Islamophobia at the GOP convention
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=158577
The rhetoric against Islam and Muslims clearly seeks to alienate the seven-million strong Muslim American community.
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Seven-million strong American Muslim community was dismayed at the Islamophobic rhetoric at the Republican Party Convention that ended in St. Paul, Minnesota on September 4, 2008
Joe Biden “I am a zionist”
Compare Israel’s Actions in Lebanon to Russia’s Actions in Georgia
In very recent times the Israelis claimed that one of their soldiers had been kidnapped across the border into Lebanon. They used that as an excuse to devastate the civilian infrastructure of the whole nation of Lebanon.For a whole month the Jews bombed from the air and flattened by bulldozers apartment blocks, bridges, sewerage works, water reservoirs, buses and fleeing refugees, etc, etc.
It was a repeat of the devastation the Jews had wreaked on Lebanon in the 1980’s when they destroyed civilian infrastructure and murdered thousands of Lebanese. They even attacked and slew thousands of miserable refugees as they huddled in refuge camps.
By contrast, the Russian military has come to Georgia to protect Russian people, 2,000 of whom had been murdered by the Georgians using military weapons supplied by the Jews.
The Russian army is now destroying only military equipment, not the civilian infrastructure as is so often practiced by Israel.
Is it really possible that the war criminal George Bush, his poodle, Condo Rice, along with the whole western press, have not thought to compare the mild actions of the Russians, with the brutality meted out by the Israelis, not only in Lebanon, but in Palestine since 1948?
David Duke.
Obama, The Prince of Bait-and-Switch
Obama, The Prince of Bait-and-Switch
by John Pilger
In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghan istan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, “bait-and-switch” Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.
Those who write of Obama that “when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush” demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, “ideology has surrendered entirely to ‘values’ . . . there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain . . .”
Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses
Obama (and Big Media) Turn Blind Eye to Israeli Apartheid
Whoever votes for Obama would be voting for someone who enables the killing of the Palestinians and would be contributing to the suffering of the Palestinians. Mccain would be the same.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/23/10537/
The presidential campaigns of Democrats and Republicans are no more about placing issues before the US public than competing commercials for new cars or bottled water are about the facts. Brought to us by the same corporate marketers that sell us lifestyles and beer, mainstream presidential campaigns aim to establish and exploit visceral, fact-proof loyalties to the brand of a party or candidate. The fact-proof nature of the Obama brand, and the lengths corporate media go to protect it were on prominent display during the candidate’s brief visit to Israel Palestine this week.
Fashion Police: Flint Cracks Down on Sagging
Some people call it a fad. But for the city of Flint, Mich., that urban style known as ’sagging’ is now a criminal offense.
What are your thoughts? Im 100% behind the Flint police department.
For the Muslims who are supporting the scum Obama
‘No, I can’t!’
By Uri Avnery
After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world’s capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety.
Why, actually? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the U.S. is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel’s security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan “Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity”. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior U.S. presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the U.S. embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the U.S. has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.
Sixty five years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.)
The founders of American society were “pilgrims”, the Zionists immigrants called themselves “olim” - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a “promised land”, believing themselves to be God’s chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as “pioneers”, who make the wilderness bloom, a “people without land in a land without people”. Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the U.S. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.
How is it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: “Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself.”
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obama’s declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: “No, I can’t!”
– Uri Avnery, an Israeli writer and peace activist, founded the Gush Shalom movement. He had served three terms as an MP at the Knesset. This article was published by Gush Shalom.
Are Congressional Democrats Leading Us to War With Iran?
I cant wait to see how the spinless, Obama, would vote on this resolution, although not much hope is to be expected from him.
Why are 96 House Democrats (along with 111 House Republicans) co-sponsoring this resolution? Aren’t these the Democrats who rode into majorities in both houses on public revulsion against war in the Middle East?
According to a recent story on CBS News, the answer seems to be a “full-court press” by the government of Israel and the American-Israeli lobby AIPAC. CBS ran the story Tuesday as Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen was on his way to the Middle East to confer with Israeli government officials. “Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next [U.S.] administration vis-à-vis Iran,” CBS consultant Michael Oren says in the report.
Hence the rush to war?
