"Obama is more comfortable among “upper middle-class white and Jewish men.’’
He has sure surrounded himself with enough of them.
"Presidential critic spurs racial debate" May 23, 2011|By Mark Arsenault, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON — A leading black scholar is unapologetic for his scathing and racially loaded comments about President Obama last week, which have ignited fierce blowback from African-American leaders and intellectuals in arguments that continue to rage in black media and on the Web....
No Jeremiah Wright he.
West unleashed a wave of criticism by calling Obama “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats,’’ and seeming to question Obama’s racial identity while attacking the president’s record on issues related to the poor.
See what happens? You tell the truth and you get hammered.
And I could not care less about Obama's color; it is the POLICIES that are UPSETTING!
Critics have suggested that West’s comments, published on the political blog Truthdig, were motivated by personal slights.
We are so kicking your ass these days, lying, divisive, agenda-pushing corporate media.
West has acknowledged he felt Obama disrespected him and did not return his calls after West stumped for him in the 2008 election. Critics have also described West as a phony, an ivory tower advocate for the poor, or just unhinged.
“My question to Dr. West: Is this personal or it is political?’’ the Rev. Al Sharpton, civil rights activist and Obama ally, said in an interview....
Oh., like AL SHARPTON is the symbol of MENTAL STABILITY and RATIONALITY?
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!
Of course, AL part of the AGENDA! That's why HE in the PAPER and ON TV!!!
West’s widely disseminated comments, and the heated response they provoked, illustrated the gulf between the Democratic Party of 2011 under Barack Obama and the populist traditions of the old-school black left....
Divide at every turn.
West, a former Harvard University professor, a musician, author, and philosopher, is a frequent guest on TV talk shows. He has written on issues of race and politics, and appeared in films from the sci-fi “Matrix’’ trilogy.
What are they trying to imply, that he's some sort of "conspiracy" guy? Where is West on 9/11 anyway?
And yeah, he may be on TV talk shows but it is always PBS and such, not the really big networks.
He maintains that his point was to question the priorities of the administration, which he says favor the interests of powerful institutions over the politically weak....
You can't do that in AmeriKa!
Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, the most successful black presidential candidate before Obama, said in an interview with the Globe that West “was caustic because he was hurt,’’ and urged the president to meet with black leaders to resolve tensions. Jackson cited a sore spot within the black political left: Obama’s insistence that he should help minority communities by improving the economy as a whole.
“The response tends to be that a rising tide lifts all boats,’’ said Jackson....
I didn't know we still had a Republican president.
--more--"
Related: The Billion-Dollar President
Now for the creme:
"Obama, in Poland, vows to back Israel; Visit aims to mend relationship with Eastern Europe" by Scott Wilson, Washington Post / May 28, 2011
WARSAW, Poland — Within hours of arriving yesterday in this once occupied capital, President Obama encountered the enduring emotion surrounding the state of Israel, founded as a sanctuary from the virulent anti-Semitism that wiped out much of this nation’s Jewish population during World War II.
As his first stop in a two-day visit, Obama visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers, then traveled to the Ghetto Heroes Memorial, where he laid a wreath at the base of the stark bronze relief commemorating the tens of thousands of Jews killed in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising of 1943.
About two dozen members of the city’s Jewish community gathered to watch the ceremony, and Obama greeted them afterward.
Taking his extended hand, a woman told him, “It’s the only Jewish state we have and we trust you.’’
Try substituting the word white for Jewish and see what happens.
**********************
“I will always be there for Israel,’’ Obama told the woman.
Even when they kill an American in international waters in an act of piracy.
To a man in a kipa, the Jewish skullcap, Obama also said, “We will always be there,’’ another likely reference to US support for Israel. “I promise.’’
The one promise of his presidency we won't break.
The White House said the visit to the memorial concluded with a group photograph of Obama posing with the Jewish audience....
The exchange at the historic site of Jewish persecution began a presidential visit meant in part to mend relations with Central and Eastern Europe, a region that has great affection for the United States for its role in World War II and anti-Soviet position in the following decades.
