one of the comforts those internationals like is the fancy cars in Gaza:
...still on the waiting list for the Libyan Rocket?...
Luxury cars with Libyan plates are becoming a common sight in the Gaza Strip, a surprising side-effect of the unrest in the north African country.
Showroom owner Amin said he paid taxes on each car to Gaza’s Hamas government and the tunnel smugglers, and that there were now “dozens” of vehicles coming in from Libya every week. Customers tended to want 2011 and 2012 Hyundai Sonatas, Kia and Hyundai SUVs, BMWs and 4-wheel-drive Toyotas, he said.
...Cars start at $24,000, with sedans going for $48,000 and SUVs costing as much as $100,000, he said.
...The average monthly income for a Gaza family is just $250, but the area is home to a small class of affluent merchants as well as thousands of employees of international aid agencies who qualify for preferential loans at local banks.
Labels: Gaza» Libya
Turkish Scientist Could Be Jailed For Publishing Report on Poisonous Metals in Babies, Mothers’ MilkLabels: aluminum» Another flotilla» arsenic» cadmium» copper» dead babies» environment» Flotilla» green economy» Hamzaoğlu» Iron» Lead» mercury» pollution» Turkey» zinc
Professor Onur Hamzaoğlu could face jail time for publishing a report that found poisonous metals in the systems of Turkish townsfolk. But he is “not afraid,” he tells Green Prophet in an exclusive interview.
Earlier this week, officials from the Turkish province of Kocaeli filed a complaint against Hamzaoğlu for inciting “fear and panic” amongst locals. Hamzaoğlu had indeed published something fearful and alarming: a study showing high levels of heavy metals, such as arsenic, mercury, and lead, in samples of infant feces and mother’s milk from the town of Dilovası.
According to the abstract of the study, it aimed to measure the levels of heavy metals in the population and figure out how it could affect the DNA of newborns.
But as reward for bringing this disturbing information to light, Hamzaoğlu is now being investigated by his employer, Kocaeli University. He could also face a court hearing, and a sentence of several years in prison, if the university decides to turn his case over to the public prosecutor.
“Politicians of local governments and the Council of Higher Education (YOK) [put] pressure on the universities” in Turkey, Hamzaoğlu tells Green Prophet. He acknowledges that Turkey’s treatment of scientists who publish disturbing findings casts it in a negative light, particularly in the context of the European Union, which Turkey’s leaders – publicly, at least – say they hope to join.
While most European countries are trying to move away from dirty industries and seek cleaner forms of energy and fuel, Hamzaoğlu says Turkey is “moving to high pollution factories, such as… cement, paint, and iron and steel.”
The local picture
Dilovası is a stark illustration of this. According to Hamzaoğlu, the province of Kocaeli has been the site of 15 percent of Turkey’s cumulative manufacturing industry over the past decade. The main sectors include chemical products, metal products, and basic metals, so it’s little surprise that traces of these are showing up in the air of the region and the bodies of its residents.
Two highways pass through Dilovası itself, and the center of the town is an official industrial zone comprising 174 companies. Thirteen percent of the firms in Dilovası operate metal factories, and 11 percent are within the paint and chemical sectors.
“In summary, the problems are happening in front of everyone’s eyes,” says Hamzaoğlu.
In the nearby town of Kandıra, where there is practically no industrial activity, cancer rates are far lower than in Dilovası, according to Hamzaoğlu’s report.
The research and the backlash
Hamzaoğlu is head of the public health department at Kocaeli University. Therefore, he says, “my basic task is to determine [the] health problems of populations and reasons of the problems, and produce solutions.”
That’s why he looked at samples of the purest, most basic fluids that come from babies and mothers: infant meconium, or the earliest stool of an infant, and colostrum, the concentrated milk rich in antibodies that mothers produce until their children are at least a few days old. In addition to arsenic, mercury, and lead, Hamzaoğlu found trace amounts of copper, aluminum, zinc, cadmium, and iron in the samples.
Kocaeli University will likely hand down a decision on Hamzaoğlu’s case in the next few months. If the university chooses to turn his case over to the public prosecutor, he will face more investigations and a possible prison term of two to four years.
The Roman Empire fell because everyone went RETARDED.... perhaps this explains the flotilla thing they are sending to Israel.
The Roman Empire fell because everyone went RETARDED.... perhaps this explains the flotilla thing they are sending to Israel.