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/27/9928/#commentsform
Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle Is for Losers
Throughout the primary, Obama referred to himself as an “unlikely candidate.” Which he certainly was — and still is. And one of the things that turned him from “unlikely” upstart to presidential frontrunner is his ability to expand the electorate by convincing unlikely voters — some of the 83 million eligible voters who didn’t turn out in 2004 — to engage in the system.
So why start playing to the political fence sitters — staking out newly nuanced positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death penalty, and NAFTA?
In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked about having called NAFTA “a big mistake” and “devastating.” Obama’s reply: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified.”
Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of which have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage of NAFTA, and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in the trade agreement, that was “overheated?” Or was that one “amplified?”
Because if that’s the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama would let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is “overheated” and/or “amplified,” so voters will know not to get their hopes too high.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/01/10005/
Obama’s FISA Betrayal
Obama’s FISA Betrayal
Barack Obama’s rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.
This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.
The ACLU says it represents “an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.”
Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: “Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”
Here’s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill “allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.”
But it doesn’t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.
Obama said it “firmly reestablishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance.”
But the ACLU notes that the bill “permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment.”
What’s more, in the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues, a process that the ACLU says can take two months.
Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise “a farce” and “political cover.”
Says Feingold: “Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they’ve even read it.”
Has Obama?
If not, that’s a problem.
And if he has, and still approves of it, that’s an even bigger one.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
Copyright 2008 The Progressive Magazine
Why doesnt the fraudulent black zionists stooge have the courage to say this:
The truth about Obama
Barack Wasn’t in Senate for 2002 War Vote and Failed to Vote on Kyl-Lieberman Bill.
by James Buchanan
A recent news article reports that a former adviser of Barack Obama says that Obama may not be able to pull US troops out of Iraq within a year as promised. The American public could have supported a REAL anti-war candidate in the form of Ron Paul. Instead they behaved like nice, obedient sheep and they voted for system-approved candidates, who will continue to fight wars for Israel, run up the national debt, devalue our currency and flood America with illegal aliens.
During one national debate, Obama was asked if he would promise to bring US troops out of Iraq in four years and he said “NO.” It’s a little surprising to hear that Obama was promising crowds of Americans that he would pull troops out within in a year. Many politicians talk out of both sides of their mouth, but promising one thing to adoring crowds and the complete opposite during a debate is a bit much. If anyone has any illusions about Obama being trustworthy and honest, his two-faced approach to Iraq should be a huge red flag. Millions of Americans with relatives in the military will vote for Obama only to see their soldier-relatives stuck there for four more years –unless of course they’re horribly wounded or killed first.
Ron Paul should have told voters about Obama’s contradictory Iraq War positions. Unfortunately Paul was trying to be a nice guy, not criticizing other candidates. Unfortunately, nice guys finish last.
Obama is getting the anti-war vote, but does he really have any track record to support that? Millions of Americans are under the impression that Obama voted against the 2002 Bill to give Bush permission to go to war with Iraq. Most of us have heard news anchors or pundits make this claim. The truth is that Obama was NOT a Senator in 2002 when the Iraq War vote was taken. Obama has only been a Senator since January 2005.
Few Americans knew about the despicable Kyl-Lieberman Bill, which many patriots have criticized as a “stealth” declaration of war on Iran. A few courageous politicians insisted that some of the language be changed because the original form was a de facto invitation for war, and our lunatic president would surely have acted on it. Was Obama bravely fighting to change this bill? Did Obama vote against the bill because its final form might still lead to war? No. Obama failed to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Bill. Apparently casting a vote for peace was not important enough to interrupt Obama’s presidential campaign. Either that or he’s yet another spineless politician who won’t risk offending the Israeli Lobby.
The truth is that Barack Obama is all hype and no substance. His voting record is painfully liberal. The National Debt will probably balloon to 15 trillion by the end of Obama’s first term. If he gives 20 million illegal aliens an Amnesty, that will create a tax burden greater than the one caused by World War Two. The one issue which people think he supports, ending the Iraq War, may not happen during his first term according to Barack himself.
Ron Paul would have pulled our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. The blood of all the US soldiers who uselessly die in Iraq after Jan. 20th, 2009 is on the hands of the people who voted for McCain, Huckabee, Obama and all the other whores for Israel.