Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8599 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Some would argue that this is anti-American propaganda from Israel (so we can be their scapegoat).
Some would argue that they need to be held for treason.
Others see them as products of society where food quality, health, media, and schooling is poor.
Let people like this fight each other in an arena to the death with people of other faiths. Facing death themselves may change the way people think. It's like how most people who eat meat ignore where the meat comes from yet have pets they adore.
Open Letter to Senator/Presidential Candidate Barak Obama
Dear Senator Obama,
We Palestinians, whether in Palestine that was occupied in 1948, or Palestine that was occupied in 1967 and in our diaspora/Ashatat counting now over ten million uprooted people, were shocked and saddened to read your letter addressed to Mr. Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. We were shocked and astonished that you, especially as a U.S. citizen of African roots, would not have remembered the stance of the Zionist state of Israel during the uprising/Intifadah of the non-white people in South Africa. Those men and women, who are a part of the indigenous population of the continent where your roots are still deep in its soil, were not supported in their struggle by Israel. In fact, this rogue state was one of the very few countries in the world to ally itself and supply the apartheid colonizing establishment in South Africa with all its requirements of arms and weapons to maintain its apartheid regime, so that it could fight and subjugate the revolting citizens of the colony, who only sought to obtain equal rights in the place of their birth.
We were astonished to read that you support the apartheid state by saying "Israel has the right to respond".
Has it not occurred to you, Mr. Senator, why the indigenous population of Palestine have been uprising for so many decades, and suffering the death of thousands and thousands of their men and women of all ages including the very young and very old, who are living in refugee camps away from their own homes and land that they had been developing with sweat and blood for thousands of years? We are saddened that a man of your caliber who promotes the rights of the subjugated masses in your great nation, the United States, and everywhere in the world, who condemns the Bush regime because of the wars it is waging around the world resulting in thousands of deaths, with its maimed men and women serving in your nation's armed forces away from their homes and beloved ones expresses such opinions regarding our people. You are aware of the millions of deaths, the men, women and children who have become disabled, and the other millions of individuals who have been uprooted and are living in the status of poor refugees in and out of their homelands as a result of these criminal wars?
Mr. Senator Obama, how is it possible that a personality of your status, caliber and intelligence has missed to read, see and hear the news of how Palestinians in occupied Palestine are treated like slaves if not animals, which is by far worse than the way enslaved Africans were treated for centuries by the American colonizers? Did you read, hear or see how those Palestinians are tortured and dehumanized on the over 750 checkpoints and crossings all over the occupied West Bank of Palestine? Did you hear, read or see how barbaric Zionist colonizers are still stealing more and more Palestinian land to build more Zionist colonies over what remained unoccupied and un-stolen of Palestinian Arab land, and how these wild racist colonialists are cutting down millions of centuries’ old olive trees, razing thousands of acres of farmland, demolishing thousands of residential, office and industrial buildings and leaving thousands of people living in the open air or tents in the heat of the summer or the freezing cold of the winter? We doubt that you don't have the courage to admit that you have heard, seen or read about the apartheid wall that Zionists unashamedly call "security wall" while the main reason is to steal more land in the 22% left of Palestine unoccupied in 1948, and let's not forget the stealing of fresh water resources to be used by Zionist colonialists to be pumped back out of their sewage system as filth and flooded over the fields of the poor Palestinians who have not been colonized yet?! And you turned your face away pretending not to have seen, heard or read about all that and many and many other war crimes the Zionist state of Israel that had been denying Palestinian Arabs to exercise their Right of Return to their stolen homes and land!!!!
It would be a shame if a man of your caliber and status does deny seeing, hearing and reading all about these atrocities against a people that belongs to the human race in the twentieth century, only because he might gain the blessings of the Zionist Israeli lobby, to be elected as president of the United States, while knowing well that those who control the possibilities and means shall put all the barriers and checkpoints in your way to deprive you of this pleasure.
Mr. Obama, have the courage to include among the causes you fight for to admit that Palestinian Arab resistance are the people who are fighting in self defense and not the other way round.
Palestinian resistance, by international legal rules, is accorded every right to use any means to regain all their rights in their land and as human beings, and live in a democratic, free and sovereign state.
Adib S. Kawar
An uprooted Palestinian Arab still living as a refugee for the last 60 years
The endorsement of Barack Obama by MoveOn.org, the progressive antiwar group that represents what remains of the left wing of the Democratic Party, is perfectly understandable. After all, what's an antiwar Democrat to do these days? The party has consistently voted to give George W. Bush all the money he needs to prosecute a war they ostensibly oppose. Furthermore, Bush has resisted all attempts to rein his war policy in by attaching conditions to the funding, and the Lieberman wing of the party has effectively blocked the base from imposing its will on the party's leaders. So how can Democrats vote their conscience? Yes, that's right, you got it: by pulling the lever for Obama.
