So, to recap: Powell is a Republican who generally only breaks with the Republican Party when it involves taking the side of unqualified African Americans over more qualified whites.
Yet, according to MEM, there is no evidence that these breaks with the party are based on race.
MEM is about one step away from being one of those guys who says we have to pretend that OJ and Michael Jackson are innocent just because a jury didn't find them guilty.
So, to recap: Powell is a Republican who generally only breaks with the Republican Party when it involves taking the side of unqualified African Americans over more qualified whites.
Yet, according to MEM, there is no evidence that these breaks with the party are based on race.
Just to be clear, I didn't say there was no evidence. I just pointed out that you didn't know that Powell's support was based on race. You and basams however were the ones using Powells' skin color as a basis for your opinion.
Dictators and demagogues can rest easy on President Obama's watch. When thousands of Iranians flooded the streets of Tehran protesting a rigged election and were beaten and shot down by pro-regime thugs, the president bided his time before making a series of noncommittal statements. He seemed to hope it would all just go away. However, when a socialist demagogue was ejected unceremoniously from Honduras on Sunday by his own government for trying to establish a presidency for life, Mr. Obama instantly sprang to his defense.
What happened in Honduras was not a military coup. Honduras has a civilian president, Roberto Micheletti, a member of former President Manuel Zelaya's own Liberal Party, who was elevated to the post after Mr. Zelaya was removed. The army did not seize power, but acted as the elected government's instrument in ousting Mr. Zelaya, who was well on his way to subverting the Honduran constitution and erecting a dictatorship.
The crisis followed an intense week of political drama over a planned referendum seeking to convene an assembly to rewrite the 1982 constitution to allow Mr. Zelaya to serve in office beyond the mandated one-term limit, which would have ended in January 2010. The Honduran National Congress opposed the referendum, and the Supreme Court declared it illegal. The plan was denounced by majority and opposition political parties, the Catholic Church and the Honduran Human Rights Commission.
The military impounded the illegal ballots, and Mr. Zelaya fired military chief Gen. Romeo Vasquez for refusing to distribute them. This prompted resignations from Defense Minister Edmundo Orellana and all the service chiefs. The Supreme Court quickly ruled the firing was illegal. Meanwhile, Mr. Zelaya led a band of followers to air force headquarters and seized the illegal ballots, seeking to hold the referendum regardless. The Congress then acted to remove this renegade ruler and defend the Honduran constitution.
Mr. Zelaya is a demagogue in the mold of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who bolstered the Zelaya regime through a subsidized energy program called Petrocaribe and gave direct financial support through the ALBA Bank. The acronym stands for Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, a Chavez-backed anti-U.S. alliance of nine Latin American states, prominently Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua, all of which are pursuing explicitly anti-U.S. policies.
In throwing its unqualified support to Mr. Zelaya, the Obama administration is enabling America's strategic foes. This shortsightedness is truly breathtaking and underscores the incoherence of the administration's foreign policy. Smart power? We think not.
By sending Mr. Zelaya to El Salvador, the new government gave him the opportunity to rally world opinion. The exiled former president also benefited from the fact that the new government limited press coverage, which did not bolster the legitimacy of the transfer of power. Now Mr. Zelaya has secured the backing of numerous Latin American leaders, the United Nations and the United States. He had planned to return to Tegucigalpa on Thursday, but the Organization of American States has given Honduras three days to reinstate him. Honduran Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi has issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Zelaya on 18 charges, including abuse of power and treason.
Whatever the outcome of the crisis in Honduras, Mr. Obama has failed another key test of international leadership. The United States is in an increasingly perilous position in Latin America and needs solid allies to stem the anti-American tide being led by Venezuela. Mr. Obama should think twice before rushing to stand beside the likes of dictators such as Mr. Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. They support Mr. Zelaya because he is a fellow traveler, a socialist in good standing, a member of their anti-gringo alliance. There's no reason for America to support him.
First, Howard Dean will stay as DNC Chair. We actually have a 50-state party after all. As opposed to the Hillary/DLC strategy of just courting only already blue states. since of course that has been a winning strategy up until '06 when we tried Dean's way.
"The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people's priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests."
uh oh. Now Obama won't be beholden to lobbyists and large donors in order to get elected . He'll have to continue to rely on the general public donating small $20.00 donations and actually answering to them. So as opposed to Hilary, he'll actually have something to challenge McCain with, since his campaign is nothing but lobbyists, to dictators, the energy companies, banks wanting to foreclose on average Americans etc. etc.
"They will not fund our party, they will not run our White House and they will not drown out the voice of the American people" - Barak Obama
As president, Obama lost the support of Republicans in February during the debate over the stimulus package. Over the summer, economic concerns and the health care debate cost the president support among unaffiliated voters. By October, a month-by-month review showed that Obama's overall job approval had slipped to 48% among Likely Voters.
This morning, on the anniversary of his election, the president's Approval Index rating is at -13, just one point above the lowest level yet recorded and down 41 points since the Inauguration.
Economic conditions have played a role in dimming Obama's support. For much of the past year, voters continued to blame George W. Bush for the economy, but the blame is more evenly divided now between Bush and Obama.
The core promise made down the stretch to voters by candidate Obama was a pledge to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. Now, more than 40% expect a tax hike and hardly anybody expects their taxes to go down. Not surprisingly, 74% of voters now view the president as politically liberal.
Just 33% believe the stimulus package has helped, and most opposed other economic initiatives including the takeover of General Motors and the cash-for-clunkers program. Among the priorities established by the president, voters consistently see deficit reduction as the most important but least likely to be achieved.
The health care plan proposed by the president is struggling and is supported by just 42% of voters nationwide. Confidence in the War on Terror spiked during the first weeks of the Obama administration but has now fallen to the lowest level in nearly three years. On a related topic, one of the president's earliest initiatives, his promise to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, initially received mixed reviews but is now opposed by most Americans.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters now expect politics in Washington to become more partisan over the coming year. That's up 25 points since Inauguration Day when a plurality believed politics might become more cooperative.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Barack Obama enjoys living like a king, so why shouldn't Michelle Obama live like a queen?
The First Lady was photographed last night in Hawaii wearing $635 per pair designer shoes by Maison Martin Margiela.
The shoe style is called "Leather open toe flat pumps." It features a "thin nude leather strap across the top of the toe."
A woman lucky enough to have a job in this economy and working for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would have to work 88 hours (without taxes taken out) to make enough to pay for Michelle Obama's shoes. If she can get them on sale, they would only set her back $445 for 62 hours work.
The Obamas are staying at an $8.9 million estate for an estimated $4000 per night. To cover the Obama's ten night stay, the minimum wage worker would have to work two-and-a-half years (before taxes) to come up with the $40,000 Obama is reportedly laying out.
Obama has lectured Americans about how they can not expect to live their lives as indulgently as they have in the past. He has lectured businesses about their travel and pay. Yet Obama and his wife live like kings and queens.
The news media has yet to call him out on his extravagance when there is 10% unemployment with no sign of the employment picture improving this coming year.
G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...
Quote:
ABC: Is former Reverend a liability for Obama? David Edwards and Nick Juliano Published: Thursday March 13, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's former preacher has delivered some controversial sermons in which he said the US invited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and he has said African Americans should sing "God damn America" instead of God bless America.
ABC News has reviewed dozens of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, and the network aired some of his most inflammatory rhetoric in a segment Thursday on Good Morning America. Wright was Obama's pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for the last two decades, until his retirement earlier this year.
The Democratic presidential candidate credited Wright for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," and Wright performed Obama's marriage and baptized his two daughters. But Obama has described the preacher as "like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."
The latest statements unearthed by ABC, which reviewed videos of the sermons the church offers for sale, could cause more headaches for Obama during a campaign in which supporters' comments have increasingly drawn scrutiny.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
It's unclear whether Obama was in the audience when Wright gave that sermon, but he has previously told the New York Times that he did not attend a service in which Wright implied that the US invited the 9/11 attacks.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans," Wright said, "and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Obama religious adviser Shaun Casey appeared on Good Morning America to defend Obama saying he had already repudiated Wright's controversial remarks. Casey said other candidates were not getting the same scrutiny.
"I mean, it's interesting to me you haven't vetted Hillary Clinton's pastor's sermons, you haven't vetted President Bush's pastor's sermons," he said. "You haven't vetted John McCain's pastor's sermons. So, you're not holding them to that standard, which I think is very interesting."
RAW This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.
It appears Matter-eater Man was onto something when he questioned Barrack Hussein's character and his questionable association with a know anti-semite preacher:
Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.
The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.
It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.
Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.
The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."
But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.
Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it.
According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it."
"The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said.
"In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against."
The left-leaning Haaretz daily said Israel had been "sacrificed by the US on the altar of a successful conference" in what constituted "a diplomatic victory for Egypt" which has campaigned against Israel's nuclear arsenal.
Five years ago, the paper recalled, Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, refused to accept parts of a draft document calling on Israel to join the NPT and dismissed the idea of holding talks to create a nuclear-free Middle East -- even at the cost of the conference's failure.
The controversial resolution was passed just days ahead of a key meeting between Obama and Netanyahu aimed at restoring friendly ties between the two allies which had been soured over a dispute about Jewish settlements.
But the Maariv daily said that Obama's 'last minute' invitation for Netanyahu to visit the White House had clearly been planned with the NPT review conference in mind.
"It is reasonable to assume that the Americans knew they were going to deliver a blow to Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity and that Obama wanted to try to minimize the damage," the paper said.
The move draws a line under a long-held "agreement" between Israel and Washington dating back to 1969 under which the Jewish state was permitted to keep silent on its country's nuclear potential while holding back from any nuclear test.
In return, Washington agreed not to exert or allow any pressure on Israel over its nuclear capabilities.
"It is an undeniably negative change to US policy" with regards to Israel's nuclear programme, said Eitan Gilboa, an analyst from Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv.
Pointing to contradiction between Obama both applauding the resolution and criticising it for singling out Israel, Gilboa said Washington was "losing its leadership role because of the naive and unrealistic" outlook of its president.
If you elect a President who went to an Anti-Semitic church for 20 years these kinds of moves are expected. No one who voted for him should be surprised.
G-man posted this in the religion forum but since it's Obama spiritual advisor it deserves a post here as well...
Quote:
ABC: Is former Reverend a liability for Obama? David Edwards and Nick Juliano Published: Thursday March 13, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama's former preacher has delivered some controversial sermons in which he said the US invited the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and he has said African Americans should sing "God damn America" instead of God bless America.
ABC News has reviewed dozens of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, and the network aired some of his most inflammatory rhetoric in a segment Thursday on Good Morning America. Wright was Obama's pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for the last two decades, until his retirement earlier this year.
The Democratic presidential candidate credited Wright for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," and Wright performed Obama's marriage and baptized his two daughters. But Obama has described the preacher as "like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with."
The latest statements unearthed by ABC, which reviewed videos of the sermons the church offers for sale, could cause more headaches for Obama during a campaign in which supporters' comments have increasingly drawn scrutiny.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
It's unclear whether Obama was in the audience when Wright gave that sermon, but he has previously told the New York Times that he did not attend a service in which Wright implied that the US invited the 9/11 attacks.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans," Wright said, "and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Obama religious adviser Shaun Casey appeared on Good Morning America to defend Obama saying he had already repudiated Wright's controversial remarks. Casey said other candidates were not getting the same scrutiny.
"I mean, it's interesting to me you haven't vetted Hillary Clinton's pastor's sermons, you haven't vetted President Bush's pastor's sermons," he said. "You haven't vetted John McCain's pastor's sermons. So, you're not holding them to that standard, which I think is very interesting."
RAW This isn't something you just quietly dissagree with & expect to win a general election.
It appears Matter-eater Man was onto something when he questioned Barrack Hussein's character and his questionable association with a know anti-semite preacher:
MEM, how many times have I tried to tell you: we CAN and DO read your old posts. You can't keep pretending you didn't write things you wrote.
What's the issue G-man? Obama did have to address the Wright thing several times during the election. So I was correct in what I origianally posted. I think it's funny now how some conservatives have conflicting Obama talking points. On the one hand he's being criticised for adding another jewish person to the Supreme Court while others are still trying to make him an anti-semite.
Where is the criticism for adding a Jew? I believe the criticism is being leveled at the fact that he is nominating someone with zero judicial track record. Look how electing a President with no experience has wrecked this country. Record deficits, unemployment, our traditional allies UK, Israel have been isolated, our enemies have been emboldened, health care freedom taken from the people. It's a risky bet to hire someone that does not know what they are doing.
Looks like another old pal of Obama is on the Anti-Semite band wagon again:
Helen Thomas says that the Jews must get out of Israel, go back to Germany and Poland. I bet Barrack Hussein accidently yelled out an Amen thinking he was back at Trinity Church in Chicago:
It must be sincere. She’s never betrayed any anti-Israel sentiment before, has she?
Quote:
Helen Thomas issued the following statement today: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.”
I’m satisfied. Who among us hasn’t innocently stumbled into a statement of support for ethnic cleansing when we didn’t really mean it?
I was thinking that Isreal would be scared if Obama wins because more than likely Iran is going to try something right awya probably before spring of 09. And Obama will not get involved.....I gurantee it. He'll use some bullshit excuse saying are military is too spent because of Bush and he'll watch Israel burn and then call for both sides to show restraint.
The positive is though that Israel who listens to the USA right now when we tell them not to invade Iran or other middle east countries will no longer listen to us and probably nuke Iran and fuck anyone else up that gets in their way. Basically if America votes Obama in they will be responsible for WWIII.
A lot of people think this scenario, or something quite like it, is what Biden meant when he said that Obama would be "tested" and that people would be upset by what he did.
Rather prophetic, of the Israel situation over Obama's tenure.
Under President Barack Obama, the United States no longer provides Israel with support at the United Nations where the Jewish state faces a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation.
The subtle but noticeable shift in the U.S. approach to its Middle East ally comes amid what some analysts describe as one of the most serious crises in U.S.-Israeli relations in years.
"Israel became used to unconditional support of the United States during eight years of the Bush administration," said Marina Ottaway, director of the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Last week the United States backed a Security Council statement on Israel's commando raid on an aid flotilla that tried to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. Nine people on one of the ships were killed in the action.
The statement regretted the loss of life and demanded a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.
UNITED NATIONS "LYNCH MOB"?
Israel was still unhappy with the statement and its supporters accused Obama of abandoning the Jewish state.
In an article called "Joining the jackals," Elliott Abrams, at the Council on Foreign Relations, accused Obama of exposing Israel to a virtual U.N. "lynch mob."
"The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel," Abrams said. "Rather, its policy is one of distancing and pressure."
Abrams also criticized the White House over the recent five-year review conference of signatories to the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Israel, like nuclear-armed Pakistan and India, has never signed.
Washington backed a call for a 2012 meeting of all countries in the Middle East to discuss making the region a zone free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction -- a plan originally proposed by Egypt with Arab backing to add pressure on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.
After allowing it to pass, the U.S. delegation criticized the NPT final declaration for "singling out" Israel, which neither confirms nor denies having atomic weapons.
