Daily Archives: January 29, 2010

Obama is the most reactionary president since Nixon

The Gardian

A Democrat president does not lose Massachusetts without so dispiriting liberals they can longer be bothered to turn out for him. Inattentive foreigners have been slow to spot the demoralisation because their relief at Obama’s inauguration has stopped them realising that his failure to tackle unemployment and his unconscionable delay in punishing the bankers have induced despair among his natural supporters. As has the vacuity of his foreign policy.

I accept that readers may find this a hard sentence to swallow, but when it comes to promoting democracy, the emancipation of women and the liberation of the oppressed, Barack Obama has been the most reactionary American president since Richard Nixon.

Take the undeservedly neglected case of Nyi Nyi Aung. The reason you have never heard of the Burmese-American is that his arrest is an embarrassment to an Obama administration that wants to “engage” with Burma’s military regime. The junta is holding the democracy activist in solitary confinement. If he is receiving the same treatment as its previous inmates, the guards will be forcing him to crawl on all fours, bark instead of talk and eat from a dog bowl. American senators wrote to Hillary Clinton demanding that she intervene and received no concrete commitments. Nyi Nyi’s disgusted American fiancee says that the message America sends the generals is that they can do what they want.

It is not that Obama has adopted a policy of outright appeasement. He decided not to drop the Bush-era sanctions after a long, slow review. But as Mark Farmaner from the Burma Campaign UK group says, European and Asian countries which don’t give a damn about human rights and just want to make money aren’t feeling any pressure from Washington to blacklist the regime. The hope that Burmese democracy campaigners felt at Obama’s election has long gone.

I don’t believe you can understand why he is such a let-down if you hold on to old definitions of liberalism. From Eleanor Roosevelt onwards, the Democrats were meant to believe in universal human rights. Even Jimmy Carter, mocked for his weakness in handling tyrants, tried to make them a part of his foreign policy. The flattering label “realist” – which, like the equally gratifying “sceptic”, is not a badge of honour you can award to yourself – was claimed by Republicans, most notably Nixon, Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger. They maintained they were hard-headed men who could see the world as it is, unlike soppy liberal idealists. They would deal with any regime, however repulsive, that could help advance US interests, and ignore what their allies did to their captive populations.

Obama has stood the distinction on its head. In a forthcoming analysis for the Henry Jackson Society, Lawrence Haas, a former aide to Al Gore, laments the “disappointment” of the Obama presidency with an embarrassment of damning evidence. Obama and Hillary Clinton have explicitly said, for instance, that they will not allow protests about the Chinese Communist party’s treatment of dissent to sour discussion about the economic crisis and climate change. In line with the policy of detente, Obama refused to meet the Dalai Lama for fear of offending China just as Ford refused to meet Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn for fear of offending the Soviet Union.

During the aborted Iranian revolution, brave protesters chanted: “Obama, Obama – either you’re with them or you’re with us” as the cops beat them up. The dithering Obama couldn’t make up his mind which side he was on and insultingly called their country the Islamic Republic of Iran, as if it were the ayatollahs’ property. True, in his Cairo speech to Muslim countries, he said he believed in “governments that reflect the will of the people” – which was big of him – but did not mention the oppression of women. Ever since, his administration has ignored Arab liberals and done next to nothing to promote a settlement in Palestine.

Haas blames the chaos in Iraq for discrediting democracy and teaching Bush’s opponents to sneer at liberal values, but there is more to the conservatism of the Obama administration than that. He comes from an ideological culture which calls itself progressive, but is often reactionary. Many from his political generation use the superficially leftish language of multiculturalism and post-colonialism to imply that human rights are a modern version of imperialism which westerners impose on societies that do not need them. Scratch a relativist and you find a racist and although they do not put it as bluntly as this, their thinking boils down to the truly imperialist belief that universal suffrage or a woman’s right to choose are all very well for white-skinned people in rich countries but not brown-skinned people in poor ones.