Of course, it isn't really the case that Obama is antiwar: he may be anti this war – that is, the Iraq war – but one can easily see him sending troops to, say, Pakistan, as he once threatened to, or even Africa, in order to help out his Kenyan friends. Another Kosovo-style "humanitarian" intervention in any of a number of the world's trouble spots is hardly out of the question with Obama in the Oval Office.
Yet elections are all about comparisons, and, compared to his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama is the antiwar candidate – which tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic Party, otherwise known as the other wing of the War Party. The Hollywood debate made this comparison shopping all the more necessary when it came time for Hillary to defend her vote to authorize the Iraq war – which she did, albeit incoherently. Obama took out after her and did quite an effective job of summarizing what is wrong with the prospect of her going up against John McCain:
"I don't want to belabor this because I know we're running out of time, and I'm sure you guys want to move on to some other stuff. But I do have to just say this: The legislation, the authorization, had the title An Authorization to Use Military Force, U.S. Military Force, in Iraq. I think everybody, the day after that vote was taken, understood, this was a vote potentially to go to war. I think people were very clear about that, if you look at the headlines."
Oh, but Hillary claims she was just "trying to get the inspectors in" – besides which, she was "misled," the authority Congress granted the president was "abused," and, after all, it wasn't all that clear at the time what was going on in Iraq:
"Some people now think that this was a very clear, open-and-shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time, which we discovered after the first Gulf War. Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do. So I think I made a reasoned judgment."
This is all wrong: the bombing of Iraq by the Clinton administration was just as wrongheaded, cruel, and unnecessary as the Bush invasion, because, as Hans Blix, former chief of the UN weapons inspection team, put it, the Iraqis "destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991." In an interview with the BBC, Jafar Dhia Jafar, who ran Iraq's nuclear program for some 25 years, said the inspections regime made the program impossible to implement, and chemical and bio-weapons, as well as the nascent nuclear effort, were dismantled in 1991.
If "we had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time," then what Hillary is talking about is "bad stuff" that was destroyed seven years before her rotten husband rained death on the Iraqi people. The inspectors weren't "kicked out" – they were withdrawn at the insistence of Bill, who had been planning the bombing of Iraq for months, as Stephen Zunes points out here. And don't forget that the bombing began the day the full House was to begin debating the articles of impeachment…
How Hillary could get up there and say what she said with a straight face is hard to fathom for us ordinary folks, who don't obsess 24/7 about ways to gain, expand, and consolidate our power. That icy visage and frigid persona contains enough power lust to melt the icecaps, however: to her and her kind, including her husband, lying is second nature, and they'll do it – convincingly – while looking straight into the camera in full sight of millions.
What may have given her the confidence to lie with more conviction than she might otherwise have mustered, however, is the certainty that Obama would never call her on it. Is he really going to get up there, in front of an audience of Democratic loyalists, and denounce Bill for having been complicit in the crimes of Bush and the neocons? That would have gone over like a lead balloon, precisely because it's true. The Iraq Liberation Act, the enabling legislation that unleashed the dogs of war, was drafted by the Clinton administration and supported by the Democratic leadership in Congress.
In spite of Bill Clinton's recent attempt to revise his own history in this regard, he endorsed the war in an interview with Time magazine, during the publicity blitz for his memoir, My Life, in the summer of 2004: "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the Left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the UN inspections were over." Clinton bought into the "weapons of mass destruction" angle and averred that after 9/11, the president had no choice but to make sure that such weapons stayed out of al-Qaeda's hands. "That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for." Unaccounted for – albeit destroyed – because, as president, Bill pulled the inspectors out to make way for his impeachment-inspired bombing.
I have to say that I am surprised and delighted to see that Obama is framing the Iraq question in terms of the coming conflict with Iran. He is alert to the danger, and he is also good on "mission creep," which is a good term to introduce – or reintroduce. But I was especially impressed with his call for a fundamental reevaluation of our foreign policy stance:
"I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place. That's the kind of leadership I intend to provide as president of the United States."
Will Obama deliver? It's possible, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
You'll note how, earlier in his remarks, he framed his dissent from the Iraq war in terms of the urgency of pressing problems elsewhere: Pakistan, which he once said we might have to invade, was specified, along with our "neglect" of Latin America. "China," he breathlessly confided, "is strengthening" – probably because they're investing their money in productive enterprises rather than a lot of costly imperial pretensions.
Translation: There's trouble in our other provinces. We're in danger of losing our empire. Iraq is an unhealthy and costly obsession; let's pull in and conserve our resources.
