Archive for June, 2009


Obama Tells Jews Where They Can Live

June 30, 2009

World Net Daily

29 May 09

by Joseph Farah

Barack Obama

is taking what he and his administration refer to as “a more balanced approach to Middle East policy.”

Let me explain what that literally means in real terms.

It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank.

I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel – let alone their own country.

Of course, that would never happen with “a more balanced approach to the Middle East.”

It’s the 1930s all over again. This time, it’s the enlightened liberal voices of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who are telling Jews where they can live, how they can live and how far they must bend if they want to live at all.

I know you haven’t heard it put like this before. I don’t really understand why. There is simply no other accurate way to explain the machinations behind the latest demands on Israel from the West and the rest of the world.

WND’s Aaron Klein gets to the heart of Israel’s decline in his new book, “The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation’s Survival”

Israel is being reduced to “Auschwitz borders.” Jews have already been told they can no longer live in the Gaza Strip. Now they are being told they can no longer choose to live in any of the areas being set aside by international elites for a future Palestinian state.

Again, I ask, “Why would internationalists seek to create, by definition, a racist, anti-Jewish state that doesn’t even tolerate the mere presence of Jews?”

Can anyone answer that question for me?

Obama and Clinton – and, thus, by definition, you and me, the taxpayers of the United States – have determined they will yield to the racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic demands of the Palestinian Authority that no Jews be allowed to live in their new state.

I like to think that in any other part of the world, this kind of effort at ethnically cleansing a region would be roundly condemned by all civilized people. Yet, because most people simply don’t understand the clear, official plan by the Arab leaders to force out all Jews from the new Palestinian state, the policies of capitulation retain a degree of sympathy, even political support, from much of the world.

Think about what I am saying: It is the official policy of the Palestinian Authority that all Jews must get off the land! Why is the United States supporting the creation of a new, racist, anti-Semitic hate state? Why is the civilized world viewing this as a prescription for peace in the region? Why is this considered an acceptable idea?

Is there any other place in the world where that kind of official policy of racism and ethnic cleansing is tolerated – even condoned?

Why are the rules different in the Middle East? Why are the rules different for Arabs? Why are the rules different for Muslims?

Why are U.S. tax dollars supporting the racist, anti-Semitic entity known as the Palestinian Authority?

That’s what we do when we forbid “settlement construction,” repairs, natural growth, additions to existing communities.

This is “balance”? Are there any impositions upon the Arabs and Muslims suggesting they can no longer move to Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslims suggesting they cannot buy homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs and Muslim suggesting they cannot repair their existing homes in Israel? No. Are there any impositions on Arabs or Muslims suggesting the cannot build settlements anywhere they like? No.

Now, keep in mind, there are already quite a few Arab and Muslim states in the Middle East. Many of them already forbid Jews to live in them. Some prohibit Christians as well. But now, the only Jewish state in the world, and one that has a claim on the land dating back to the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is being told Jews must keep off land currently under their own control, but destined for transfer to people who hate them, despise them, want to see them dead and will not even accept living peacefully with them as neighbors.

All the while, Israel continues to hold out its naïve hand of friendship to the Arabs and the Muslims – welcoming them in their own tiny nation surrounded by hateful neighbors. Arabs and Muslims are offered full citizenship rights – and even serve in elected office. They publish newspapers and broadcast on radio and television freely.

But, conversely, Jews are one step away from eviction from homes they have sometimes occupied for generations. Gaza is about to happen all over again.

I hope my Jewish friends remember this well. Many of them voted for Barack Obama. Many of them voted for Hillary Clinton. These are not your friends. These are the same kinds of people who turned away ships of Jewish refugees from Germany in the 1940s. These are the same kinds of people who appeased Adolf Hitler at Munich. These are the same kinds of people who made the reformation of the modern state of Israel so difficult.

I say, “No more ethnic cleansing. No more official anti-Semitism accepted. No more Jew-bashing. No more telling Jews where they can live, how they can – and if they can live.”


Cliff’s Notes from the AIM Report

June 30, 2009

June 09
FORMER REPUBLICAN HOUSE SPEAKER NEWT GINGRICH HAS REALLY had a turn-around. You may remember when we alerted you to his television commercial with Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promoting the Al Gore theory of climate change. Back then he was promoting a “Contract With the Earth,” the title of one of his books. But when gas prices went up, he suddenly dropped that line and promoted more oil drilling. Now he’s calling for Pelosi to go, in the wake of her unsubstantiated charges against the CIA. In addition, Gingrich has called Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor, a racist, and has urged that she withdraw. I don’t know which Gingrich is authentic-the conservative or liberal version. In any case, it’s a fact that he’s getting loads of press attention. He seems to be on all of the networks, from Fox News to NBC News. Some people seem to think that Gingrich is preparing to run for the presidency, but his controversial personal life may argue against that. He has been married three times, and has just changed his religious affiliation, under the guidance of his third wife, Callista.