The unthinking adulation Obama received would have turned the most level-headed man into an egomaniac. In his first year, he acted as if it was enough not to be Bush, as if his charisma and oratorical brilliance could persuade dangerous leaders to change their behaviour. He cannot believe that after a year of failure. He abandoned Bush’s missile defence programme in an attempt to charm Putin and received no concessions in return. Similarly, his creeping to Ahmadinejad has not produced any diplomatic rewards. Kissinger and Nixon were terrifying figures, who, in the name of “realism”, endorsed regimes that persecuted opponents from East Timor to Chile. Obama, by contrast, doesn’t frighten anyone.

I am glad to see that he turned away last week from the advisers who urged him not to reform Wall Street. Perhaps he is preparing a similar U-turn in foreign policy. In the past month, there have been tentative signs of a change of emphasis. In his Nobel peace prize lecture, he was unequivocal in his support for universal rights and departed from his prepared text to assert that, after all, he was on the side of the Iranian revolutionaries. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has finally managed to speak out in plain language against the censorship of the web by China, Egypt and other dictatorships.

Let us hope that these swallows herald a summer, because if they do not we will be stuck with an American president who combines the weakness of Jimmy Carter with the morals of Richard Nixon.

Source:

Obama Mis-Quotes The Constitution

Right Bias
In a breathtaking statement that showcased Obama’s ignorance of the United States Constitution, President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last Wednesday stated:
“We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal…”

Our Commander-In-Chief was apparently unaware that our Constitution does not enshrine the notion that all men are created equal. That concept that had its origins in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution

Source:

Remembering the Challenger/ January 28, 1986

Source:

Dead Man Walking

Canada Free Press

By Judi McLeod  Friday, January 29, 2010

imageOne day after Obama’s Showcase for Lies State of the Union address and it’s the Obama-Osama show.

In a yet to be verified audiotape, the Al-Qaida leader (read terrorist) warns Al Gore like of the dangers of global warming and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt. (Al-Jazeera, Jan. 29, 2010).

You’re a little late, Mr. bin Laden.  Obama’s been doing that for the past year.

According to a transcript on Al-Jazeera’s web site, the world should “stop consuming American products” and “refrain from using the dollar.”

Odd, isn’t it that both Osama and Obama believe in man made global warming?  Odd, too is that both seem on a path to destroy America’s economy.

But oddest of all is that Osama could be a dead man walking.

In spite of the image of Osama worried in some cave about the dangers of global warming, are the reports of his death.

On Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2001 came this word from FoxNews:”Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.”

Even back then the media was referring to the world’s most notorious terrorist as “Al Qaeda leader”.

“Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains.  The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

“About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some “Taliban friends” attended the funeral rites.  A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the “great leader.”

Dead or alive, it’s peculiar how Osama is now being resurrected as a global warming alarmist.

Osama also came back from obscurity or the dead to take credit for the so-called “underwear bomber”.

The FBI, CIA and detectives worth their salt should be looking into who is behind the last two Osama tapes.

And while they’re out on the hunt,  they should be conducting a study on the DNA of one Barack Hussein Obama.  Without his birth certificate it may be the only way to prove who he really is.

Source:

The Enemy from Within?

TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS IN U.S. GOVERNMENT PROTECT MEMBERS OF HAMAS

The Post & E-Mail

by Sharon Rondeau

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

(Jan. 28, 2010) — The U.S. Treasury Department is openly providing protection to terrorists by removing thousands of names from an international watch list used to prevent European Union funding from reaching terrorist organizations, according to a report dated January 24, 2010 in Israel National News.

According to Avi Tarango, journalist for INN, thousands of names have been removed from the 443-page list of terrorists which is distributed to banks around the world to prevent funding from reaching terrorists or terrorist organizations.  According to Tarango, only the names of groups or subgroups of terrorists remain, while the specific names of individuals are no longer there.

The only name remaining on the list is Musa Abu Marzouk, who, though having received a PhD from the United States, labels himself a top leader of Hamas and has been designated a terrorist since 1995 by the U.S. government.  According to The Investigative Project, “while living in Jordan, Marzook is suspected of having played a significant role in planning and coordinating numerous terrorist attacks within Israel.”  Marzouk was expelled from Jordan in 1995.  In 2004, The Bush administration claimed that he funneled significant funds to the Holy Land Foundation and  indicted him for racketeering.