Labels: Ali Akbar Salehi» Bali» Mohamed Ali Hamud» Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)» Press TV» Somalia
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi has expressed Iran's readiness to help Somalia resolve its ongoing crisis.
At a meeting today with his Somali counterpart on the sidelines of the 16th ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) on the island of Bali in Indonesia, Salehi announced Iran's readiness to use all capacities to help end bloodshed in Somalia and alleviate the suffering of the Muslim nation.
Somali State Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohamed Ali Hamud, for his part, explained the latest developments in the country and hailed Iran's humanitarian aid as well as its efforts to help resolve the crisis in the war-ravaged country.
Source: Press TV, Iran, May 27, 2011
via thememriblog.orgNever mind the Prison Rapes and Revolt In Tehran.
Labels: 1967 borders
President Obama speaks at the State Department on May 19, 2011. Photo by Pete Souza / White HouseOne week ago, on May 19, President Barack Obama delivered powerful remarks on democracy and reform in the Middle East. He not only raised these normally hortatory ideals to top-tier U.S. interests, but he put the dictator of America’s most dangerous Arab antagonist —Syria’s Bashar Assad — on personal notice that he may soon find himself joining the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia in forced retirement. All this was welcome news.
The last part of the president’s remarks, however, took a different course. After critiquing Arab regimes that have used the Arab-Israeli conflict as a distraction from their own internal problems, he undermined the potency and effect of his own message by unveiling new — and controversial — principles guiding U.S. efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Specifically, the principles he articulated constitute a major departure from long-standing U.S. policy. To argue that they are just a repackaging of previous statements does not hold up under scrutiny. The very fact that they were the subject of such intense internal debate before delivery and prompted such consternation from Israeli leaders afterward underscores that there was, indeed, something new in what the president said. In his speech, Obama became the first sitting president to say that the final borders should be “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” (The Clinton Parameters — which former President
Bill Clinton presented to the two sides in December 2000 and then officially withdrew a month later, when they were not accepted — did not mention the 1967 borders but did mention “swaps and other territorial arrangements.”)
The Obama formulation concretizes a move away from four decades of U.S. policy based on U.N. Security Council resolution 242 of November 1967, which has always interpreted calls for an Israeli withdrawal to a “secure and recognized” border as not synonymous with the pre-1967 boundaries. The idea of land swaps, which may very well be a solution that the parties themselves choose to pursue, sounds very different when endorsed by the president of the United States. In effect, it means the official U.S. view is that resolution of the territorial aspect of the conflict can only be achieved if Israel cedes territory it held even before the 1967 war.
The president also said that the new Palestinian state should have borders with Egypt, Jordan and Israel, and referred to the “full and phased” withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces. This statement implies categorical American opposition to any open-ended Israeli presence inside the future “Palestine.” This is also the first such statement by a U.S. president, and it differs significantly from the Clinton Parameters, which envisioned three Israeli “facilities” inside the West Bank, with no time limit on their presence.
The president’s words also gave official endorsement to the idea that Israelis and Palestinians should first negotiate their territorial dispute and the security arrangements that would govern relations between the two states, leaving the subjects of refugees and Jerusalem for future negotiations. This is an odd reading of the relevance of those two latter issues. For Palestinians, the refugee issue may be powerfully emotive, going to the core of Palestinian identity; for Israelis, however, it is as much an issue of security as ideology. For the president not to repeat previous U.S. government statements — e.g., that Palestinians will never see their right of return implemented through a return to Israel — is to raise expectations and inject doubt into a settled topic.
Perhaps more than anything else, the most surprising aspect of the president’s peace process statement was that it moved substantially toward the Palestinian position just days after the Palestinian Authority (PA) decided to seek unity with Hamas. Indeed, the president seemed nonplussed that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the PA, has opted to reconcile with Hamas, a group the United States views as a terrorist organization. Hamas-Fatah reconciliation “raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel,” the president noted — but evidently not questions so profound and troubling to the United States that they would impede a shift in U.S. policy that advantages the Palestinians.
Given the importance of these principles, it was odd that the president offered no implementation mechanism to translate these ideas into action. He named no high-level successor to Sen. George Mitchell, the just-resigned peace process envoy, nor announced any practical effort to get the parties back to the negotiating table. In essence, he launched his principles into the ether.
Despite this absence of an action mechanism, the likely next step is for Palestinians to take up the president’s call, ask for renewal of negotiations on precisely the terms the president outlined — borders that are “based on the 1967 lines with mutual swaps,” with no reference to refugees or other issues on which the Palestinians would make major compromises — and wait for Israel to say no.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly objected to the president’s emphasis on the 1967 borders — an unusual way to begin what was a tense White House visit. The two leaders may find a way to blur their differences over the principles outlined in Obama’s May 19 speech, given their partnership on strategic issues and mutual interest in political cooperation and amity. But the specific territorial principles on Israeli-Palestinian peace enunciated by Obama have within them the seeds of deepening tension and perhaps even rift between the United States and Israel — the very distraction from the focus on democratic reform the president said he wanted to avoid.
Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute. He also holds the institute’s Howard P. Berkowitz Chair in U.S. Middle East Policy.
Labels: U.N. Security Council» UN General Assembly» UN Security Council» Unilateral» unilateralism» UNSC
The president of the UN General Assembly said Friday there is no way that a Palestinian state could become a member of the United Nations without a recommendation from the Security Council.
Joseph Deiss told a news conference that if the United States or any other permanent council member used its veto, the General Assembly would not be able to vote on membership for Palestine. AP via jpost.com
@ The United NationsThe recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government. As an organization of independent States, it may admit a new State to its membership or accept the credentials of the representatives of a new Government.Membership in the Organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the [United Nations Charter] and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able to carry out these obligations”. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The procedure is briefly as follows:1. The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.2. The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.4. Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.3. If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.
Labels: AIPAC» Ali Abunimah» Avinunu» Barack Obama» Bill Ayers» Edward Said» Rashid Khalidi
US policy, “Keep up the good work!”
Michelle Obama and Barack Obama listen to Professor Edward Said
give the keynote address at an Arab community event in Chicago, May 1998.
(Photo: Ali Abunimah)what Americans Voted for is frightening. Obama’s hard-Left tilt is real.It’s time to revisit the issue of President Obama’s Palestinian ties. During his time in the Illinois state senate, Obama forged close alliances with the most prominent Palestinian political leaders in America. Substantial evidence also indicates that during his pre-Washington years, Obama was both supportive of the Palestinian cause and critical of America’s stance toward Israel. Although Obama began to voice undifferentiated support for Israel around 2004 (as he ran for U.S. Senate and his national visibility rose), critics and even some backers have long suspected that his pro-Palestinian inclinations survive.
The continuing influence of Obama’s pro-Palestinian sentiments is the best way to make sense of the president’s recent tilt away from Israel. This is why supporters of Israel should fear Obama’s reelection. In 2013, with his political vulnerability a thing of the past, Obama’s pro-Palestinian sympathies would be released from hibernation, leaving Israel without support from its indispensable American defender.
To see this, we need to reconstruct Obama’s pro-Palestinian past and assess its influence on the present. Taken in context, and followed through the years, the evidence strongly suggests that Obama’s long-held pro-Palestinian sentiments were sincere, while his post-2004 pro-Israel stance has been dictated by political necessity.
Let’s begin at the beginning — with the controversial question of whether Obama’s cultural heritage through his nominally Muslim Kenyan father and his Muslim Indonesian stepfather, along with his having been raised for a time in predominantly Muslim Indonesia, might have had some effect on the president’s mature foreign-policy views. Obama supporters often mock this idea, but we have it on high authority that Obama’s unusual heritage and upbringing have had an effect on his adult views.
Top presidential aide and longtime Obama family friend Valerie Jarrett was born and raised in Iran for the first five years of her life. In explaining how she first grew close to Obama, Jarrett says they traded stories of their youthful travels. As Jarrett told Obama biographer David Remnick: “He and I shared a view of where the United States fit in the world, which is often different from the view people have who have not traveled outside the United States as young children.” Remnick continues: “Through her travels, Jarrett felt that she had come to see the United States with a greater objectivity as one country among many, rather than as the center of all wisdom and experience.” Speaking with the authority of a close personal friend and top political adviser, then, Jarrett affirms that she and Obama reject traditional American exceptionalism. One hallmark of America’s exceptionalist perspective, of course, is our unique alliance with a democratic Israel, even in the face of intense criticism of that alliance from much of the rest of the world.