I THINK ONE OF THE BEST SPOKESPERSONS FOR THE CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VIEW IN THE media today is Elizabeth Cheney, the daughter of the former Vice President and a State Department official in the Bush Administration. She has defended enhanced interrogation techniques, used to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, and has criticized the Obama Administration’s incoherent plan to move at least some of the Guantanamo terrorists to American locations. She’s weak on the homosexual issue, probably because her sister Mary is a lesbian, but on foreign policy she has been very effective.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE ALLEGED CONSERVATIVE OR REPUBLICAN spokespeople appearing in the media. Fox News aired an interview with a “Republican strategist” by the name of Mark McKinnon, who worked for George W. Bush and John McCain but has been advising Senate Republicans not to oppose Obama Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. His rationale was that opposition to her might damage Republican political prospects with Hispanic voters. McKinnon wrote a piece for a liberal website called “The Daily Beast” declaring that “Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. There is little doubt about it. So, going into weeks or months of paroxysms and hysterics about alleged ‘judicial activism’ is just going to make the [Republican] party look bitter, mean, tone deaf, and out of touch.” Her record and the substance of the charges against her were deemed irrelevant. He put the term “judicial activism” in quotes, as if it is a matter of dispute, when she was captured on YouTube saying that the Court of Appeals makes policy. She quickly tried to correct the mistake, but she had said it. Thank you, YouTube. Please send McKinnon the enclosed postcard.

ANOTHER FAKE REPUBLICAN IN THE MEDIA IS STEVE SCHMIDT, WHO WAS McCAIN’S  campaign manager. He was on ABC’s “This Week” program on May 17 claiming to be a Catholic but defending Notre Dame’s honoring of Barack Obama. Schmidt had previously appeared before the homosexual “Log Cabin Republicans” in April and had endorsed homosexual marriage. Another speaker at the group’s conference was Meghan McCain, the daughter of the Senator and 2008 GOP presidential candidate. She is another supporter of homosexual marriage.

REGULAR READERS OF THE AIM REPORT WILL RECOGNIZE THE OBAMA APPEARANCE AT Notre Dame and the push for homosexual marriage as the signs of our culture in decline. This corruption is the result of a deliberate strategy by left-wing “progressives” who have adopted the formula of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci. Rather than pursue revolution through violence and terrorism, they have tried to take over America through infiltration of cultural institutions such as the church. All of this was explained in the recent AIM Report, “How Obama’s Revolution Came to America,” by Bob Chandler. In this context, one of the translators of one of Gramsci’s works was Professor Joseph A. Buttigieg of the University of Notre Dame. The first effort to introduce Gramsci’s Marxism to the U.S. came in the mid-1950s when Carl Marzani published The Open Marxism of Antonio Gramsci. Marzani was a Soviet agent receiving Soviet money to finance his publishing house. He also published Gideon’s Army, a history of the communist-controlled Progressive Party written by Curtis MacDougall. Yes, this is the same Curtis MacDougall who wrote my college textbook, Intrepretative Reporting, and ran for office on the Progressive Party ticket. We noted in our last AIM Report that  MacDougall’s FBI file demonstrates that he had a history of involvement in Communist Party front organizations.

THE SOTOMAYOR NOMINATION HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GRAMSCI assault. Everything we know suggests that she believes in using the courts to impose her own personal left-wing point of view on society. One of her inspirations was socialist presidential candidate Norman Thomas, as reflected in a quote that she put in a yearbook. She was on the board of a left-wing “Latino Justice” organization and has been quoted as saying that being a Latina woman gives her a “better” perspective than a white male. This is the quote that has given rise to the charges of racism against her. She is described as being raised Catholic, but the White House would only confirm that she currently attends church for “family celebrations and other important events.” So she is not a practicing Catholic. Her senior thesis at Princeton reportedly expressed sympathy for the Puerto Rican independence movement, a creation of Fidel Castro that led to violence, bombings and killings in the U.S. during the 1970s. She apparently believes, based on accounts of what was in that thesis, that the U.S. is a colonialist and imperialist power and that “Americanization” would threaten the island. Of course, I think Obama shares that view. That is why the pick of Sotomayor should not be a surprise. But as I write these words, it is being reported that some Senate Republicans may shy away from subjecting her to serious scrutiny, even though she is clearly on the record against the individual right to keep and bear arms. Similarly, House Republican leader John Boehner is reportedly telling House Republicans to back away from their criticism of Nancy Pelosi in the CIA controversy. After issuing a co-comment, Pelosi took off for China to talk about “climate change.”

YOU CAN EXERCISE SOME INFLUENCE THROUGH AIM AND OUR POSTCARD CAMPAIGNS. They are effective. I strongly urge you to immediately send the enclosed postcard to Senator Roger Wicker, the senior Republican on the Senate Subcommittee on International Organizations and Operations, with jurisdiction over the United Nations. He needs to understand the threat posed by the U.N. conference we write about in our first article. But in regard to the Supreme Court, one way that you can demonstrate your concern is to send the other postcard to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., asking that he continue to take a stand against using foreign law to make court decisions in the U.S. What we need is a forthright statement from the Supreme Court, under guidance from Roberts, that rulings or decisions from international courts affiliated with the U.N. and foreign countries will not influence the direction of American law. President Bush made some mistakes, but putting Roberts and Samuel Alito on the high court were major moves in the right direction and hold out hope for the survival of our system of government and our cultural institutions. Roberts and Alito could prove decisive in holding back the next wave of Obama’s Marxist revolution.

by Cliff Kincaid


The Plan for Socialist World Government

June 30, 2009

Aim Report

17 June 09

While meaningless United Nations hand-wringing over the North Korean nuclear weapons program garnered the headlines, the world body is moving ahead with a global conference to lay the groundwork for world government financed by global taxes. The communist head of the U.N. General Assembly is leading the effort, but he is getting crucial support from “progressive” economists who advise the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party.

