further curtailed by Congressional legislation and court action. Secondary boycotts (refusal to handle struck goods of another company) were outlawed. Courts would rule that union contract clauses in their agreements giving them the ‘right to strike over grievances’ were null and void if there was a grievance procedure spelled out in the union contract. Picketing at company gates in a strike were limited to just a few to each gate. If workers struck a company to force it to recognize the union and bargain, management could call for a government run union recognition election to end the strike and then drag out the union election process three to nine months in order to give the company time to stockpile inventory and make other preparations. Management could hire permanent replacements when union workers went on strike. Unions could no longer act in solidarity with workers in other unions by refusing to handle the goods shipped by the company and workers on strike (called ‘hot cargo’ prohibition). There are countless other measures limiting and preventing strikes by Congress, state legislatures and the Courts that have become law.


    So that's the history of betrayal and here's where we stand right now, from COMMON DREAMS:


    U.S. President Joe Biden faces mounting pressure to take executive action to ensure that freight rail workers have paid sick leave, including from an open letter spearheaded by The Lever that's already been signed by over 10,000 people, according to the online news outlet.

    Calls for Biden to issue such an order have been stacking up since the U.S. Senate passed a resolution forcing rail workers on the verge of striking to accept a White House-brokered agreement without paid sick days. On Friday, the president signed the measure for which he'd advocated, provoking widespread working-class outrage.

    "You have previously stated, unequivocally, that all workers deserve paid sick leave. And yet you have just signed a bill from Congress to force unionized rail workers to go back to work without appropriate paid sick leave," begins the letter to Biden, which began circulating Friday.

    Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"


    Monday, December 5, 2022.  A reporter harms his own story, more questions about the Talibanis, closet case Moqtada declares war on Iraq's LGBTQ community.


    About 70 e-mails have come in asking why I'm ignoring the report regarding Twitter and censorship.  

    First, I've posted several videos about those Tweets.  Like this one.



    Second, Tweets.  Not reporting.

    The journliast has made himself a joke and legacy media is mocking him.  If you care about the story, you don't set yourself up to be a joke.


    Friday, he Tweeted.


    He did not report.  I've waited for him to come off his manic high, get some sleep and actually report.  That still hasn't happened.


    Tweeting is not reporting.


    I love Cher.  She Tweets.  Love her singing, love her as a friend, in awe of her acting when she totally commits.  But her Tweets?


    Please.


    I have issues, vision issues, yes, but also medical eye issues.  I now have to limit the amount of screen time.  I do not have time to scroll through over thirty Tweets and try to provide the context that the reporter was too lazy to do.

    If he will stop partying and start reporting, I'm happy to note it.  But stop pretending that he's reported.  He's Tweeted.  It's not reporting -- it's not even reading the headlines in a news break.

    "An appeal for your patience."  Sabby notes he said that online.  If you want to break a story on Friday, break it on Friday.  Report on Friday.


    "Information.'' That's what he said he was posting.  And that is what he post.  It's not curated.  It's not journalism.  If he had worked at Twitter you could call it whistle-blowing.  

     

    He did an information   dump and then he went away.  Days later, there's still no report.  Sabby in her video rushes to defend him.  


    I'm not attacking him.  But I am making the very obvious point that Tweets are not reporting.  This demanded a reporter, this topic, who could go through this information and explain what was going on, examples could be supplied, reporting could be done.


    Equally true, if an agreement was made -- and one was with Musk -- then you disclose what the agreement was.  That's basic when it comes to ethics.


    He has been attacked by the media.


    A lot of those attacks?  He brought on himself.  There are basics and the most basic of all basics?  You have a report before you go public.  That's how you avoid being scooped.  Peter Baker isn't going to go on ABC THIS WEEK and tell viewers, "In a day or two, at THE NEW YORK TIMES, I'll have a great story for you about . . ."   He writes the story before he promotes it.


    You know who does the opposite way?  Liars and whores.  Like in 2008.  Barack Obama was talking about the rights of unions and how trade deals harmed US employees.  Then THE ASSOCIATED PRESS found out and reported that Barack's campaign was telling Canada not to worry, that this was just talk to get votes.  That's when John Nichols goes on DEMOCRACY NOW! It turns out, John maintains, it was Hillary, it was all Hillary.  St. Barack was innocent and still walked on water and Johnny 5 Cents would be reporting this at THE NATION.  


    There was no such report because John Nichols was lying.  He was trying to provide cover for Barack until interest moved on to another story.


    Those are the type of people who brag about stories before they're published.


    If you want to be taken seriously -- or your work taken seriously -- you publish it and then you talk about it.  


    "I sincerely hope that Tara Reade can get some sort of justice," says Sabby Sabs.


    Can we f**king focus?


    Apparently, we can't.


    Yes, Tara Reade came forward.  Yes, she told the truth.  She's an awful bitch but that doesn't change the fact that she was assaulted.  It also doesn't have to do with the Tweets released on Friday.  


    Had the reporter issued a report, we might be better able to focus.


    Instead it's nonsense -- it's ice cream left in the sun, melting with Sabby and others trying to scoop it up in their hands.  And doing a lousy job.  Why is she bringing in Tara?  Well, she and Tara are friends, for one reason.  Another bad behind the scenes move.  But also because Sabby doesn't understand the information because the reporter didn't do the work required.


