Note : Obama never looks Putin straight in the Eyes .
Note : Obama never looks Putin straight in the Eyes .
Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform blog,
Our interventionist foreign policy is the gift that keeps on giving. Is there any Middle Eastern country that we haven’t screwed up yet? Oh yeah – Iran. Give Obama and McCain time. That will be the clusterfuck that destroys the world.
A little background first. The writer of this report is Wayne Madsen who is former Office of Naval Intelligence and then National Security Agency, and now a Washington ‘reporter’. All the details here will be accurate but the turf war between the CIA and DIA continues so it’s fair to say Madsen AKA The military industrial complex is shilling to see Romney in power against the CIA who want their man Obama in power. I’m not sure it makes much difference in the long run but facts are facts and Russia Today has long asked if Obama is running on programmed multiple personalities. Meanwhile most of the population struggles to deal with the uncontested information (included in his Wikipedia entry) that Barack Obama was legally known as Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. The US deserves everything it has coming to it if negligence has any repercussions Most people have no idea what I’m writing about and are unable to process it even if they can.
My election prediction
What’s particularly nervy — galling, really — about the idea that the US ought to be spreading our democratic system across the globe is the fact that we don’t have anything close to democracy in this country. Nor do we have what the Founders intended to create: a republic, where the power of the state is limited by the Constitution. This is underscored every time Americans go to the polls, where they are confronted with “choices” determined by lawmakers whose chief interest in life is getting reelected with as little opposition as possible. These guardians of the polity have made it virtually impossible for so-called third parties — i.e. parties not controlled by corporate interests and foreign lobbyists — to even get on the ballot.
And if you don’t like this state of affairs, and take action, the State will smack you right in the face. Take the case of Richard Winger, the third party expert and political analyst, editor of Ballot Access News, who, together with other interested parties, sued the state of California so that all candidates would have an equal right to show their party label on the ballot. With the passage of an “open primary” law, which effectively abolished third parties, California’s third party candidates couldn’t even identify themselves on the ballot. The lawsuit failed, however, and the judge ruled that the plaintiffs had to pay the court costs of the big corporate moneybags who had sponsored the “open primary” legislation to being with. Winger and his fellow third partiers got a bill for $243,279.50.
Isn’t “democracy” wonderful?
Well, no, it isn’t, not the current American version, which merely serves to legitimize — in a “legal” sense, at any rate — what is in reality an oligarchy. As this election season dramatized once again, the differences between the two state-subsidized state-privileged “parties” is chiefly rhetorical: this came through loud and clear during the Obama/Romney foreign policy “debate,” but it’s true on domestic issues as well. The bipartisan consensus is clear: maintain the Welfare-Warfare State pretty much as it has existed since the New Deal, with allowances made for trimming around the edges here and there. No matter who wins this election, the victor will have to impose a program of “austerity,” i.e. burdening the lower and middle classes with new taxes and program cuts, while granting new opportunities for corruption and cronyism to the political class and the oligarchs, foreign as well as domestic.
Libertarians are not small-‘d’ democrats: we don’t believe in the efficacy or legitimacy of the system — but we don’t (or shouldn’t) disdain it. For this is the one concession an otherwise authoritarian-minded political class must make in order to continue their system of “legalized” thievery and mass murder. They must ask, if only symbolically, for the consent of the governed — what Ayn Rand called “the sanction of the victim.”
But we don’t have to be victims: we can utilize this chink in the armor of the State to drive a stake through its rotten heart — because any and all weapons in the battle for liberty must be in our arsenal. Yet we also should have no illusions: everyone saw how the GOP leadership, in league with the Romneyites, stole a good half of Ron Paul’s delegates to the national convention. It was such a brazen display of thievery that the Republican governor of Maine — where arguably the most egregious rip-off took place — refused to attend the Tampa coronation.
And it isn’t just about the Paulians. Every dissident tendency in the country has been silenced by repressive ballot access laws which give the oligarchic parties ample “legal” ammunition to keep outsiders off the ballot. Previously, Democratic party lawyers practically followed Ralph Nader around the country as he tried to attain ballot status, suing to keep him off as soon as he qualified and all too often succeeding. The Republicans targeted Gary Johnson in the same way this year. A more disgusting display of “legal” repression” has never even occurred in such bastions of “democratic” authoritarianism as Belarus and Putin’s Russia. Indeed, it is easier for a political party to attain national ballot status in Russia today than it is for the Libertarian party or the Green party to get on the ballot in, say, Pennsylvania.
Congressional districts are so gerrymandered into shapes which give the incumbent a job for life that we might as well make the office appointive, or even hereditary. That way, the American political class can confer on itself all the titled magnificence and glitz of its model and progenitor: the British aristocracy.
In the face of a steady assault of election spending legislation attempting to limit contributions, and requiring all kinds of “disclosure” — conceivably subjecting donors to official retribution — the near invincibility of incumbency is a fact of American political life in much of the country.
The War Party has two wings: the Democrats and the Republicans. All others are outsiders, whose ability to storm the gates is “legally” restricted by a nearly impassable series of bureaucratic obstacles designed to keep them out while still maintaining the “democratic” illusion, i.e. the phony two-party system, which is in reality a single entity.
It is a delicate operation, in the course of which the political class must walk a fine line between repression and allowing some degree of free expression. This year how that line is drawn, and who draws it, is going to make a big difference — and perhaps a decisive one.
There’s nothing like an election to show up the essential fraudulence of the democratic system, particularly how it’s practiced in America. Nothing makes this point clearer than the Republican voter suppression campaign, which is designed to keep African-Americans, Latinos, and others from voting. Aside from the ugly racial implications of this deplorable effort, one can kind of see the Republicans’ point: after all, with a candidate so widely and intensely disliked, even by his own supporters, what else can they try? Asking people for all kinds of identification at the polls, and putting partisan zealots on guard asking people to identify themselves, is straight out hooliganism. Did you think the Romneyites were above that?
As I write, we don’t know who will win this presidential election, but I made my prediction long ago and I’m sticking to it. I even half-seriously averred that, by nominating a complete nonentity, the Republicans were deliberately throwing the election. Romney’s candidacy postponed the ideological blood feud that’s going to break out when he goes down to a well-earned defeat, but the Karl Rove/Fox News grand poobahs of the GOP can’t delay it indefinitely. Just add the Ron Paul vote to the Republican column, the day after the President declares victory, and see what you come up with. Most of Paul’s voters stayed home on election day, or else voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian standard-bearer this time around.
And that, I predict, will make all the difference.
When the President spoke of voting as “revenge” the other day, the wimpish girlish Republicans immediately started up a chorus of whining — one reason why they’re such losers, and why they deserve to lose. Yet I was heartened to hear Obama say it, not only because revenge is such a major (albeit unacknowledged) factor in politics, but because it’s particularly appropriate this election year, and even more so from my own ideological perspective. Because what we’ll see, this Election Day, might justifiably be called Ron Paul’s revenge, and, as Ralph Cramden would put it:
“How sweet it is!”
Okay, I’m posting this on Election Day, before the results are in: tune in here for an update after we know who won, and by how much, to see me either exult in the sheer accuracy of my prophecy, or else eat crow.
Update: It’s 8:13 pm PST, and the President has been reelected. Once again, the neocons have dragged the GOP down to defeat. Netanyahu placed his bet on the wrong horse. In spite of soaring unemployment, a collapsing economy, and widespread disenchantment with the incumbent, the Republicans still managed to lose.
Conservatives will claim it’s because Romney stood for nothing — and that’s true in terms of domestic policy. He reversed himself on every major domestic issue, from health care to abortion and tax policy. But on foreign policy he did stand for something: a huge increase in the military budget in spite of our looming bankruptcy, unconditional support for Israel on each and every issue, and war with Iran. This was the main dividing line between the Ron Paulians and the Romneyites, and the main reason why no endorsement from Paul (the elder) was forthcoming. Given the closeness of the election in several key states, particularly Ohio — the state that put the President over the top — support from Paul’s voters would have made the difference. Ron got over 113,000 votes there in the GOP primary.
And that made all the difference.
Update : related post from VT :
My wife and I went to the voting booths this morning before work. There were 4 older ladies running the show and 3 voting booths that are similar to a science fair project in how they fold up. They had an oval VOTE logo on top center and a cartridge slot on the left that the volunteers used to start your ballot.