The United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development, previously scheduled for June 1-3, will now take place on June 24-26.

U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto is the U.N. point man on these “global governance” issues. We noted his role at the United Nations in a column last October. Now, even the New York Times is paying attention to what this crackpot has been up to.

D’Escoto, the Times said, believes the way out of the global financial crisis “should be lined with all manner of new global institutions, authorities and advisory boards,” including

1 the Global Stimulus Fund

2 the Global Public Goods Authority

3 the Global Tax Authority

4 the Global Financial Products Safety Commission

5 the Global Financial Regulatory Authority

6 the Global Competition Authority

7 the Global Council of Financial and Economic Advisers

8 the Global Economic Coordination Council

9 the World Monetary Board.

D’Escoto is the former foreign minister of Communist Sandinista Nicaragua and Catholic Priest of the Maryknoll Order who advocates Marxist-oriented liberation theology and won the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union. D’Escoto also claims a Master’s of Science from Columbia University’s School of Journalism.

The Times interviewed Paul Oquist, D’Escoto’s senior adviser for the conference, who sat beneath portraits of Fidel Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, among others.

The problem is that the Times, in its story, “At U.N., a Sandinista’s Plan for Recovery,” didn’t mention until the 13th paragraph that the official U.N. list of “experts” behind the plan include an American economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning professor from Columbia University who supported and contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign and advises Congressional Democrats on economic policy.

Stiglitz, an advocate of nationalizing U.S. banks, is also a member of the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues and his name appears on a separate list of 15 “special advisers” to D’Escoto obtained from the U.N. by Inner City Press. Another name on the list-Noam Chomsky-is on the board of the Communist Party spin-off, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

Working With A Castroite

Aides to D’Escoto “point out repeatedly that the president got many of his ideas from a distinguished panel of experts led by an American economist and Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz,” the Times noted.

Stiglitz, a former Clinton official and financial contributor to the Democratic Party and its candidates, wrote the book, Making Globalization Work, in which he argues for a variety of global tax schemes that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. Last October he met behind closed doors with congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to devise the economic “stimulus” plan of more federal spending and debt.

Incredibly, Stiglitz was quoted in a U.N. press release last October as saying that the United Nations, which is notorious for corruption, had to intervene in the financial crisis because it was “the one institution that was inclusive and had political legitimacy…”

Another one of the “experts” the Times neglected to mention was Robert Johnson, former managing director at Soros Fund Management and board member of the Institute for America’s Future, a sponsor of a June 1-3 “progressive” conference in Washington, D.C. that will honor pro-Castro Rep. Barbara Lee and socialist labor leader John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO.

The Hand Of Soros

The Soros-funded Open Society Institute gave the Institute for America’s Future $500,000 in 2008 in the area of “Idea Generation and Policy Change.”

Johnson also serves on the board of the Democracy Alliance, a wealthy liberal group that includes Soros and is committed to “fostering collaboration among progressive leaders and institutions…”

Johnson’s involvement in the United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis demonstrates how this “collaboration” is occurring at the global level and involves representatives of socialist and communist governments at the U.N.

Other “experts” on the D’Escoto panel come from Russia and China, with one of his “special representatives,” Oswaldo Martinez, identified only as being from Communist Cuba, with no biography attached. Another D’Escoto “special representative,” socialist and Jesuit Priest Francois Houtart, is the author of “Socialism for the 21st Century.”

Toward this end, the “Report of the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System” raises the possibility of global taxes to finance one of President Obama’s legislative goals when he was a senator-committing 0.7 percent of Gross National Income as “official development assistance,” or foreign aid. This was the essence of Obama’s Global Poverty Act, which never came up for a full Senate vote because of increasing public awareness that it would commit the U.S. to spending $845 billion in additional foreign aid.

Global Tax Agenda

Under the heading of “Innovative Sources of Financing” (page 109), the U.N. document declares that “For some time, the difficulty in meeting the UN official assistance target of 0.7 per cent of GNI of industrial countries as official development assistance, as well as the need for adequate funding for the provision of global and regional public goods (peace building, fighting global health pandemics, combating climate change and sustaining the global environment more generally) has generated proposals on how to guarantee stable sources of financing for these objectives.”

These proposals, the document says, include initiatives involving “taxation for global objectives.” It adds, “Two suggestions deserve special attention: a carbon tax and a levy on financial transactions.” The global carbon tax, the document says, could generate $130 billion a year, while estimates of the revenues from a currency transaction tax range from $15 to $35 billion. Other global taxation options are also examined.

However, as D’Escoto and his “experts” move ahead with the U.N.’s global economic conference, some of Obama’s representatives at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. seem to have grown sensitive to the communist’s frequent outbursts of loony leftism and anti-American rhetoric. Such remarks could bring unwarranted attention to what D’Escoto and the “progressive” American economists are trying to implement in the international economic realm.

For example, The Washington Post reported on American criticism of D’Escoto’s statements about Iran having no nuclear weapons program, exaggerating civilian deaths in Iraq, and calling for the release of Cuban Communist agents imprisoned in the U.S. D’Escoto “has repeatedly abused his position to pursue his personal agenda, and in doing so he diminishes the office and harms the General Assembly,” one U.S. official was quoted as saying.

The Times story about the upcoming global economic conference said that D’Escoto’s critics, who are “legion,” say that some of his proposals-“like levying an international tax on all financial transactions or replacing the dollar as the international reserve currency”-“are well beyond the role of the United Nations.” But none of these critics was identified as being in the Obama Administration or at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. Some of the critics seemed to be ambassadors from foreign countries who were peeved that they didn’t get more direct input into formulating the conference document.

However, other than being too outspoken about the elaborate plans for new global institutions and world government that are being drawn up, it would appear that D’Escoto’s goals and those of the Obama Administration correspond nicely. Perhaps that is because they share some of the same economic “experts” and Marxist philosophy.


Like the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not have to go through a background investigation in order to get a security clearance. This loophole in the law enables the president and members of Congress to automatically qualify for security clearances, even if they have controversial backgrounds and associations, by virtue of the fact that they get elected to high office in Washington, D.C.

In the case of Speaker Pelosi, who is second in the line of succession to the presidency after the vice president, there is increasing concern about whether she can be trusted with national security secrets. But the concern not only involves her unsubstantiated charges against the CIA over what officials told her about the treatment of terrorists, but her close personal relationship with pro-Castro Rep. Barbara Lee and the “progressive” Hallinan family of San Francisco, once under scrutiny by the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities for their pro-Soviet propaganda efforts.

Pelosi used a May 22 news conference to offer up other members of the House Democratic leadership as “human shields” to deflect questions from the press about the CIA controversy. They droned on about the liberal legislative agenda.

At the very end of the news conference, as Pelosi was trying to leave the podium and had already issued an edict that she didn’t have anything more to say about the CIA matter, a reporter tried to ask a question about Rep. Steve King’s intention to introduce a resolution asking the House to suspend Pelosi’s security clearance until the controversy is resolved. The reporter asked, “And were you aware that Steve King is asking for your security clearance to be revoked?” But Pelosi walked away without commenting.

With the help of the mainstream media, Pelosi is obviously hoping that she can stonewall further inquiry. On a recent “Meet the Press,” on NBC,  Washington Post liberal columnist Eugene Robinson, a follower of the Democratic Party line, declared that he wasn’t sure that she was “in such terrible political danger” and that “People underestimate Nancy Pelosi sometimes as a politician.”

Pelosi the politician is clearly depending on the press to stop asking questions.

However, since Pelosi and other elected officials don’t have to go through background investigations, it is the job of the media to perform this function. In the case of Pelosi, it is long overdue.

San Francisco Democrat

Pelosi has represented the city of San Francisco, perhaps the most liberal in the nation, since 1987, and is a very close friend of Rep. Barbara Lee, who represents neighboring Oakland and Berkeley, California, and is the most vocal apologist for Communist Cuba in Congress today. Lee, head of the Congressional Black Caucus, recently led a delegation to Cuba to meet with the Castro brothers to discuss normalization of relations. But she paid no attention to political dissidents or political prisoners being held on the communist island.

Lee, who calls Pelosi “a magnificent woman” and “one of California’s greatest representatives,” began her career in the California state legislature as a secret member of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a spin-off from the Communist Party. As a member of the staff of Rep. Ron Dellums, Lee was shown to have been collaborating with communist officials on the island of Grenada, according to documents captured after the liberation of that island nation. These revelations have not hurt Lee’s standing with Pelosi and other “progressives.” Indeed, Lee also served as the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

But even more interesting than the Barbara Lee connection is Pelosi’s long-time friendship and association with Vincent and Vivian Hallinan, one of the most radical left-wing families in San Francisco over the course of five decades.

Pelosi hailed them as “one of San Francisco’s great Irish families” in a March 17, 1999, statement, after the passing of Vivian Hallinan. “Vivian was a pioneer, a mentor and a leader,” Pelosi said. “Our community was blessed by her presence and will long remember her many significant contributions to improving society. I will miss my friend, Vivian.”

Pelosi called Vivian Hallinan, who openly held “socialist” views, a “pioneer” in “a wide range of progressive causes.”

But these causes included support for communists in Central America during the 1980s, when Soviet- and Cuban-backed forces were subverting Central America through violence and terrorism and fighting for control of the region.

Indeed, Pelosi paid tribute to Vivian Hallinan by inserting into the Congressional Record an article saying that she had “opposed U.S. policy in Central America” under President Reagan, had “befriended Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s [Communist] Sandinista leader,” and had met with Cuban dictator Castro.

“She was a role model for many of us,” Pelosi said. “If Vincent was the lion, Vivian was the lioness.”

“My mother and Nancy were pretty close,” acknowledges Conn Hallinan, one of their sons.

Official Scrutiny

The names of the Hallinans, including some of their sons, are included in the annual volumes of the California State Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities. The subcommittee was a well-regarded investigative body which examined not only communist activities in California but right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society and the Minutemen.

In the case of the Hallinans, there was a lot to examine. Vincent Hallinan, a lawyer who died in 1992, was a founding member of the San Francisco chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, officially designated a front of the Communist Party, and defended secret Communist Party member and labor leader Harry Bridges.

In addition, he was a self-described “roaring atheist” who specialized in attacks on the Catholic Church. In one case, according to the New York Times, he “sued the Roman Catholic Church for fraud, demanding that it prove the existence of heaven and hell.”

Vincent Hallinan also ran for president on the ticket of the Progressive Party, “a creature of the Communist apparatus, and completely dominated by the Communist Party from start to finish,” the subcommittee said.

A 1961 subcommittee report says that Vincent Hallinan traveled to the Soviet Union with his wife to vouch for the legitimacy of the communist show trial of Francis Gary Powers, the American U-2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union. Powers’ mission had been to document the Soviet missile build-up. It adds, “[Vincent] Hallinan’s glowing accounts of the Soviet Union and favorable comments concerning the fairness accorded Powers at his trial were sold in great quantity by the Communist Book Stores both in San Francisco and in Los Angeles.”

A 1953 edition of the report states that Vincent Hallinan was a participant in a meeting of the Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Case, a “Communist front organization.” The Rosenbergs were communists executed for committing atomic espionage against the United States on behalf of the Soviet Union.

A wealthy woman, Vivian Hallinan had contributed financially to one of Pelosi’s campaigns. Her only other political contributions on the federal level, as recorded by the Federal Election Commission, went to Senator Barbara Boxer and Reps. Barbara Lee and Ron Dellums.

The “Progressive Champion”

Despite her pro-communist record, Lee was honored as a “progressive champion” at the June 2 “awards gala” sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future, perhaps the largest “progressive” group in the U.S. The gala, held in conjunction with a conference, is being chaired by the AFL-CIO, whose president, John Sweeney, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is also being honored; the Service Employees International Union; the National Education Association; and Hollywood producer Norman Lear, among others.

Fenton Communications, the public relations firm which represented George Soros during his attempt to buy the White House in 2004, is one of several groups and individuals on the Gala Awards host committee.

At the group’s 2006 conference, Pelosi was a featured attraction, telling the assembled “progressives” that if Democrats took control of Congress and made her speaker that Democrats would “make the most corrupt, closed Congress in history the most open and honest Congress in history.”

But Pelosi tried desperately to avoid being open and honest about her charges against the CIA.

Time To Drop the Matter

One reporter did note that after Pelosi charged that she had been misled by the CIA, Republican House Leader John Boehner had said that she needed to produce the evidence or apologize, and that CIA director Leon Panetta has said the CIA was not in the practice of misleading Congress.

Pelosi replied, “I have made the statement that I’m going to make on this. I don’t have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comments…”

Pressed for further explanation, she reiterated, “I won’t have anything more to say about it.”

The New York Times thought the performance was impressive, declaring that Pelosi had stuck to the “script” and had not succumbed to “the impatient media horde.”

This was a signal to the rest of the press that they should drop the matter.

Edited by Cliff Kincaid


Saudi Hate Film Draws (Private) State Departmnet Fire

June 29, 2009

 29 June 09

IPT News

While President Obama praises the “long history” of U.S.-Saudi “friendship” and the “strategic relationship” between the two countries, some State Department officials are privately unhappy over a Saudi-produced film blaming “Zionist gangs” for the suffering of the Palestinians. The film is “The Olive Dream,” a soon-to-be-released Arabic-language movie produced by Saudi filmmaker Osama Khalifa.

“The narrative of ‘the catastrophe of 1948’ and the resulting ‘Palestinian suffering’ has long served as an incubator for violence and anti-American sentiment,” an anonymous State Department official wrote in a June 16 “Counterterrorism Communication Alert” obtained by IPT News. “As the US government works to push the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward, a significant obstacle to winning Arab public opinion and achieving lasting a lasting peace is the current narrative of the conflict.”

But the Saudi-produced film, which “aims to teach children about the ‘Palestinian Cause’ from the viewpoint of a Palestinian refugee, may serve to further cement this narrative in a new generation of young Arabs and Muslims,” the State Department official warned in the memo labeled “OFFICIAL USE ONLY.”

“The Olive Dream,” which can be found here, can only be described as a blatant attempt to distort history and incite anti-Semitism. It tells the story of a young Arab girl who in 1948 witnessed her father’s death at the hands of “Zionist gangs” who “came to take” Palestinian lands.

As the State Department alert points out, Khalifa said the film aims to introduce children to the Palestinian cause “from a geographic and religious perspective.” One battle scene depicts the Israeli military bombarding civilians and young men fighting back, with a song playing in the background saying that “the world has become a jungle, and the promises of people are mirages” and “death is at the door.”

Efforts to obtain comment from a State Department spokesman about the film and the muted response to it were unsuccessful.

In the animated film a Jewish boy kills a Palestinian Arab man in front of his family. The boy’s father tells his son that he has become a man by shooting the Arab father. As the man dies, he hands the keys to his home to his family. His young daughter’s face is smeared with his blood.

The Arab family cannot stay in their home because the Zionists dispossess them. They are forced off their land into the Jenin refugee camp. There, the Palestinian family endures the purported 2002 “Jenin massacre.” (In reality, it was no massacre at all, but a pitched battle between the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinian terrorist groups that occupied the camp.)

By then the little girl has become a grandmother and her son a doctor who is aiding the anti-Israel “resistance” during Operation Defensive Shield, the 2002 military campaign to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank. The “hero” of the movie is the woman’s grandson. When the IDF arrives at the refugee camp, the grandmother says, “we don’t have a place, let us leave” before the Israelis come.

The boy replies: “No, This is our country. This is our land. We need to stay in it.”

At the end of the film, the grandmother is able to fulfill her dream of returning to her land to plant an olive tree.

In an interview with al Jazeera, Khalifa described the belief that Palestinians should stay on their land as “the most important message” in his film. The interviewer asked Khalifa how he planned to get his movie distributed given “the overwhelming financial influence which the Jews exert directly in the cartoon industry and the film industry.” Khalifa replied that the premise about Jewish control was correct. He said putting the film together took five years and cost $2 million and that his production team went through nine different scripts before settling on the right one.

Khalifa is talking to Egyptian companies about distributing the film in the Arab world. He predicts that 3 million people will see the film in Turkey and he is planning to send samples of the picture to distributors in Great Britain.

Few nations have done more than America’s “friends” and “strategic” partners the Saudis to make the jihadist terror threat what it is today. For too long American officials in their public statements have tried to dismiss and ignore the continuing Saudi role in enabling terror and fomenting violence. It’s time that U.S. officials take a direct and honest approach in their public statements when it comes to malevolent Saudi behavior – like attempting to indoctrinate another generation of Muslim children in Jew-hatred.

In the past, the State Department has forthrightly condemned published material offensive to Muslims. When riots occurred in protest of the images of the prophet Mohammed in 2006, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack condemned them as “offensive” and stated: “Anti-Muslim images are as unacceptable as anti-Semitic images, as anti-Christian images or any other religious belief. We have to remember and respect the deeply held beliefs of those who have different beliefs from us.”

The Obama Administration should follow Sean McCormack’s example and do the same and call out the Saudis with regard to the raw anti-Semitism that permeates “The Olive Dream.”


Ayatollah Khatami: Protesters Should Be Punished “Ruthlessly and Savagely” — Guardian Council Calls Election “Healthiest” Since 1979 — Senators Seek Legislation to Help Iranians

June 29, 2009

26 June 09

The Washington Post reported that “An influential Iranian cleric told worshipers Friday that those stirring unrest in connection with the recent election should be punished ‘ruthlessly and savagely’ and convicted for waging war against God, a crime that under Shiite Islamic law is punishable by death. The sermon at Tehran University by Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami was broadcast live on state television, amplifying the ominous tone the state has adopted this week towards the tens of thousands of demonstrators who have massed in the streets to question the results of the June 12 presidential balloting. The government has deemed the gatherings illegal. ‘I want the judiciary to…punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson,’ said Khatami, an influential cleric close to Iran’s supreme leader ayatollah Ali Khamenei. ‘Based on Islamic law, whoever confronts the Islamic state…should be convicted as mohareb…They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely.'” (

The New York Times reported that “As Iran’s leaders push back threats to their authority after the disputed presidential election, crushing street protests and pressing challengers to withdraw or to limit their objections, the country’s main electoral oversight group ruled Friday that the ballot had been the “healthiest” since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The statement by the 12-member Guardian Council, which is charged with overseeing and vetting elections, fell short of formal certification of the ballot. But it offered further evidence that, despite mass demonstrations and violent confrontation with those who call the election a fraud, the authorities are intent on enforcing their writ and denying their adversaries a voice…’The reviews showed that the election was the healthiest since the revolution,’ Mr. Kadkhodaei said. ‘There were no major violations in the election.” (

The Wall Street Journal reported that “Lawmakers are seeking to crack down on foreign companies that provide spy technology to Iran with a bipartisan bill that would bar firms that provide sensitive technologies to Iran from doing business with the U.S. government. The legislation responds to a Wall Street Journal article this week that Iran had built an extensive monitoring system, including equipment provided by a joint venture of Finnish cellphone maker Nokia Corp. and German conglomerate Siemens AG. Both companies do extensive business with U.S. agencies. Siemens has nearly 2,000 contracts with the U.S. government valued at a total of more than $250 million for 2009, according to a federal government spending Web site. It holds more than 300 contracts with the Pentagon alone, and many more with the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and Energy. Nokia Siemens Networks, the joint venture, holds at least six contracts with the U.S. government totaling $5 million and covering communications and radiation detection, the site shows.” (   -our comments- and we are helpless?-

AFP reported that “US Senators bluntly charged Thursday that Iran’s presidential vote was rigged and vowed to help the opposition defeat curbs on news and the social networking Internet sites it has used to organize…Graham, McCain, and Independent Senator Joe Lieberman said they aimed to boost US-backed radio news broadcasts into Iran and help skirt Iranian restrictions on cellular phones and Internet access…’During the Cold War, we provided the Polish people and dissidents with printing presses. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are the modern-day printing presses. They are the way to spread information and keep the hope of freedom alive amongst the Iranian people, said McCain. The bill, to be written over the congressional break for the July 4 US independence day celebration, would seek to give Iranians the tools ‘to evade the censorship and surveillance of the regime online,’ he said. And McCain vowed to investigate charges that non-Iranian firms helped Tehran monitor and block cellular and online traffic ‘and even track down sources of political content deemed off limits by the regime.'” (

The Wall Street Journal reported that “Iran opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi emerged Thursday from four days of silence, striking a defiant tone and making clear he is being pressured to cease contesting the results of the presidential election…In a statement published on the Web site of his newspaper, Mr. Mousavi said that he wouldn’t give in to ‘recent pressures’ that he said were aimed at isolating him and ‘making me change my position regarding the annulment of the election.’ Security forces in recent days have arrested key members of Mr. Mousavi’s campaign team as well as dozens of journalists working for his newspaper.” (

AFP reported that “Top Iranian dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri warned on Thursday that continued suppression of opposition protests could threaten the very basis of the Islamic republic. ‘If Iranians cannot talk about their legitimate rights at peaceful gatherings and are instead suppressed, frustrations will build up which could possibly uproot the foundations of the government, no matter how powerful, the cleric said in a statement faxed to AFP. It was the latest broadside fired off against the regime by Montazeri, who was once tipped to take over from the father of the revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini but fell out with the late leader before his death.” (

The Washington Post reported that “Across the Arab world, Iran’s massive opposition protests have triggered a wave of soul-searching and conflicting emotions. Many question why their own reform movements are unable to rally people to rise up against unpopular authoritarian regimes. In Egypt, the cradle of what was once the Arab world’s most ambitious push for democracy, Iran’s protests have served as a reminder of how much the notion has unraveled under President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled the country for 30 years.” (

The Wall Street Journal reported that “Unrest in Iran has opened a theological rift within the Shiite sect of Islam, undermining the Iranian regime’s founding dogma that is shared by millions of fellow Shiites across the Middle East. The concept, known as wilayat al-faqihliterally ‘guardianship by a jurist’ — holds that, in an Islamic state, a divinely anointed scholar of Islamic law must exercise unquestioned authority over elected officials and the rest of the government…But, in recent weeks, this moral authority — and the wilayat al-faqih ideology that underpins it — has been shaken by Ayatollah Khamenei’s handling of Iran’s disputed June 12 presidential elections…This jolt from the turmoil in Iran is reverberating in Shiite communities throughout the Middle East, from the Levant to Iraq to Saudi Arabia and others. ‘For the Shiites in the Gulf, this situation is quite perplexing,’ says Sami al Faraj, head of the Kuwait Center for Strategic Studies. ‘The model of wilayat al-faqih has been fractured — and that’s happened because of events in Iran itself.'” (

AFP reported that “Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Thursday there is a ‘crisis of credibility’ between Iran’s government and its people, lamenting the ‘profound clampdown’ on protests over disputed elections. Miliband added that London — which ordered two Iranian diplomats out this week in tit-for-tat expulsions with Tehran — will press Iranian authorities over an Anglo-Greek journalist detained in the Islamic republic. ‘There certainly has been a profound clampdown in Iran… you’ve seen that with the clampdown on journalists as well as the attacks on foreigners,’ he told the BBC. ‘But I think the truth is that there is a crisis of credibility between the Iranian government and their own people.'” (

AFP reported that “Group of Eight foreign ministers meeting in Italy were expected to condemn post-election violence in Iran while keeping the door open to dialogue with the Islamic republic. As the ministers opened the three days of talks Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned against isolating Iran, saying it was the ‘wrong approach.'” (

AP reported that “American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi called Wednesday for the release of a former cellmate – a U.S. aid agency worker held in an Iranian prison – and expressed worry about those detained during opposition protests in Tehran. Saberi, jailed in Iran on spying charges and released last month, told The Associated Press she hopes to help other prisoners she says have been wrongly accused.” (

AP reported that “An Iranian doctor who claims he tried to save Neda Agha Soltan as the young Iranian protester bled to death on the streets of Tehran said Thursday that she apparently was shot by a member of Iran’s pro-government Basij militia…The protesters first thought the gunshot had come from a nearby rooftop, but later spotted an armed member of Iran’s Basij militia on a motorcycle, and stopped and disarmed him, the doctor said…’They are going to denounce what I am saying. They are going to put so many things on me. I have never been in politics. I am jeopardizing my situation because of the innocent look in her (Neda’s) eyes,’ he said. But, the doctor told the BBC, ‘It was a tough decision to make to come out and talk about it, but she died for a cause. She was fighting for basic rights … I don’t want her blood to have been shed in vain.'” (

The Los Angeles Times reported that “Security was tight around the bare grave of Neda Agha-Soltan on Thursday. Militiamen and police stood nearby, witnesses said, and it was difficult for visitors to hold a conversation within sight and hearing of the glaring officers. But the visitors come nonetheless to pay their respects to Agha-Soltan, who was fatally shot by an unknown assailant during the protests Saturday over Iran’s disputed presidential election. Her dying moments were captured in a video that made its way onto the Internet and the international airwaves.” (,0,600301.story)