    Some newbies are going to say 'reporter'? About 18 years ago, as a favor, I was asked not to name the reporter here ever.  This was by someone who loves the reporter.  I didn't.  I haven't.  He's popped up in videos but I haven't commented on him until now.  When we interviewed Evan Bright ("Evan Bright Puts Big Media To Shame")  about his coverage of Stephen Green's trial (March 12, 2006, Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi's parents Fakhriya Taha Muhasen and Qassim Hamza Raheem) and five-year-old sister (Hadeel Qassim Hamza) were taken into the parents' bedroom by  US soldier   Steven D. Green where they were murdered. Abeer was in the living room with Paul Cortez and James Barker who were gang-raping her. It is one of the most explosive of the War Crimes from the Iraq War.) , Evan brought up the reporter.  After that, the big question was do we name the reporter -- due to my promise?  Name but no  comments are printed but Evan's, was my reply.  That way I kept my promise not to discuss the reporter.  


    What the reporter has now done with Twitter goes to exactly why someone who loves the reporter would worry I would rip him apart.  It's not up to standard and I know what's going on when reporting isn't taking place.


    I can't evaluate the story or its claims because there is no story.  The reporter has failed to file one.  It's as though Woodward and Bernstein wrote, "There was a break-in at The Watergate Hotel and President Nixon was behind it.  That is all. We're rushing off to snort coke and we'll be back in a few days with more."  That's not reporting.  Hell, it's not even good gossip.

    The reporter needs to do his job which is to file a report.  A series of Tweets is not a report.  


    Some of the criticism the reporter is now facing is of his own creation and could have been avoided if he'd done his job.  Instead, he Tweeted on Friday and it's now Monday and we still have no report.  


    Staying with bad journalism, last week, we called out IRAQ OIL REPORT for its bad fluff piece on Bafel Talabani.  From Thursday's snapshot:


    Turning to Iraq, we're reminded that 'access journalism' is all about whoring.  IRAQI OIL REPORT is an outlet that charges for its mediocre content.  Despite charging for its content, it breaks no news, it produces nothing of value.  So I generally ignore it.

    But they decided to really whore this time.  The interview Bafel Talabani with one soft ball question after another and pretend he's answering truthfully.  They can't even get to truth in the 396 words of the preamble to the interview.

    Lot of words to pretend Bafel's not part of the problem.  The issues with Bafel go beyond he's PUK and the dominant party is KDP (PUK has still not rebounded from the lies of Jalal and Hero Talabani when they spent months defrauding the country and pretending that Jalal was healthy enough to govern as president of Iraq when, in fact, he couldn't speak and he couldn't move and, per the Constitution, he should have been removed from office).  Bafel can't even get along with other member of the PUK -- and that includes his failure to get along with his own blood relatives. 






    At the start of November, Amberin Zaman (AL-MONITOR) noted:


    The difference today is that not only are the parties at odds with each other, they are also mired in internal rivalries. Lahur Talabany, former co-chair of the PUK who led the Sulaimaniyah region’s intelligence services and the US-trained Counter Terrorism Group, was ousted by his cousins Bafel and Qubad Talabani last summer in a Byzantine power grab. It was the most overt manifestation yet of the intra-family feuds simmering in the Talabani and Barzani dynasties.


    If you're still not getting it, check out the latest this morning from REUTERS:

    On Oct. 7, shortly after Hawker Abdullah Rasoul set off in an SUV from his home on a leafy street in Erbil, a bomb ripped through the car, killing him and wounding four family members.

    Rasoul was an intelligence officer, and a defector.

    After nearly two decades with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), a party dominated by the Talabani family, he moved to Erbil this year and switched sides, three security sources and a Kurdish source told Reuters.

    When he was killed, Rasoul, 41, was helping the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), the party ruled by the Barzani family that he had been keeping tabs on for years, the sources said.

    The brazen assassination was captured by security cameras and the KDP released a 27-minute video about the killing, pointing the finger of blame firmly at the PUK.

    The PUK has strongly denied the accusations, saying they are politically driven, but the killing has triggered a series of incidents that have strained the power-sharing arrangement.


    Let's wind down with notorious closet case Moqtada al-Sadr. Moqtada al-Sadr is scum of the earth.  He leads a cult and, over the years, the US press has decided to go soft on him and present as a leader (he's not) and a kingmaker (never) instead of as the cheap ass thug he actually is.  He's flaunting his true colors again.  Daniel Stewart (360 NEWS) notes:


    "I vow to confront homosexuality or the LGBTQ community through ethical, peaceful and religious means, against this violation of the innate characteristics on which humanity is built," according to a statement accompanied by his signature and posted on Twitter by his spokesman Salé Mohamed al Iraqi.

    The cleric has reiterated his message by calling for the creation of an abolition of the alleged law of homosexuality in Iraq because "it cannot be a door to generalize this affliction".

    In reality, homosexuality has been legal in Iraq for 20 years because the country does not have a law explicitly criminalizing it.

    However, it does have a regulation prohibiting "immodest acts," probably the one Al Sadr was referring to, which Human Rights Watch has described as a "vague provision that could be used to target minorities."

     

    Poor, dumb and uneducated Moqtada.  He can never by a religious leader above 'cleric' because he doesn't have the background and couldn't get it even when he ran off to Iran in 2007.  Poor idiot Moqtada.





    And, please don't forget, that two years ago, he explained 'the gay' caused other things as well:



     


    And maybe those who've been stupid enough to promote Moqtada over the last three years could wake up to reality?



    The following sites updated: