Like Barack Hussein Obama II, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School . I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama’s policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.
We heard it in Jesse Jackson’s “HYMIE town” remark years ago during his presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright’s remark about “them Jews” not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle East as a “Jew” problem.
Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in Pennsylvania , I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were “greedy cheaters” who could not be trusted, according to my family and others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were “evil”. Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community.
In Chicago , the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Most African Americans are not followers of “The Nation”, but many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, “he speaks the truth” and “stands up for the black man”. What they mean of course is that he viciously attacks the perceived “enemies” of the black community – white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians buy into his demagoguery.
The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan’s Chicago , shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called “sitting under”. You don’t merely attend a church, you “sit under” a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama “sat under” Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan – Wright’s friend – to attend and help organize his “Million Man March”. I was on C-Span the morning of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and anti-Semite, no matter what “good” he claims to be doing. Yet a future President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support.
The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel ‘s victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the “Muslim World, “he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That’s where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian “dislocation”.
Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of “The Muslim World” is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President’s truest – albeit undeclared red – sensibilities.
Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.
E. W. Jackson is Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries, an author and retired attorney
ARE AMERICANS “EDUCATED” OR “KNOWLEDGEABLE?”
by One Pissed-off Vietnam Vet
Galileo Galilei was a scholar of physics, astronomy, mathematics and philosophy. He agreed with Copernicus that the earth was not the center of the universe, which went against the beliefs of the Catholic Church at the time
(Jul. 6, 2011) — A person may very well be “educated” yet not possess proof, such as a diploma; by the same token, a person may have plenty of “proof,” yet is not necessarily educated. Years ago, only those who had others working for them had the leisure to learn to read and write, and to pursue disciplines outside their personal scope: maybe a wealthy Lord of the Castle or a Cattle Baron would delve into the mysteries of the cosmos. However, since the advent of the printing press, even the poorest of souls received a primer on the three R’s.
At the outset, schools of higher learning were the only institutions able to afford the newest, the largest, the most costly books, hence a real demarcation of a gentleman vs. the commoner, the gentleman being vastly more knowledgeable. However, the chasm narrowed when the library was invented and the “Harvard Classics” became available to any who wished to pursue a higher degree of learning.
But Russell Huekler, one of five alternate jurors who were present for all the testimony and were sequestered with the 12 other jurors, said he would have given the same verdict and is stunned by the public anger.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk …
Former Capt. Brenda S. “Sue” Fulton, a founding board member of OutServe, an association of actively serving gay military personnel, is also co-founder and executive director of Knights Out, an organization of gay West Point graduates. She graduated in 1980 with the first West Point class to include women.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigpeace.com …
‘Team Casey’ gives America the finger: How defence celebrated: “Casey Anthony‘s defence team have been branded insensitive and loutish after they were spotted celebrating their court victory with a lavish champagne party.
In an unapologetic display many have slammed as inappropriate considering the serious nature of their case, Jose Baez and his team were seen downing drinks as they watched reaction to their client being found not guilty of brutally murdering her two-year-old child, Caylee.
At one point, attorney Cheney Mason could be seen making an obscene gesture to an angry crowd outside, an apparent gesture of contempt towards anyone who dares criticise the team.”
When USA House of Representatives Michele Bachmann, (R/MI), made it very much in no uncertain terms clear to President Barack H. Obama who believes that those people who take part in the tea party movement are nothing more then “toothless hillbillies.” What President Obama forgets or cares not to accept is the FACT that the “tea party movement” is a FORCE to be reckoned with come in 2012 USA Presidential election race.
Rep. Bachmann has it very much correct, President Obama has EVERY REASON to be very much afraid of the tea party movement. Since 2009, the tea party movement has not only has gained members, but also has played a major role in the November 2010 mid-term elections around the USA. As the USA continues to struggle with a very weak economy as well as growing concerns about the next upcoming date in regards to the “debt ceiling” between the President Obama White House and the USA House of Representatives Republican members who are under pressure to “cave-in” to the demands to have the “debt ceiling” raised by the August 2, 2011 deadline. Add to that and the lack of growth in the area of jobs, the concerns of the tea party movement has also been joined by many Americans who are concerned with the course of the direction the United States has been taking the last few years under President Obama.
“They want you to think that the tea party is made up of toothless hillbillies coming down out of the hills wearing red, white and blue. But the fact is, they should be afraid of the tea party,” Bachmann said at a campaign rally in Iowa.”
Rep. Bachmann, hit it right on the nail, because she has to her CREDIT, been keeping her finger of the pulse of what is going on in everyday America.
President Obama, the people who make up the tea party movement are NOT “toothless hillbillies” but Americans from all walks of life as well as all states of life themselves. Be they housewives, grandparents, college students, professionals, etc, there are many different folks who make up the tea party movement.
As it was said by the wife of John Adams, Abigail Adams to “remember the ladies” President Obama, remember what this lady, Rep. Bachmann said about the tea party movement, REMEMBER THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, be very afraid of a tea party movement which is working to take back America.
With the Obama admin and a Washington Post editorial calling for its reinstatement — amidst a tie-in to the Gunwalker scandal — it’s worth revisiting the boneheaded law.
As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
The fabled “assault weapons ban.”
Few laws ever passed have been as idolized — and misunderstood — as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act).
To listen to the Obama administration, the media, or the nominated head of the ATF spin it, the ban made it illegal to purchase machine guns, and outlawed the ownership or use of high-capacity magazines, saving billions, perhaps trillions, of lives.
That mischaracterization is as wrong as it is laughable. The law had nothing to do with machine guns and real military-issue assault rifles, and did nothing to measurably impact violent crime.
The purpose of the law was to ban the sale and importation of certain semi-automatic (one bullet fired per trigger pull) firearms by name, and a wider group of firearms that had an arbitrarily selected list of largely cosmetic features. These features did not affect the rate of fire, accuracy, or range of the firearms impacted. Firearms were determined to be “assault weapons” — a term that was created by the law itself — if it had two or more of the following features:
CNN is reporting that Casey Anthony was served papers in jail Tuesday night for her deposition on a defamation lawsuit filed by Zenaida Gonzalez. Attorney John Morgan from Morgan & Morgan in Orlando is representing Gonzalez in the case.
European Views of the War To Prevent Southern Independence by Thomas DiLorenzo:
“These conclusions are all glaringly obvious to anyone who studies the historical facts. For several generations now, it has been the job of ‘Lincoln scholars’ in America to keep these facts from the American public, lest they learn the ugly truth about their own history.
Whenever such facts do occasionally pop up and see the light of day, they are typically buried in an avalanche of lame excuses, justifications, and silly rhetoric (i.e., see anything Harry Jaffa has ever written on the subject), and the messengers denounced as public enemies — or worse.”
But with today’s sensational not-guilty verdict, the 25-year-old could be free as early as Thursday morning to begin the slow process of rebuilding her life – and cash in on her new-found celebrity status.
There is already speculation the compelling case could be turned into a movie, and she is likely to be inundated with lucrative television and book deals worth millions of dollars.
Speaking after the verdict he said: ‘The family hopes that they will be given the time by the media to reflect on this verdict and decide the best way to move forward privately.’
Although Casey smiled and broke into tears of delight as she learned she had escaped the death penalty, she is also likely to face the fear of attack from an angry public who were stunned by the jury’s decision.
She will also have to confront her family, which was torn apart after her defence team dramatically accused both her father and brother of sexually abusing her.
Countless chat shows will give her the opportunity of telling her story for the first time – an offer she seems likely to take up, after her defence team had to dissuade her from giving testimony at the trial.
And because she has been found not guilty, there is nothing to stop Anthony selling her story to the highest bidder.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk …
Paul Joseph Watson
July 6, 2011
Please subscribe to our new video channel – PrisonPlanetLive.
Like any technology, the Internet is a double-edged sword, but is the world wide web literally re-wiring our brains, dumbing us down by destroying our ability to think analytically and infantilizing our minds in the process?
Are we becoming a world of wireheads as the constant onslaught of new information reduces our attention span to nothing – eviscerating our ability to concentrate?
Some neuroscientists say the Internet is re-moulding brains to rely on associative thinking – which leaves us incapable of reading or writing at length.
“We know how small babies need constant reassurance that they exist,” she told the UK’s Daily Mail. “My fear is that these technologies are infantilizing the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights; who have a small attention span and who live for the moment.” Greenfield even fears that real conversation may give way to sanitized screen dialogues.