Obama’s close friend and longtime ally, Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said’s successor as the most prominent American advocate for the Palestinians, goes further. Khalidi told the Los Angeles Times that as president, Obama, “because of his unusual background, with family ties in Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.” Khalidi’s testimony is important, since he speaks on the basis of years of friendship with Obama.
Those who know Obama best, then, affirm that his foreign-policy views are atypical for an American politician, and are grounded in his unique international heritage and upbringing. That is important, because our core task is to decide whether Obama’s pro-Palestinian past was a stance rooted in sincere sympathy, or nothing but a convenient sop to his leftist Hyde Park supporters. Jarrett and Khalidi give us reason to believe that Obama’s decidedly pro-Palestinian inclinations are rooted in his core conception of who he is.
Obama came to political consciousness at college, and prior to his discovery of community organizing late in his senior year, his focus was on international issues. Obama’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, highlights his anti-apartheid activism during his sophomore year at California’s Occidental College. Obama’s anti-apartheid stance, however, was part of a far broader and more radical rejection of the West’s alleged imperialism. Obama himself tells us, in a famous passage in Dreams, that he was taken with criticism of “neocolonialism” and “Eurocentrism” during these early college years.
What Obama doesn’t tell us, but what I reveal in Radical-in-Chief, my political biography of the president, is that he was a convinced Marxist during his college years. More important, once Obama graduated and entered the world of community organizing, he absorbed the sophisticated and intentionally stealthy socialism of his mentors. Obama’s socialist mentors strongly supported what they saw as the “liberation struggles” carried on by rebels against American “oppression” throughout the world. So Obama’s continuous radical political history strongly suggests that his early support for Palestine’s “liberation struggle” grew out of authentic political conviction, not pandering.
Although Obama has long withheld his college transcripts from the public, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2008 that Obama took a course from Edward Said sometime during his final two undergraduate years at Columbia University. This was just around the time Obama’s ties to organized socialism were deepening, and certainly suggests a sincere interest in Said’s radical views. As Martin Kramer points out, in his superb 2008 review of Obama’s Palestinian ties, Said had just then published his book The Question of Palestine, definitively setting the terms of the academic Left’s stance on the issue for decades to come.
After Obama finished his initial community-organizing stint in Chicago and graduated from Harvard Law School, he settled down to a teaching job at the University of Chicago around 1992, and went about laying the foundations of a political career. Sometime not long after his arrival at the University of Chicago, Obama connected with Rashid Khalidi.
To say the least, Rashid Khalidi is a controversial fellow. To begin with, although Khalidi denies it, Martin Kramer has unearthed powerful evidence suggesting that Khalidi was at one time an official spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Also, in the years immediately prior to his friendship with Obama, Khalidi was a leading opponent of the first Gulf War, which successfully reversed Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. According to Kramer, Khalidi condemned that action as an American “colonial war,” insisting that before we could end Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait, we would first have to end Israel’s supposedly equivalent occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. As Kramer puts it, Khalidi’s influence helped turn the University of Chicago of the Nineties into “the hot place to be for . . . trendy postcolonialist, blame-America, trash-Israel” scholarship.
While we don’t know exactly when their friendship began, Khalidi was reportedly present at the famous 1995 kickoff reception for Obama’s first political campaign, held at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. That is no minor point. We’ll see that as Khalidi’s close friend and political ally, Ayers played an integral role in the story of Obama’s relationship with Khalidi.
In May 1998, Edward Said traveled from Columbia to Chicago to present the keynote address at a dinner organized by the Arab American Action Network, a group founded by Rashid and Mona Khalidi. We’ve known for some time that Barack and Michelle Obama sat next to Edward and Mariam Said at that event. (Pictures are available.) It has not been noticed, however, that a detailed report on Said’s address exists, along with an article by Said published just days before the event (Arab American News, May 22, June 12, 1998). Between those two reports, we can reconstruct at least an approximate picture of what Obama might have heard from his former professor that day.
For the most part, Said focused his article (and likely his talk as well) on harsh criticisms of Israel, which he equated with both South Africa’s apartheid state and Nazi Germany. Said’s criticisms of the Palestinian Authority also were harsh. Why, he wondered, weren’t the 50,000 security people employed by the Palestinian Authority heading up resistance to Israel’s settlement building? In his talk, Said called for large-scale marches and civilian blockades of Israeli settlement building. To prevent Palestinian workers from participating in any Israeli construction, Said also proposed the establishment of a fund that would pay these laborers not to work for Israel. Presciently, Said’s talk also called on Palestinians to orchestrate an international campaign to stigmatize Israel as an illegitimate apartheid state.
So broadly speaking, this is what Obama would have heard from his former teacher at that May 1998 encounter. Yet Obama was clearly comfortable enough with Said’s take on Israel to deepen his relationship with Khalidi and his Arab American Action Network (AAAN). We know this, because Ali Abunimah, longtime vice president of the AAAN, has told us so.
In many ways, Abunimah is the neglected key to reconstructing the story of Obama’s alliance with Khalidi and AAAN. While Abunimah’s accounts of Obama’s alliance with AAAN have long been public, they are not widely known. Nor have Abunimah’s writings been pieced together with Obama’s history of support for AAAN. Doing so creates a disturbing picture of Obama’s political convictions on the Palestinian question.
In late summer 1998, for example, a few months after Obama’s encounter with Edward Said, Abunimah and AAAN were caught up in a national controversy over the alleged blacklisting of respected terrorism expert Steve Emerson by National Public Radio. In August of that year, NPR had interviewed Emerson on air about Osama bin Laden’s terror network. According to columnist Jeff Jacoby, however, Abunimah managed to obtain a promise from NPR to ban Emerson from its airwaves, on the grounds that Emerson was an anti-Arab bigot. It took Jacoby’s research and public objections to lift the ban.
Attempting to bar an expert on Osama bin Laden’s terror network from the airwaves is not exactly a feather in AAAN’s cap. Yet Obama continued his relationship with AAAN. Abunimah himself introduced Obama at a major fundraiser for a West Bank Palestinian community center a short time later in 1999. And that, says Abunimah, was “just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation.”
The year 2000 saw yet another public clash between Ali Abunimah and Jeff Jacoby over terrorism, along with a deepening alliance between Obama, Khalidi, Abunimah, and AAAN. In May 2000, Abunimah published a New York Times op-ed taking issue with a State Department report on the rising threat of terrorism from the Middle East and South Asia. The report focused on al-Qaeda, in particular. This was one of the most timely and accurate warnings we received in the run-up to 9/11. Yet Abunimah trashed the report. In a longer study released around the time of his op-ed, Abunimah went further, questioning Hezbollah’s designation as a terrorist organization, and suggesting that we ought to be, at the very least, “deeply skeptical” of the State Department’s warnings about Osama bin Laden.As Abunimah continued to downplay the threat from bin Laden, his ties to Obama deepened. In 2000, AAAN founder Rashid Khalidi held a fundraiser for Obama’s ultimately unsuccessful congressional campaign. Abunimah remembers that Obama “came with his wife. That’s where I had a chance to really talk to him. It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. . . . He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel.” Obama’s numerous statements over the years criticizing American policy for leaning too much toward Israel were vivid in Abunimah’s memory, he says, because “these were the kind of statements I’d never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere rather than at the end of his career.” Obama’s criticism of America’s Middle East policy was sufficient to inspire Abunimah to pull out his checkbook and, for the first time, contribute to an American political campaign.
Within a year, Obama did Khalidi and Abunimah a good turn as well. From his position on the board of Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama, along with Ayers and the other five members of the board, began to channel funds to AAAN, totaling $75,000 in grants during 2001 and 2002. Now Obama and Ayers were effectively supporting the pro-Palestinian activism of AAAN’s vice-president, Abunimah, and funding an organization founded by their mutual friends, the Khalidis, in the process.
In the first year of the Woods Fund grant, Abunimah was the focus of a critical Chicago Tribune op-ed by Gidon Remba, a former translator in the Israeli prime minister’s office. Pointing to Abunimah, among others, Remba decried attempts by “Yasser Arafat’s Arab-American cheerleaders” to “vindicate the resurgence of attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinian gunmen and Islamic suicide bombers.” Yet Obama and Ayers re-upped AAAN’s money in 2002.
An August 2002 profile of Abunimah in the Chicago Tribune quotes a supporter of Israel noting that, while he has heard Abunimah deplore terrorism, he has never heard Abunimah affirm that he “supports the continued right of Israel to exist alongside a future Palestine.” That is because Abunimah does not appear to recognize such a right. Instead, Abunimah favors a “one-state solution,” in which Israel’s identity as a Jewish state would be drowned out by an influx of Palestinian immigrants seeking the “right of return.” Abunimah’s book, One Country, which spells out his one-state solution, features an extended comparison between Israel and South African apartheid.
In the acknowledgments of Resurrecting Empire, a monograph he worked on toward the end of his time in Chicago, Khalidi credits Ayers with persuading him to write it. A core theme of Resurrecting Empire is that the problems of the Middle East largely turn on America’s failure to force Israel to resolve the Palestinian question. This claim that Israel is the true root of the Middle East’s problems is what Martin Kramer identifies, correctly, I think, as the key lesson imparted to Obama by Khalidi.
Khalidi left Chicago in 2003, after the now-famous farewell dinner at which Obama thanked Khalidi for years of beneficial intellectual exchange. The article in which the Los Angeles Times reports on that dinner adds that many of Obama’s Palestinian allies and associates are convinced that, despite his public statements in support of Israel, Obama remains far more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause then he has publicly let on.
Specifically, Abunimah has said that, in the winter of 2004, Obama commended an op-ed Abunimah had just published in the Chicago Tribune, saying, “Keep up the good work!” (This is likely the op-ed in question.) According to Abunimah, Obama then apologized for not having said more publicly about Palestine, but also said he hoped that after his race for the U.S. Senate was over he could be “more up front” about his actual views.
It didn’t turn out that way. Once Obama’s new-found stardom gave him national political prospects, he swiftly shifted into the pro-Israeli camp, to Abunimah’s great frustration. Would a reelected Obama finally be able to be “more up front” about his pro-Palestinian views, belatedly fulfilling his promise to Abunimah? In short, was Obama’s pro-Palestinian past nothing but a way of placating a hard-Left constituency whose views he never truly shared? Or is Obama’s post-2004 tilt toward Israel the real charade?
The record is clear. Obama’s heritage, his largely hidden history of leftist radicalism, and his close friendship with Rashid Khalidi, all bespeak sincerity, as Obama’s other Palestinian associates agree. This is not to mention Reverend Wright — whose rabidly anti-Israel sentiments, I show in Radical-in-Chief, Obama had to know about — or Obama’s longtime foreign-policy adviser Samantha Power, who once apparently recommended imposing a two-state solution on Israel through American military action. Decades of intimate alliances in a hard-Left world are a great deal harder to fake than a few years of speeches at AIPAC conferences.
The real Obama is the first Obama, and depending on how the next presidential election turns out, we’re going to meet him again in 2013.
— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the author of Radical-in-Chief. via nationalreview.com
Labels: Barack Obama» Indonesia» Muslims» Obama» Obama’s great betrayal» On Your Knees to Obama
Is that kid in the pic above--about to chuck a stick at little Obama? ;-)
The yet-to-be-published book further sheds light on the way that minorities are treated in Muslim countries like Indonesia. Apparently, it was and is a well-known fact that many Muslims in Indonesian are simply racist towards blacks, as confirmed by American Elizabeth Bryant, a woman who was familiar with the young Obama and his mother when they were in Indonesia in the 1960s. According to Bryant, expatriate Westerners were amazed that Obama’s mother—free spirit and likely hippie Ann Dunham—would take a black child with her to Indonesia because of the disrespect that the Muslims there have for blacks.
Was it the ear thing???
The racism against blacks that Obama experienced in Indonesia is also a bad reflection on Dunham for not using her judgment better...
LOL!!! Even in this News-- they Can't BLAME THE MUSLIMS -IT WAS HIS MOMMIES FAULT...this is surreal.....*shake head* More below...
What kind of a mother would bring a child that she had good reason to suspect would endure racial abuse to such a country? Let’s review who Dunham was to shed a little more light on this irresponsible parent. She married Obama’s daddy—that would be the womanizer and the alcoholic—only so that he could leave her and little Barack when the future president was two years old. After a divorce, she continued her exploration of the exotic by remarrying Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian she encountered while she was at the University of Hawaii. Dunham would break up with Soetoro, too, and then dump little Barack into the lap of her parents in Hawaii as she continued to pursue her studies elsewhere. Suffice it to say that she refused to provide a stable home for young Barack, to say the least.
In light of this, it makes all the more sense why she could also transplant young Barack halfway around the world to a country whose Muslim population was pretty much racially hateful to her son. I suppose her free-spirit ways just always trumped what was in the best interests of raising her son.
One episode of racial abuse little Barack endured was that Muslim schoolchildren launched rocks at him while calling him racial epithets. I suppose that's just another in the long line of examples of “tolerance” that the “religion of peace” is known for, right? Furthermore, Lolo Soetoro is also supposed to have actually physically abused Dunham, as recounted in the book during an encounter that left Obama’s mother with a towel pressed to her face and blood running from her face.
After Obama’s first-hand experience with racism from the Muslim world, I have to wonder why he, as an adult, is doing everything he can to bend over backwards to appease the Muslims! I guess when he grew into adulthood, he, transforming to become a good, little liberal, conveniently forgot the racism and hostility from the Muslims in Indonesia. And that certainly explains why he’s addicted to always saying “sorry” to the Muslim world for the US’ non-existent transgressions.
I would like Obama to talk publicly about this. Perhaps if he could face his real haters then he would stop the projection he has had on Israel
Labels: Bomb Iran» Iran» Nuclear» Nuclear Proliferation» Robert Mugabe» Tehran» UN Nuclear Non-Poliferation Treaty» Zimbabwe
you can't buy lunch with a Zimbabwe dollar, the people are starving because they chased the white farmers out of the country... but the government can still sell things that go boom! If you want to see a warning of what happens with the left in power then just look to Mugabe. The people have no work and they can't afford to buy their children food, but they still have hate... hate of the Jews... hate of the first world that they will use to project the troubles that their own government made with it's leftist plans. And Iran is the vehicle of their hate. When your people are starving... why try Capitalism that creates jobs for the future when you can bomb Israel.
Iran has had a shortage of a critical component for its nuclear weapons for a long time: Uranium. Now, Iran is on the verge of signing a natural resources agreement with Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe that would give it preferential access to Zimbabwe's 455,000 tons of uranium over the next five years. Given that Iran currently has access to mostly depleted uranium from South Africa from the 1970's, that's a huge deal.
Ilan Berman argues that it's also a deal that has been largely ignored by western sanctions. It's time to change that.
Over the past three years, Western chancelleries have marshaled considerable diplomatic efforts to dissuade potential uranium suppliers such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Brazil from providing Tehran the raw material needed for its nuclear program. For all of their concern, however, Washington policy makers have not yet given serious thought to penalizing countries for their uranium sales to Iran, or crafted a legislative framework that makes it possible to do so.Hmmm.
They should. By identifying and then punishing Tehran's current suppliers of uranium ore, the U.S. and its allies can slow its acquisition of the raw material necessary to realize its nuclear ambitions-and send a clear signal to potential future sources of uranium for Iran's atomic effort, like Zimbabwe, that their involvement with the Islamic Republic's nuclear program will come at a steep economic and political cost.
In its ongoing bid to derail Iran's nuclear drive, Capitol Hill is now said to be contemplating new sanctions aimed at further tightening the international noose around Tehran. Iran's flirtation with Zimbabwe strongly suggests that lawmakers would do well to focus less on trying to stop Iran's centrifuges from spinning and more on making sure that Iran's nuclear machinery is running on empty.
Pam Geller’s new poster vandalized by leftist, so sanctimonious she can’t even see why she was arrestedMona Eltahawy is a darling of the feminist progressive left. She was recently attacked in Egypt's Tahrir square. ...another left win...
well, good! This will allow the public to talk about Islam. The more free conversation on the issue the better. they can't frame the con...
it did work for Obama though. Remember Obama Girl? image from the South Florida Chronicle It_is_not_clear_where_or_how the g...
Liberal multiculturalists insist that Islam is the same as other major world religions. As usual, they are full of shit.. The l...
the night before the Boston bombing (that we now know Obama was warned by the Russians about)... we saw a CNN video about the Oklahoma City ...
Israel Matzav: It's official: Government inquiry finds al-Dura 'killing' was a hoax
MFS - The Other News: Report: Top Obama lawyer told of IRS targeting in April. SMOKING GUN: OBAMA MET WITH IRS UNION CHIEF THE DAY BEFORE ...
MFS - The Other News: Former counter terrorism head: FBI never called Ft.Hood 'Workplace Violence'.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has been sitting in a US federal prison in Texas since his photographed midnight arrest by half a dozen deputy she...
but the Third Intifada pages are OK?