I initially selected Obama but Romney was highlighted. I assumed it was being picky so I deselected Romney and tried Obama again, this time more carefully, and still got Romney. Being a software developer, I immediately went into troubleshoot mode. I first thought the calibration was off and tried selecting Jill Stein to actually highlight Obama. Nope. Jill Stein was selected just fine. Next I deselected her and started at the top of Romney’s name and started tapping very closely together to find the ‘active areas’. From the top of Romney’s button down to the bottom of the black checkbox beside Obama’s name was all active for Romney. From the bottom of that same checkbox to the bottom of the Obama button (basically a small white sliver) is what let me choose Obama. Stein’s button was fine. All other buttons worked fine.
I asked the voters on either side of me if they had any problems and they reported they did not. I then called over a volunteer to have a look at it. She him hawed for a bit then calmly said “It’s nothing to worry about, everything will be OK.” and went back to what she was doing. I then recorded this video.
There is a lot of speculation that the footage is edited. I’m not a video guy, but if it’s possible to prove whether a video has been altered or not, I will GLADLY provide the raw footage to anyone who is willing to do so. The jumping frames are a result of the shitty camera app on my Android phone, nothing more.
Submitted by JohnPhillipSousaon Tue, 11/01/2011 – 03:47
“Dear President Obama,
“As a Doctor, an Air Force Veteran, and Congressman, who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee and has always fought for the best interest of our troops, I was deeply concerned to learn that our military retirees are now facing benefit cuts under your proposed $1.5 trillion dollar tax hike.
“Our military men and women have fought bravely. In exchange, our country made a promise to them, and we must honor it.
“There are trillions of dollars in unwise and unconstitutional spending we must cut. There are few other leaders in Washington willing to cut spending as deeply as I am and truly balance our budget. But, we must make sure we take care of our Veterans who fought to take care of us.
“We have put our troops in harm’s way, and we must honor our promises. And, our troops have paid a heavy price these past ten years. Over 5,000 have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, 40,000 have seen crushing injuries, and hundreds of thousands more suffer from brain injury and post traumatic stress disorder.
“Failing to meet the promises we have made to our troops would be unjust and immoral. The cuts you announced yesterday, combined with the rumored cuts in benefits reported in publications like Army Times, have our soldiers and Veterans deeply concerned.
“Mr. President, instead of cutting our Veterans benefits, I call on you to support our troops. Support them by bringing them home to our shores, to protect our borders and defend our country. Ensure that they are rested and equipped to repel any real credible attack. Re-unite them with their families. And, make sure they no longer play policeman in dangerous foreign civil wars.
“Cutting the benefits of our Veterans benefits while we subsidize the security of other wealthy nations like Germany and Japan and play World Policeman makes no sense. The money we would save extracting our fighting men and women and our equipment from overseas conflicts and regions will more than offset the savings you seek by upending the manner in which veterans receive care.
“Bringing our troops home would ensure that we keep the promise to our Veterans, strengthen our national defense and secure our borders.
“Do not mistake me for a pacifist or a person solely focused on the economics of the unsustainable global security and state-building that has helped our country arrive at the shores of financial ruin. On the contrary, I consider my military service as an Air Force flight surgeon during the Cold War to be among my highest personal and professional achievements.
“Authentic, Constitutionally-sound national security — a strong national defense — begins with guarding our borders and not the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
“Mr. President, I call upon your to support our troops, honor our Veterans, and ensure our wounded get the care they deserve. To do so, we must end these protracted, trillion-dollar wars and bring them home.”
by Dana Gabriel
September 20th, 2011
(BeYourOwnLeader) – The U.S. and Canada are very close to unveiling a North American perimeter security deal that would promote greater integration between both countries. This includes expanding collaboration in areas of law enforcement and intelligence sharing which could dramatically affect sovereignty and privacy rights. While there is a need for more public scrutiny, incrementalism has been used to advance North American integration. In many ways this has kept the agenda under the radar. Much like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a U.S.-Canada perimeter security agreement would represent another step in the consolidation of North America.