According to Maggie’s Notebook, on July 22, 2007, the “Pastor’s Page” at Trinity United Church, Obama’s former church, published a manifesto written by Marzouk on its website.   Maggie contends, “The self-stated goal of Hamas (represented in Obama’s church by Marzook’s manifesto) is to rid the world of Israel, believing that Israel has no right to a home in the Holy Land.”

While Obama has denied knowing about Reverend Wright’s extreme views on Israel, the United States, and other matters, a report from CBS News dated March 20, 2007, stated, “Wright said he warned the senator that their association could pose political problems, partly because of his history of supporting Palestinian causes.”

Source:

Obama admits his guilt in, oh, so many ways

WHILE HIS SUPPORTERS FEVERISHLY TRY TO MAKE US LOOK THE OTHER WAY

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

Popular art abounds, about Obama, on the net: it’s just not the image he was working for.

(Jan. 28, 2010) — When historians look back at the “Obama years,” I think they will be hard-pressed on the one hand to explain the fanatical zealotry of his followers who did everything they could to cover for the lies, faults and failings of their false Messiah, and on the other hand, why it took America so long to expel the foreign body from its body politic.

If you consider the grand panorama of what has befallen America in the last three years, you have to admit that Obama is without a doubt the biggest shyster in the history of the world:  an absolute nobody who succeeded in playing on the psychological needs of a far-left rabble to seize power over the most powerful nation in the history of the world — and that, without either being eligible for the office or showing his birth certificate!

But as much as his mentally deranged, and very often perversely illogical, sycophant rabble-supports run hither and thither to shore up his public image, the truth is that Obama admits his guilt in, oh, so many ways.

Take, for example, the most obvious fact:  Obama won’t go on record, affirming that he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

The only time, as far as anyone knows, that it appeared that he affirmed that he was, was on the forms for his candidacy in the State of Arizona, yet even there his campaign was quick to point out, when questioned, that a surrogate signed the statement, and not Obama.

If he was, in good conscience what his supports loudly claim him to be, he’d have no trouble admitting he was a natural born citizen.

Yet in his debate with Alan Keyes he admitted he wasn’t. He’s even admitted he was born in Kenya.  Read the first-hand witnesses’ testimonies.

Obama is, in this aspect, very much an anti-Christic personality. Because whereas Our Most High Lord Jesus Christ did not hide the fact that He claimed to be God and the Son of the One whom His fellow Jews called “God”  — even though many of his followers were unsure of this — so Obama, who won’t claim he is a natural born citizen, is followed about psychologically by a coterie of Marxists, socialists, hippies and terrorist-wannabees who go absolutely berserk in public or private if you question Obama’s natural born citizenship status.

Obama’s followers are thus more dogmatic when it comes to their beliefs in him than even many so-called “Christians” today are in regard to their belief in Jesus Christ.

That’s just not normal.  It’s not even healthy, politically or psychologically.

You can get a pulse on what the Net thinks about Obama by Googling “Obama is not a natural born citizen.” You will find 3.96 million mentions in the Google database.  I’d have to say that that is not indicative of a successful propaganda campaign, to say the least.

But Obama admits his guilt in other ways.  He won’t even show his original vital record or birth certificate.  Not to his critics, not to his opponents, not to the Supreme Court Justices, not to Congress.  It seems that he won’t even show it to his campaign, because the Daily KOS and Factcheck.org had to put out forgeries to respond to demands to see it.

That is not just strange, that is weird.  A person who acts that way is obviously suffering from an extreme psychological problem of hyper-insecurity. A fact proven by his 132 references to himself in his State of the Union speech.

Obama admits he was not born in Hawaii, too, because he claims it every day, but will not show any proof of it.  Why is that?  Why go to the lengths of hiding your birth certificate for three years, in the meantime cajoling the entire nation through your campaign, your political operatives in the media, and through Dr. Fukino in Hawaii to claim you are born in Hawaii:  why not just show your $15 birth certificate?