This statement did not satisfy commentators like Abrams, who said Obama had "abandoned Israel in the U.N. and in the NPT conference in the course of one week."
"During the George W. Bush years, Washington's siding with Israel on any issue seriously eroded what had been America's long-standing posture as an honest broker in the Middle East," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
"Obama has been trying to reclaim that status, while keeping in mind the domestic political need of not being seen as anti-Israel," he said.
Outside the United Nations, analysts say Obama tried to ease strains with Netanyahu after tensions spiked earlier this year over Jewish settlement construction on occupied Palestinian land.
He coaxed Israel into indirect talks with the Palestinians, his biggest tangible achievement in Middle East diplomacy.
But an Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the jury is still out on the Obama administration's approach to the Jewish state.
"It's still difficult to decipher the intentions behind the changing U.S. policy at the United Nations, and not just in regard to the Middle East," the official said.
"If the Americans are convinced that, through adopting a softer approach ... they will achieve support from countries that heretofore opposed their policy -- they will discover that they are wrong," the official added.
Attorney General Eric Holder U.S. Department of Justice 950Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Via Fax: (202) 307-6777
Dear Attorney General Holder, Re: Violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. § 960
As you are no doubt aware, this past week a boat flotilla organized by Turkish NGOs and Islamic terrorists set out to provoke the Israel Defense Forces and to violate Israel's military blockade of the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip. The flotilla's efforts resulted in the deaths of 9 armed militants and the serious injuring of numerous Israeli soldiers.
I am writing to bring to your attention to a serious matter regarding the flotilla and what might have been a conspiracy to violate the U.S. Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. §960, regulations of the Internal Revenue Service and an attempt to aid & abet the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, which has occurred within the United States.
It has come to our Law Center's attention that the radical pro-Hamas organization, the Free Gaza Movement ("FGM"), has been raising funds for its extremist activities within the United States. The FGM was one of the driving forces behind past efforts to run the Gaza flotilla in 2008 and its members directed the current Gaza flotilla campaign from Cyprus. These activities would appear to be a violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act which is codified in section 960 of title 18 of the U.S. Code and provides:
"Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign province or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both".
- 2 -
This past week US Vice- President Joesph Biden declared that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is lawful and pursuant to international law. The blockade was established in June 2007, after terrorist from the Hamas organization violently took control of the territory and ousted the members of the Palestinian Authority security services. Since that time, Hamas has engaged in a relentless campaign to obtain weapons and explosives and to terrorize Israel's civilian population. In an effort to prevent Hamas from obtaining any additional military equipment and to impose economic pressure on the Hamas leadership in Gaza, the Israeli Security Cabinet imposed a series of sanctions on the Gaza Strip including a coastal blockade that is being implemented by the Israeli navy. The naval blockade is particularly important in light of previous attempts by the Iranian government to transfer weapons to Palestinian militants at sea such as occurred in January 2002 when the Israeli navy seized the "Karine A" ship that was loaded with 50 tons of Iranian supplied weaponry. Moreover, there are several provisions within the agreements signed by Israel and the Palestinian Authority that grant Israel the right to implement a naval blockade on the Gaza Strip. Specifically, the September 28, 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip that was signed in Washington D.C. which provides that Israel has "the responsibility for defense against external threats, including for defense against external threats from the sea and from the air." In addition, it was agreed by the parties that foreign vessels would "not approach closer than 12 nautical miles from the coast" unless specifically authorized by Israel. As such, the Israeli blockade on Gaza is lawful and the waters outside of Gaza are lawfully controlled by Israel.
The FGM has a website at http://www.freegaza.org . Those who wish to support the FGM's activities, including the organizing and outfitting of the boat flotilla which attempted to engage the Israeli navy and run the Gaza blockade, are asked to donate to the FGM. As the FGM website plainly explains (http://www.freegaza.org/en/usa-donations), however, that since the FGM does not "currently have 501(c)3 status," Donations to the group will be channeled through the American Educational Trust, the publishers of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, who "have generously agreed to serve as our fiscal sponsor in the United States. Through the American Educational Trust you can make U.S. tax-deductible donations to us either with PayPal or by check".