This does not amount to a fundamental reappraisal of our basic foreign policy stance, but it is enough of a revision to satisfy anyone who is, like me, hungry for some sign of change in our disastrous foreign policy. It is a policy that is not only discrediting us but also bankrupting us, even as it rationalizes and sets the stage for the most serious assault on our constitutional form of government since the Civil War. If Obama can stop our forced march along this path, and even turn us around, then that alone makes him worth supporting – but, as I said, I wouldn't put much faith in this possibility. I see no attempt on his part to articulate a comprehensive critique of American foreign policy, never mind challenge the conventional wisdom of the past 50 years.
Obama's advisers are culled from the Clinton administration, and his campaign is claiming to be more Clintonian than Hillary's when it comes to foreign policy. Indeed, we'll probably see more "humanitarian" interventions with Obama as commander in chief. It's the same old gang of Washington policy wonks who make up his foreign policy advisory team, aptly described by former Bush administration official Philip Zelikow: "These are not outsiders trying to tear down the temple. If you guess that he's surrounded himself with people who are highly ideological, left-wing, or dovish, you would guess wrong."
Number-one influential adviser: Samantha Power, whose book on why America ought to go around the world preventing "genocide" is a bestseller among the do-gooder set. According to her lights, we didn't intervene in the Balkans quickly enough, or for the right reasons, and we should have been at least knee-deep in Darfur by now. That's what "the audacity of hope" is all about when it comes to setting America on a new foreign policy course – but there's not much new about it.
Obama will gladly ride the antiwar wave – in an election that wasn't supposed to be about the war, at least according to our chattering classes – all the way to the White House. Whether he'll deliver is another matter altogether. I tend to think not. Yet I'm glad to see that the war is, again, coming to the fore in this election – and that the antiwar Democratic base is not dead by any means. The MoveOn.org endorsement makes sense, in the context of their generally "progressive" orientation; however, their agenda is a lot broader than my own single-issue focus. They're willing to compromise on the foreign policy front for some kind of government-subsidized healthcare system, for example, and I'm not. And what I see coming down the pike with Obama is more of the same old interventionist tripe that has been disproved, discredited, and disgraced so many times before, yet keeps coming back at us.
Yes, the people cry out for "Change!" When it comes to foreign policy, however, it looks like President Obama's would remind us of that old adage about how the more things change the more they remain the same.
Sen. Obama Says Religious Belief Has Been Exploited In The Name Of Divisive Politics
HARTFORD, Conn., June 24, 2007
(AP) Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right-wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.
“But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a 30-minute speech before a national meeting of the United Church of Christ.
“At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,” he said.
“There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its No. 1 legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich,” Obama said. “I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version.”
A call was placed to the Washington, D.C.-based Christian Coalition of America seeking comment.
Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, a church of about 1.2 million members that is considered one the most liberal of the mainline Protestant groups.
He was warmly received by the crowd of more than 8,000 at the cavernous Hartford Civic Center, and was introduced as “one of ours” by the Rev. John H. Thomas, general minister and president of the United Church of Christ.
Obama was invited to speak to the church's biennial synod more than a year ago, before he declared his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, Thomas said. The freshman Illinois senator was invited to talk about “how personal faith is lived out in the public square,” Thomas said.
In 1972, the church was the first to ordain an openly gay man. Two years ago, the church endorsed same-sex marriage, the largest Christian denomination to do so. Obama believes that states should decide whether to allow gay marriage, and he opposes a constitutional amendment against it.
Conservative Christian bloggers have linked Obama to what they call the “unbiblical” teachings of his church. Theological conservatives believe gay relationships violate Scripture, while more liberal Christians emphasize the Bible's social justice teachings.
Obama trails Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York by 33 percent to 21 percent in the most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll among Democrats and those leaning toward the party.
Consider that no candidate ever courts the secular vote because religion serves its purpose on the masses.
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, June 30, 2006; Page A27
Many Democrats discovered God in the 2004 exit polls.
Specifically, they looked at the importance of religious voters to President Bush's majority and decided: We need some of those folks. Off Democrats went to their Bibles, finding every verse they could -- there are many -- describing the imperative to help the poor, battle injustice and set the oppressed free.
Now, human beings often find God in unexpected places, so why shouldn't the exit polls be this era's answer to the burning bush? And a lot of Democrats insist, fairly, that they were people of faith long before the results of 2004 were tabulated.
Yet there is often a terrible awkwardness among Democratic politicians when their talk turns to God, partly because they also know how important secular voters are to their coalition. When it comes to God, it's hard to triangulate.
So, when a religious Democrat speaks seriously about the relationship of faith to politics, the understandable temptation is to see him as counting not his blessings but his votes. Thus did the Associated Press headline its early stories about Barack Obama's speech to religious progressives on Wednesday: "Obama: Democrats Must Court Evangelicals."
Well, yes, Obama, the senator from Illinois who causes all kinds of Democrats to swoon, did indeed criticize "liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant." But a purely electoral reading of Obama's speech to the Call to Renewal conference here misses the point of what may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican. (You can decide on Obama's speech yourself: The text can be found at http://www.obama.senate.gov/speech .)
Here's what stands out. First, Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief. "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts," Obama declared. "You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it."
In an interview yesterday, Obama didn't back away. "By definition, faith admits doubt," he said. "Otherwise, it isn't faith. . . . If we don't sometimes feel hopeless, then we're really insulating ourselves from the world around us."
On the matter of church-state separation, Obama doesn't propose some contrived balancing act but embraces religion's need for independence from government. In a direct challenge to "conservative leaders," he argued that "they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice."
"Folks tend to forget," he continued, "that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment," but "persecuted minorities" such as Baptists "who didn't want the established churches to impose their views."
Like most liberals who are religious, Obama finds a powerful demand for social justice embedded in the great faith traditions. He took a swipe at those who would repeal the estate tax, saying this entailed "a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it."
But he insisted that social improvement also requires individual transformation. When a gang member "shoots indiscriminately into a crowd . . . there's a hole in that young man's heart -- a hole that the government alone cannot fix." Contraception can reduce teen pregnancy rates, but so can "faith and guidance" which "help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy."
And if you think this sounds preachy, Obama has an answer: "Our fear of getting 'preachy' may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems."
Obama's talk will inevitably be read as a road map for Democrats struggling to speak authentically to people of faith. It's certainly that, but it would be better read as a suggestion that both parties begin to think differently about the power of faith.
"No matter how religious they may or may not be," Obama said, "people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon."
I think I hear some rousing "Amens!" out there -- from Republicans no less than from Democrats.
I am 100% sure that Obama is a shill, if Oprah wants him he must be bad and part of the NWO puppet show, he supports Military action against Iran, if he is saying that now what the hell will he say when he is Big Old Presidenty!
The US needs a totally new system of power sharing with the people, the current system keeps them dumb, ill and scared, just like cattle on a farm, farmers don't want animals to fight back.
Which one of you guys signed the Bill of rights? if your signatures is not on it then it does not protect you.
A NEW brain for Barack Obama! It's 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter.
David Ignatius says Mr Obama should adopt Mr Brzezinski as his foreign-policy guru, on the grounds that Mr Brezinski's latest book, "Second Chance" (reviewed here by the New York Times), offers a one-stop policy framework that can substitute for the senator's lack of experience in the field while making all the right noises about a new direction for America. Here's Mr Ignatius:
Brzezinski argues that the world is undergoing a "global political awakening," which is apparent in radically different forms from Iraq to Indonesia, from Bolivia to Tibet. Though America has focused on its notion of what people want (democracy and the wealth created by free trade and open markets), Brzezinski points in a different direction: It's about dignity.
The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening," he argues ... The next president, Brzezinski writes, will need "an instinctive grasp of the spirit of the times in a world that is stirring, interactive, and motivated by a vague but pervasive sense of prevailing injustice in the human condition."
I don't think he is talking about Newt Gingrich.
It is hard to see from this height what the Brzezinski overview would mean in terms of policy specifics. But the "dignity" rhetoric will sound great in campaign speeches, dock nicely into any domestic policy platform, and, why not, sound good on inauguration day too.
Guys, it's a fit. Connect the pipes.
Yeah this is the same guy who brought about the insurgents who are now the supposed terrorists.
Personally I could care less about the patriot nonsense. However this has been posted for info. World War Three News also seems buddies with prothink and the rest of that bunch. One is free to listen and watch what they please...for now.
An introduction to Barrack Obama's poverty bill (HR 1302) and how the Democratic presidential candidate aims to disarm Americans. Obama's ties to the Jewish-Zionist Israeli lobby known as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is also discussed, while noting that Hillary Clinton and John McCain support the lobby as well. Israel's genocide and admitted goals of bringing about a "holocaust" on the Palestinian people is introduced. The Jewish-Zionist Israeli connection to various significant events of mass murder and terrorism are illustrated, with special attention paid to 9/11 and three major school shootings. Footage taken on the day of the Oklahoma City Bombing is show. Revealing that multiple bombs were placed in the building and that the aim of blowing up the Murray Building was to sabotage the American militia movement; last defense against a tyrannical government controlled by foreign and domestic enemies. A warning is also given that certain factions seem to be setting up the American people for a race war between whites and blacks in which Barrack Obama will be used as the witting or unwitting catalyst. The many faces of the gun control lobby and their ultimate agenda is exposed. That the people calling themselves "Jews" today actually originate from Khazaria is also introduced.
Last edited by edisme on Tue May 06, 2008 12:37 pm; edited 2 times in total