During his speech at a recent meeting of northern border states, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told participants that the U.S. and Canada are set to launch a pilot project next year which will allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border. Holder explained that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” He went on to say, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.” The declaration, Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness issued by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last February, identified joint law enforcement operations and information sharing as a high priority. There are already examples of what we could expect from a security perimeter as some Canadians have been denied entry into the U.S. after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
While further details of the new joint law enforcement project are not yet available, Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians pointed out that the plans are well advanced. This prompted him to question, “why is Harper consulting with Canadians on a done deal? We haven’t had a chance to yea or nay the perimeter agreement which is expected to be released as an ‘action plan’ within weeks. But a pilot project that legalizes and normalizes US policing activities in Canada is already set to begin next year.” He added that this confirms, “the Harper government will use its limited public consultations earlier this year to move ahead quickly with whatever new cross-border policing and information sharing commitments it wants, regardless of privacy and other concerns.” Last month, the Canadian government released two reports which summarized public input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well as security and trade across the border. While improving the movement of goods and people was the priority for business groups, many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty, along with the protection of personal information.
On top of announcing plans to create teams of cross-designated officers, Attorney General Eric Holder took time to praise bilateral relations between the two countries, but acknowledged, “there are areas in which the U.S. and Canada can enhance cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions. And I believe we must consider how extradition, and mutual legal assistance, processes could be streamlined.” He also stated, “As Canada’s national government considers various anti-crime policies and approaches, we will continue working to implement a comprehensive anti-crime framework.” Does this mean that as part of a security perimeter, Canada would have to change its legal system to better reflect U.S. laws? As the fall session of Parliament gets underway, the Harper government is set to table tough new criminal reform legislation.
In the report entitled Shared Vision or Myopia: The Politics of Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, former Foreign Service officer Gar Pardy warns that a perimeter security deal with the U.S. could sacrifice Canadians privacy while doing nothing to improve the flow of trade across the border. In his report, Pardy reveals that “The concessions the Americans want is the transfer of enormous amounts of information about Canadians and others about whom Canada collects information. It is evident that to meet such expectations Canadian privacy laws will need to be ignored, violated or weakened.” He also stated that, “The Shared Vision approach essentially promotes the idea that in order to restore the status quo ante implicit in the free trade agreements there have to be large political concessions by Canada that will satisfy American security concerns.” This could explain the Conservative government’s announcement that it will reintroduce anti-terrorism measures which have expired and are on par with sections of the liberty-stripping U.S. Patriot Act. The move is tied to plans for a security perimeter and is aimed more at satisfying U.S. fears.
In his report released by the Rideau Institute, Gar Pardy also warns that, “when Canada–United States privacy protection principles are under bilateral discussion, privacy protection will not be increased. A more likely result is that existing Canadian privacy laws, as flawed as they are, will erode to meet the demands of the United States.” As part of his report, he recommended measures that would better protect privacy rights and encourage transparency. This included all new agreements with the U.S. affecting the privacy rights of Canadians, be reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. Pardy called for the creation of a single authority to oversee all federal police and security organizations participating in information transfers between both countries. He also recommended a separate treaty that would protect personal information transferred to the U.S. for national security purposes. With regards to a perimeter security deal, Pardy concluded that, “If Canadian concessions on security and privacy rules do result in the lessening of American border restrictions and controls then such results would always be hostage to future events over which Canada has no control.”
It is important to keep in mind that the move towards a North American security perimeter is being done without congressional or parliamentary approval. There is no reason to trust that our governments will strike any kind of balance between security and freedom. That is why it is imperative that we demand more transparency and input. With a joint action plan expected to be released soon, it is my hope that Canadians and Americans will reject any perimeter security deal that reduces privacy rights and further puts our sovereignty at risk.
Source: Be Your Own Leader
Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact:email@example.com
Related articles by Dana Gabriel
The Push for a Single Unified North American Regulatory Regime
U.S. Dictating North American Air Travel Security
Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated
Advancing U.S.-Canada Economic, Energy and Security Integration
Watch what Obama has to say about the Involvement of the US Troops in Libya .(at the end of the Video)
An MSNBC hit piece that attempts to debunk Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik’s assertion that Osama Bin Laden died from Marfan syndrome in 2001 unwittingly provides corroboration from a top Cornell doctor who first made similar statements in an interview with Salon magazine two months after 9/11.
Pieczenik, a State Department official in three different administrations and an award-winning Harvard Medical School luminary, told The Alex Jones Show last week that the alleged raid on Bin Laden’s compound was a fable because Osama had already been dead for the best part of a decade. Pieczenik originally appeared on the show back in April 2002 when he asserted that Bin Laden had been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse.
Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.
According to French intelligence reports, CIA agents visited Bin Laden at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001, two months before 9/11.
It was also widely acknowledged at the time that Bin Laden needed a kidney dialysis machine because of renal health problems. Indeed, CBS News reported that Bin Laden was having kidney dialysis treatment the night before 9/11. No dialysis machine was found in the alleged compound in Pakistan, which prompted the corporate media to backtrack and report that that he actually had kidney stones, not kidney disease, despite the fact that the CIA admitted back in 2008 that Bin Laden had suffered from kidney failure.
Other accounts from 2000-2001 claimed that Osama was also suffering from Hepatitis C and had only two more years to live. Despite all these health problems, on Saturday the White House released video footage of Bin Laden which it claimed was filmed in fall 2010, although the clips show a younger and healthier looking Osama compared with video footage from 2001.
Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer and can cause instant death from the sudden rupture of the aorta.
“Back then, after the 9/11 terror attacks, medical experts weighed in on bin Laden’s tall, frame, lanky limbs and long face, all classic physical symptoms of Marfan syndrome,” states the MSNBC report.
The article then quotes Dr. Richard Devereux, a clinician who treats patients with the illness at the Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York. In a November 9, 2001 interview with Salon magazine, Devereux said of Bin Laden, “He is Marfanoid. He seems to have long fingers and long arms. His head appears to be elongated and his face narrow … It’s certainly conceivable that he has the Marfan syndrome and could be evaluated for it.”
After MSNBC attempted to speak to the doctor again on the topic in light of Bin Laden’s alleged assassination, they were told by a hospital spokesman that Devereux “doesn’t want to talk about bin Laden now.”
Despite MSNBC’s best efforts to debunk Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden died from Marfan syndrome in 2001 – they go on to quote another doctor who claims that Bin Laden never had the illness – Pieczenik’s source for the information comes directly from intelligence files that he saw over nine years ago confirming that the terror leader was dead. This means that the entire narrative of Bin Laden’s alleged assassination put out by the Obama administration is an act of mass public deception. Obama has benefited enormously from cultivating a ‘tough guy’ image out of the fabled raid, enjoying a 13 point approval rating bounce according to an Associated Press poll.
Pieczenik’s credibility is beyond reproach (bio). As well as serving under five US presidents, he wrote the book on psychological warfare and counter terrorism for the State Department, while also developing foundational strategies for hostage rescue that were later employed around the world. He also won two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards while studying at Harvard Medical School.
Pieczenik’s record underscores the fact that he is one of the most deeply connected men in intelligence circles over the past three decades plus. He was a top spymaster involved in all manner of black-ops, undercover missions and classified work.
Pieczenik’s assertion that Bin Laden has been dead for years is also backed up by a myriad of other intelligence professionals and heads of state, including Former CIA officer and hugely respected intelligence & foreign policy expert Robert Baer, as well as former FBI counter-terror head Dale Watson, who have all gone on the record to state that Osama was dead long before the raid on his alleged Pakistani compound earlier this month.
Paul Joseph Watson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Paul Joseph Watson
A heated debate has unfolded about Barack Obama’s place of birth. Officially, the president was born a US citizen in the State of Hawaii, but numerous elements prove that he was actually born in Kenya under British rule. In that case, he would not be eligible for the office of the U.S. presidency.
Several lawsuits were initiated – in particular by Mr Philip Berg - calling on Obama to produce his birth certificate, but in vain. He systematically chose not to be represented in court and to pay a fine instead.
Having recently announced his intention to run for a second mandate, Barack Obama finally decided to dispel doubts by releasing the document on the White House blog on 27 April 2011.
That same day, US citizen Albert Renshaw posted on YouTube a video showing that by downloading the document in Pdf format then opening it in Adobe Illustrator software, it can be clearly seen that it was doctored. The different layers reveal that several entries were erased and written over.
Intrigued, we followed the exact same procedure, arriving at the conclusion that it is indeed a forgery, and a crude one at that.
By Kourosh Ziabari / STAFF WRITER
When Barack Obama entered the oval office with his luminous and glowing slogan of “change” which appealed to millions of frustrated Americans who couldn’t tolerate the hawkish and warmongering policies of George Bush anymore, it was hardly predictable that he would be going to simply present a moderated example of his aggressive predecessor who owed his legitimacy and power to the Zionist lobby in the United States.
Barack Obama had deceitfully convinced the world that the United States under his presidency would start a new era of dialogue and friendship with the oppressed nations, refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of other countries, take care of its black human rights record, pull out its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and hand over the administration of these countries to their people, draw an end to the atrocities of the Zionist regime, bring about wellbeing and peace for the Palestinian nation and engage in peaceful diplomacy with Iran; that was why more than 130 political leaders from around the world jubilantly sent him congratulatory messages upon his election as the president of the United States. However, all of these politicians recognized that they were shrewdly tricked by the “snowman of change” as soon as he made his first trip to Israel and announced his sincerest commitment to the security of Israel and implicitly made us understand that pleasing his Zionist bosses is his first priority. That was where all of us realized that Obama is another Israel agent put in the place of the executive administrator of the United States to satisfy the needs and demands of the Zionist lobby.
In a January 2010 article in Huffington Post, journalist and activist Steve Sheffey presented a detailed record of Obama’s pro-Israeli decisions and statements during his first year in office as the U.S. President, elaborately arguing that Obama has been one of the most loyal and faithful people to the cause of Israel and the Zionist lobby.
According to Sheffey, Obama is the first U.S. President who has ever hosted a “Seder” in the White House. Seder is a Jewish ritual service and ceremonial dinner for the first night or first two nights of Passover, a major spring festival which commemorates what the Zionists claim is the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian servitude.
On December 21, President Obama signed a defense spending bill that includes $202 million in funds for Israel’s missile defense programs. “We are tremendously pleased with the ongoing cooperation between the United States and the State of Israel in the area of missile defense,” an Israeli official said after Obama signed the bill.
Sheffey adds that “no Administration in history has come into office with a Vice President, Secretary of State, and Chief of Staff with stronger pro-Israel credentials than this one.”
On June 4 in Cairo, President Obama told the Arab and Muslim world that America’s connection with Israel is “unbreakable.” He told the Arab and Muslim world that to deny the Holocaust is “baseless, ignorant, and hateful.” He told them that threatening Israel with destruction is “deeply wrong.” He said that “Palestinians must abandon violence” and that “it is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus.” And he said that “Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”
All of these actions and statements which are purely directed at gratifying the Zionist regime and the active Zionist lobby in the United States indicate that President Obama is no different than George W. Bush and those before him who considered the security and stability of Israel their vital and crucial commitment.
Today, it’s almost clear to everyone that no politician with an anti-Zionist mindset could ever dream of living in the White House. This is what Prof. Naseer Aruri, the renowned political scientist and author has mentioned in his recent interview published on Veterans Today: “the American political system has institutional and constitutional barriers against anti-Zionists winning the U.S. presidency. Take for example the Electoral College by which Americans elect their presidents. The EC stipulates that a candidate to the presidency must gain plurality and the winner takes all. These two factors (plurality and winner takes all) tend to polarize the system and promote the two party system. In that setting, there is no place for a minority, which is likely to be the anti-Zionist mindset.”
Now, Barack Obama has launched his electoral campaign for the 2012 presidential elections and faces a painstaking mission to accomplish. From one hand, he has lost the confidence of the ordinary American citizens who had come to believe that his slogan of change was a genuine and authentic one. On the other hand, he should seek the indispensable vote of the American Jews who have always played a vital role in determining the results of the presidential elections in the United States.
Obama has recently encountered a quandary which the Zionist Jews in the United States has created for him. According to the Agence France Presse Israel’s chief Ashkenazi rabbi Yonah Metzger on Sunday called on U.S. President Barack Obama to free Jewish-American spy Jonathan Pollard if he wants Jews to vote for his reelection.
Metzger warned Obama that he would do well to free Pollard if he wanted another term in the White House. “I’m not making a prophesy, but rather echoing the frustrations of numerous American Jews who voted for him and are disappointed by his lackadaisical approach to the numerous appeals for Pollard’s released,” he said.