There are Facebook and Twitter obsessives who can barely visit the bathroom without posting a status update about it. To these people, privacy, individualism and merely the nagging voice of their own conscience are terrifying prospects. They constantly need to fill their environment with sound and fury, signifying nothing. To them, silence is torture – considered thought and peace of mind is anathema.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Just as the 1994 Republicans “contract with America” quickly morphed into a “contract on America,” the “Tea Party” episode will quickly be transformed into just another franchise by which the owners reinforce their established controls over the rest of us. In time, audiences will become dissatisfied with the new performance, sensing that the Tea Party has become just another conservative Republican trick that will, in the words of Frank Chodorov, work “to clean up the whorehouse, but keep the business intact.” By 2012, disgruntled audiences will again demand a new show, confirming the definition of insanity as repeating the same acts and expecting different results. By then, the producers will be preparing the sequel, Tea Party II, for an early fall release to the theaters.
Give it up, guys. According to common use, and in actual practice, conservatism loves the military and police state and leftism loves leviathan, and ultimately this means both camps accept the fundamental premises and key policies of the modern state.
Many libertarians have tried to put our philosophy on one side of the spectrum or the other. Are we, like the Old Right, the true conservatives? Or are we the real left, as Rothbard suggested in his very important essay, “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty”? I am more open to the latter interpretation as a matter of historical dialectics, but what is its relevance today? My friend Jeff Riggenbach has carried the flame of this interpretation, making as good a case as has been made in recent years. He writes in his great book American History is Not What They Say:
Can a principled libertarian go to war?
To answer this question requires a definition of war itself. According to the commonly used definition, war must involve the declaration of hostilities by one state against another, in which it commits the people and resources under its jurisdiction to hostilities against the opponent’s people and resources. When two individuals or small groups fight, it is called a brawl or a feud, not a war. Thus, war seems inextricably entangled with the concept of nation-states that command, to varying degrees, the wealth, property, and bodies of those within their borders.
Historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel correctly states that in such a situation, each state actually declares war on three fronts: against the other state; against the innocent people within the other state; and against its own dissenting citizens. So, if this common definition of war applies, then it is not possible to imagine a libertarian just war.
Nevertheless, at least in theory, it is possible to imagine a war without nation-states in the same manner libertarians imagine legal and court systems without government. If the laws and courts can be divorced from a state context, the warfare can be as well. Even the quintessential isolationist, Murray Rothbard, once stated,
“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”
“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. … I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in … abhorrence.”
“It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”
- John Jay, letter to R. Lushington, March 15, 1786
“I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com …
If members of Congress show up downrange for their combat zone photo opportunities, I think the soldiers should refuse to meet with them.
Why would honorable men and women tarnish their reputations by shaking hands with Congressional phonies and weaklings?
I heard from a reliable source that members of Congress have said that they are afraid to challenge Barack Obama because black Americans will riot.
Yes, of course. All black Americans are mindless, lawless thugs. Isn’t that Congressional conclusion, well, racist?
And isn’t toleration of lawlessness by a President a Congressional signal to all that the rule of law has been downgraded to negotiable recommendations?
There will always be people, who don’t need much incentive to break the law. And those people should get their butts kicked, starting with Congress.
“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
If they also tolerate those, who violate our Constitution and commit federal crimes, then there is little hope that Congressional integrity can be salvaged.
Americans are increasingly aware that Congress has become an institution dedicated to lying, cheating and stealing.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com …
New legislation that would give the US government the power to seize website domains on a whim with no oversight merely for linking to sites that host copyrighted material has been labeled a hallmark of “repressive regimes” by a group of law professors who warn that the bill allows the state to “break the Internet addressing system”.
The Protect IP bill, currently stalled in the Senate, represents a death blow to Internet freedom of speech. It would turn the entire web into a clone of the YouTube model, which routinely censors and deletes material when requested to by governments or corporations and shuts down user channels without recourse.
The legislation merely codifies what Homeland Security is already practicing, seizing and shutting down websites without any form of legal proceedings and in many cases not even notifying the owner.
In an open letter penned by Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford University, David S. Levine of Elon University and David G. Post of Temple University, they warn that the bill would require Internet hosting companies and search engines to de-list entire websites on the basis of a mere copyright claim by a copyright holder, with no independent or legal process undertaken.
Even linking to a website that copyright holders claim is in violation of intellectual property laws would be grounds for the feds to seize your domain and impose criminal penalties.
“At a time when many foreign governments have