What the media won’t mention is that Fukino also said he had “original vital records,” an apparent admission that someone amended his place of birth (cf. Analysis section of “His Name is Steve Dunham”).

The most that independent researchers have uncovered is that there was the birth announcement for someone born on Aug. 4, 1961 in two Hawaii papers.  But who that was, we have no way of knowing, because the papers do not report the name or sex of the child; they don’t even identify the place of birth.

If you Google “Obama is guilty” you will find 692,000 hits in Google’s database: that has just surpassed “Bush is guilty” by 30,000 — so much for that “Change we can believe in!” slogan.

Moreover, Obama’s proficiency at mendacity has, consequently, become almost proverbial.  One day parents will scold their children saying, “Now don’t you be another Obama!” when catching them in a lie.  One day it will be said in the halls of Congress, “The last thing we need is another Kenyan in the White House!” to signify the disdain for a politician who is without character and integrity.

If you don’t believe that, just Google it:  “Obama lies” has 347,000 mentions in its database; that surpasses even Lucifer himself, who with “Satan lies” gets only 197,000, and “the Devil lies,” 148,000!

That’s a stunning accomplishment, considering Old Sparky’s been around since the dawn of creation.

Well, I’ll give the guy this much credit:  at least Obama has managed to become the object of envy in Hell, so he can be sure of having a bright and fiery future when Sparky takes it out on him for it!

Source:

White House orders Justice Department to look for other places to hold 9/11 terror trial

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his arrest in March 2003.

HO

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after his arrest in March 2003.

CLICK TO ENLARGE: POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR KSM TERROR TRIAL.

Daily News

CLICK TO ENLARGE: POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR KSM TERROR TRIAL.

The White House ordered the Justice Department on Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.

The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

“It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.

“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”

State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was “pleased” by the decision and said the White House also told him Thursday night it backs a possible move.

Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke “with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives,” said the senator’s spokesman, Josh Vlasto.

The order to consider new venues does not change the White House’s position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.

“President Obama is still committed to trying Mohammed and four other terrorist detainees in federal court,” spokesman Bill Burton said yesterday.

“He agrees with the attorney general’s opinion that … he and others can be litigated successfully and securely in the United States of America, just like others have,” Burton said.

Burton referred questions about the location debate to the Justice Department. While not commenting publicly, a department official disputed the characterization that the White House ordered the possible move.

But another insider told The News that Justice officials have been caught off guard by the fiery opposition in New York.

“They’re in a tizzy at Justice over Bloomberg,” a federal law enforcement official said. “It’s like a half-baked souffle – the plan is collapsing.”

Julie Menin, the chairwoman of Community Board 1 who helped rally opposition to the plan, called the shift “a step in the right direction.”

“I’m thrilled the White House is reconsidering,” Menin said. “The trial has to be moved out of New York City.”

Meanwhile, a source told The News that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly was the driving force behind the push by Manhattan business leaders to change the mayor’s mind on the trial.

Kelly made an “extremely powerful” speech to a roomful of 150 prominent business leaders about how disruptive and costly the trial would be for lower Manhattan at an annual police charity event on Jan. 13, the source said.

“What turned this around was when Ray made a presentation to the Police Foundation,” the source said. “Everyone went from thinking, ‘Justice will be served’ to thinking ‘We are screwed.’”

What followed was a barrage of complaints to the mayor from some of New York’s most powerful tycoons – part of a tide of pressure that led Bloomberg to turn against hosting the trial.

Estimates put the cost of a multiyear terror trial in lower Manhattan at about $200 million a year. Leaders have suggested other venues for the trial, such as the Military Academy at West Point or Stewart Air National Guard Base in upstate Newburgh.

The federal government has said they would reimburse the city for the costs, most of which cover overtime for increased security, but they won’t reimburse business owners for lost revenue during the chaos, said Steven Spinola, president of the heavyweight business group Real Estate Board of New York.

“Is the federal government going to give the city $1 billion plus the cost of propping up businesses? I don’t think so,” Spinola said.

“The mayor clearly has been thinking about this. The tide is turning,” He said.

With Kenneth Lovett, James Gordon Meek and Rocco Parascandola