However, the emancipation of Pollard is not the only order of the Zionist lobby for Barack Obama. The U.S. House of Representatives introduced the resolution 1734 on December 15, 2010 in which it was categorically demanded from President Obama to refuse to recognize an independent Palestinian nation. Former BBC Panorama presenter Alan Hart believes that this resolution was drafted by AIPAC and is considered to be the Zionist lobby’s new order for Obama. The resolution has expressively called upon the Administration “to affirm that the United States would deny any recognition, legitimacy, or support of any kind to any unilaterally declared “Palestinian state” and would urge other responsible nations to follow suit, and to make clear that any such unilateral declaration would constitute a grievous violation of the principles underlying the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process.”
Anyway, Barack Obama will be facing a serious dilemma in his path toward the 2012 Presidential Elections. Satisfying the Zionist lobby, regaining the confidence of the American public and compelling the international community that he deserves to be a Nobel Peace Prize laureate are all the responsibilities which seem to be quite unachievable and far-fetched for the so-called man of change.
Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist and media correspondent. Read more about him here
“WE CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH, SOME OF US ANYWAY”
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
America is in its 10th year of war in Afghanistan and losing. Everyone there hates us, we haven’t won a single “heart” or “mind.” We have succeeded in building an empire of opium and heroin on a scale never before imagined.
Millions at home, tens of millions in Russia, Europe and around the world have been destroyed by the flood of narcotics distributed with deadly efficiency by a combination of rogue military and intelligence operations and the contracting firms we payed to protect us.
American corruption, incompetence and brutality has recruited hundreds of thousands into a war against the United States who could otherwise have been our allies. This is the simple truth of it.
The entire premise for Afghanistan was a lie. Not long ago, Ron Paul exposed even the first Gulf War as a lie, Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was authorized and supported by the United States. This is one of the uncelebrated Wikileaks accomplishments.
Everybody knows, and I do so love saying this, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, that the whole thing was set up by Israel. 5000 Americans died uselessly. Let’s face it, “uselessly” is the right term, no way about it. We can handle the truth.
There is so much “hard proof” of these things, you could convict “OJ,” even with Alan Dershowitz defending him.
The “proof” of the cover story dissolved years ago, the phony investigation, the phony engineering study, all a sick joke, with the emphasis on “sick.” Anyone who accepts this bilk is simply too stupid to live.
We are preparing to put a “hijacker” on trial soon.
First of all, it isn’t really a trial at all, its some sort of military kangaroo court thing, quite illegal, quite unconstitutional, no surprise there.
Hey, it gets even better.
We aren’t even sure who we have. Not only did this guy have nothing to do with 9/11, according to intelligence sources, he probably is just so schmo we “bought” back during the Bush administration, some nameless victim like the dozens or even hundreds, perhaps thousands, we kidnapped, tortured (and executed) by “mistake.”
It was never a mistake. It was a “ploy.” Bush and Cheney needed “numbers” to sell the idea that they were winning the “GWOT.” (Global War on Terror) They gave these instructions:
This is the truth. This is what the facts support. This is what we need to admit to and these are the crimes we need to redress, to our own people and people around the world.
We have become everything we ourselves fear most. No more fairy tales, no more bedtime stories, no more lies.
|by Muammar al-Gaddafi*
5 April 2011
Our son, Excellency,
We have been hurt more morally that physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you. Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the U.S.A. We Endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaigne. You are a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action. I am sure that you are able to shoulder the responsibility for that. Enough evidence is available, Bearing in mind that you are the president of the strongest power in the world nowadays, and since Nato is waging an unjust war against a small people of a developing country. This country had already been subjected to embargo and sanctions, furthermore it also suffered a direct military armed aggression during Reagan’s time. This country is Libya. Hence, to serving world peace … Friendship between our peoples … and for the sake of economic, and security cooperation against terror, you are in a position to keep Nato off the Libyan affair for good.
As you know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed member of AlQuaeda in Benghazi.
You — yourself — said on many occasions, one of them in the UN General Assembly, I was witness to that personally, that America is not responsible for the security of other peoples. That America helps only. This is the right logic.
Our dear son, Excellency, Baraka Hussein Abu oumama, your intervention is the name of the U.S.A. is a must, so that Nato would withdraw finally from the Libyan affair. Libya should be left to Libyans within the African union frame. The problem now stands as follows:-
1. There is Nato intervention politically as well as military.
2. Terror conducted by AlQaueda gangs that have been armed in some cities, and by force refused to allow people to go back to their normal life, and carry on with exercising their social people’s power as usual.