Potential donors are informed that if they "would like to make a U.S. tax-deductible donation to the Free Gaza Movement by check, please make out the check to: American Educational Trust LE" and write "Free Gaza" in the memo section "…
- 3 -
In addition, to organizing boat flotilla's that contain weapons and supplies that the Israeli government has deemed harmful to its security and which the FGM seeks to smuggle into Gaza which would constitute a violation of the Neutrality Act the FGM has attempted to defraud the IRS. It is difficult to believe that the IRS would authorize an outlaw organization like the FGM, which does not appear to be incorporated nor have tax-free status in the United States, to have another organization like the American Educational Trust issue tax receipt to donors on its behalf. This is a clear case of money laundering by the FGM and the American Educational Trust and an effort to defraud the regulations of the IRS. It is the FGM and the American Educational Trust, as well as its donors, who are knowingly engaging in this conspiracy to provide tax receipts on behalf of an organization that is not legally authorized to provide them.
Accordingly, despite the clear unequivocal policy of the United States to support Israel's right to control the security of the territorial waters around Gaza and to isolate Hamas from external support, the FGM and the American Educational Trust are attempting to undermine the foreign policy of both the United States and a friendly nation, Israel, and attempting to aid and abet the Hamas terrorist organization, by raising money to smuggle in weapons and supplies in direct violation of the Interim Agreement regarding foreign vessels and to undermine Israel's sovereign authority. As such, the actions of the FGM and the American Educational Trust are nothing short of an attempt to violate the laws of the State of Israel and to engage in conduct that has the effect of undermining the national security of a U.S. ally. Consequently, I respectfully request that your office take all necessary and appropriate actions to uphold the laws of the United States, to investigate those that are organizing, money laundering and funding this illegal effort and to enjoin any unlawful activity on the part of The FGM and the American Educational Trust.
This may help explain Barack Obama’s animosity towards the Jews…
Barack and Michelle Obama attend a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago where their friend Edward Said gave the keynote speech.
Campus Watch reported more on Obama and his friend and instructor Edward Said:
Quote:
The invaluable Andrew McCarthy takes note of a connection between Barack Obama and Edward Said, an apologist for terrorism, who played a key role in changing the field of Middle East Studies towards an anti-Western and anti-Israel bias.
Said, a writer and professor at Columbia University, trained many of the Middle East professors who now broadcast his message to thousands of students across America and the world. Said hated Israel so much that he was seen throwing rocks from Lebanon at Israeli soldiers across the border.
His role in distorting the field of Middle Eastern studies has prompted a counter-movement led, among others, by the esteemed Bernard Lewis of Princeton University.
McCarthy:
Obama was a student at Columbia from 1981 to 1983. He refuses to discuss those years; it is known only that he studied for at least some time under Edward Said, the late PLO apologist.
Not only has Barack Obama refused to discuss those years-as he refuses to discuss much of his past, he will not release his transcripts from Columbia or his thesis that he wrote before he graduated (claiming he “lost” the thesis). Would a transcript reveal more about his education under Edward Said?
How long-lasting and durable were these ties between Barack Obama and Edward Said? There is a photo of the Saids and Obama having dinner together in 1998 at an Arab community event in Chicago at which Said gave the keynote speech.
And, here is Barack Obama’s close family friend, former instructor and mentor Edward Said chucking stones at Israeli soldiers.
Edward Sa’id launching a stone against Israeli soldiers on the other side of Lebanon’s border with Israel from the southern Lebanese village of Kfar Kila on July 3, 2000. Sa’id, who is on a private visit to Beirut, took a trip to south Lebanon to visit the formerly occupied area which Israel evacuated in May. Sa’id’s family is originally from Jerusalem.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