Charles Krauthammer wrote in today’s Washington Post that “Iran today is a revolution in search of its Yeltsin. Without leadership, demonstrators will take to the street only so many times to face tear gas, batons and bullets. They need a leader like Boris Yeltsin: a former establishment figure with newly revolutionary credentials and legitimacy, who stands on a tank and gives the opposition direction by calling for the unthinkable — the abolition of the old political order…As Mousavi hovers between Gorbachev and Yeltsin, between reformer and revolutionary, between figurehead and leader, the revolution hangs in the balance. The regime may neutralize him by arrest or even murder. It may buy him off with offers of safety and a sinecure. He may well prefer to let this cup pass from his lips. But choose he must, and choose quickly. This is his moment, and it is fading rapidly. Unless Mousavi rises to it, or another rises in his place, Iran’s democratic uprising will end not as Russia 1991, but as China 1989.” (

Robert McFarlane wrote it today’s Wall Street Journal that “Dealing with Iran, the president needs to use all the tools of diplomacy at his disposal. First, the president needs to strengthen our position by adding partners. Mr. Obama should sit down with moderate Arab states. He should listen to their views and forge an agreed regional security strategy. Such a strategy should include a vigorous program of support for the Iranian opposition, based on a well-funded program of broadcasts and other communications into Iran. This would help the opposition become better organized and grow. Recent surveys reflect that Iran is the most ‘wired’ nation in the Middle East. Nearly 35% of its population is connected to the Internet. Further, Mr. Obama must raise awareness among our European and Asian allies of how serious a threat to regional peace Iran has become. He should then launch an effort at the United Nations Security Council to impose strong sanctions on anyone supplying gasoline to Iran. This will underline what should be our commitment to defang Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Barack Obama is seeking to craft a doctrine of effective realism, a doctrine that advances our own interests and those of democratic aspirants throughout the world. It will stand or fall on his actions toward Iran in the weeks and months ahead.” (

Minxin Pei and Ali Wyne wrote in today’s New York Times that “If, as Iran’s opposition has alleged, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rigged the country’s presidential election, he will join a long roster of autocrats who have tried to preserve their power through fraudulent means. But election-stealing is a risky gamble. Although the perpetrators have sometimes succeeded, typically by deploying brutal force, they have seldom evaded justice when their ploy failed…At the moment, at least part of Iran’s ruling elites appear to have lined up behind Ahmadinejad, thus increasing the odds of a violent crackdown on protesters. But if that falls short of completely crushing the opposition, Tiananmen-style, history suggests that Iran’s opposition forces may still be able to right a wrong. They have already demonstrated impressive skills in organizing large rallies and using new information technologies to mobilize Iran’s middle class. Such organizational capacity, plus political stamina, will serve the opposition well in exploiting the ensuing political stalemate and gradually eroding support for Ahmadinejad within the Iranian regime.” (


No Job- How Come?

June 29, 2009

John Smith  started the day early having set his alarm clock

6 am.

While his


was  perking, he shaved with his

electric  razor


He  put on a

dress  shirt





tennis  shoes


After  cooking his breakfast in his new

electric  skillet


he  sat down with his



to see how  much he could spend today. After setting his



to the  radio


he got in  his


filled it  with

(from   Saudi Arabia )

and  continued his search

for a good  paying AMERICAN JOB.

At the end  of yet another

fruitless  day

checking  his


(made  in MALAYSIA ),

John  decided to relax for a while.

He put on  his


poured  himself a glass of



and turned  on his



and then  wondered why he can’t

find a good  paying job




Obama’s speech had factual ommissions

June 29, 2009

11 June 09


Obama‘s speech in Cairo good for U.S.-Muslim relations,” by a local director of the American Jewish Committee, did not represent this Jew’s appreciation for what was contained in this lengthy talk.

The AJC spokesperson selectively hunted through the speech in order to extract the portions that he quoted, heaping glowing praise on the president, stating, “President Obama spoke the truth with a clear, unwavering voice.” There were many truths in his speech, in addition to many historical and factual omissions.

The president spoke of the Palestinians having “endured the pain of dislocation,” that they wait in refugee camps “for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead.” He spoke of their humiliation and displacement brought on by Israel’s founding. Does he mean that Israel is the culprit in this situation?

Is he not aware of neighboring Muslim nations keeping these people in squalor for decades, purposefully as anti-Israel public relations hostages? He received a rousing ovation at this comment from the Muslim audience. Perhaps from the AJC, as well.

Is this president not aware of the United Nations having created individual states, side by side, Jewish and Arab, in 1947?

Is he not aware that Egypt was one of many Muslim nations to have attacked Israel in 1948, 1967 and in 1973, with the goal of eradicating the Jewish state?

Is he not aware that these attacking countries called for Palestinian Arabs to flee the fledgling Jewish state in order to clear the way for the Arab victory that would enable them to return to their homes after all Jews had been slain?

Is our president not aware that Israel, in an act of good faith after the 1967 Six-Day War, initiated by Egypt, among other Muslim states, graciously returned the Sinai, together with its Israeli constructed and operating oil fields, to Egypt?

Why couldn’t President Obama tell the Egyptians a bit of real Palestinian-Egyptian history to complement his Israel-bashing about the pain and suffering of the Palestinians? A true teacher covers the entire realm of an era. However, Obama glossed over facts that would not have been too well accepted by his audience. That did not go over well with me.

Alan Bergstein is a resident of Boca Raton.