Why would we have to mend relations with them, and why is the AMERICAN ASPECT the SECOND CONCERN?
But some of the region’s leaders worry that Obama, in his eagerness to reset relations with Russia, has placed Russian interests above their own.
They must have good marijuana out there 'cuz they be smoking sumpin'!
Obama met last evening with the leaders of 18 European nations, the majority of them from Central and Eastern Europe, to assure them of his commitment to their security....
As if Russia were the threat!
--more--"
Must be a doublestuff:
"Obama firm on plan for talks on Mideast; Says border stance misrepresented" May 23, 2011|By Helene Cooper, New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama, speaking yesterday to the nation’s foremost pro-Israel lobbying group, repeated his call for Palestinian statehood based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders adjusted for land swaps. He also challenged the Israeli government to “make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrificed.’’
In his remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the president, while offering praise for the relationship with Israel, did not walk back from his speech on Thursday, which infuriated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.
Rather, the president took indirect aim at Netanyahu, first by repeating what the Israeli prime minister so objected to — the phrase “pre-1967 borders’’
Related:
"RICHARD FALK – Obama’s AIPAC Speech: A Further Betrayal of the Palestinian People
On Sunday, May 22, 2011, President Barack Obama spoke at an AIPAC Conference, three days after giving his decidedly pro-Israeli speech at the State Department on his broader Middle East foreign policy. It was a shockingly partisan speech to the extremist lobbying group that has the entire U.S. Congress in an unprecedented headlock that has become the envy of even the National Rifle Association. Of course, I assume that Obama’s handlers regarded a speech to AIPAC as obligatory given the upcoming presidential election in 2012. The dependence of political candidates for almost any significant elective office in the United States on Jewish electoral and funding support has become an article of secular political faith, and particularly so for a national office like the presidency. Nevertheless, the enactment of this political ritual by Obama seemed excessive even taking full account of the role of Israeli Lobby as to be worth noting and decrying.
What is worse, the mainstream media typically misconstrued the AIPAC event in a manner that compounds the outrage of the speech itself. For instance, the NY Times headline says it all: “Obama Challenges Israel to Make Hard Choices for Peace.” As Obama pointed out himself in his remarks, “there was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. administrations.” The supposed hard choices involve Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, only restating the generalized international consensus that has often been articulated by American leaders and in a variety of authoritative settings. This is hardly a hard choice, especially as interpreted by the White House’s former Special Envoy, George Mitchell, as including Israel’s perceived security requirements. That is, the land swaps now seem to embrace not only the unlawful settlement blocs that had been conceded by George W. Bush, but now appear to incorporate Netanyahu over the top demands for strategic depth at the expense of Palestinian land, demanding the appropriation of portions of the Jordan Valley along with the deployment of Israeli troops within a hypothetical demilitarized Palestinian state.
What is more, the alleged hard choice is never set against the background of the aftermath of the 1948 War that deprived of about half of the territory they had been given according to the UN partition plan embodied in General Assembly Resolution 181. And as is widely known, the Palestinian rejected that partition as being grossly unfair, imposed from without and awarding the Jewish minority population about 56% of historic Palestine. In effect, the willingness of the Palestinians, expressed first by the 1988 session of the Palestinian National Council to live within the 1967 borders meant agreeing to have their Palestinian state on 22% of the British mandate. This was indeed a hard choice! The land swaps involving settlement blocs, and their bypass roads, and further security zones claimed are all encroachments upon that 22%, and the fact that such further Palestinian concession can be proposed is indicative of just how unfair has become the American led approach to the resolution of the underlying conflict. It is further notable that this fundamental territorial redefinition of the two-state consensus is never acknowledged or even mentioned. In effect, what was thought to be two states in 1947 was dramatically diminished by what became the contours of two states after the 1967 War, and has been further diminished in dramatic form ever since by the settlement process and the various unilateral changes introduced by Israel in the course of administering Jerusalem.
The speech to AIPAC is significant not for these non-existent ‘hard choices,’ but for the scandalously obsequious pleading tone adopted by an American president that acknowledges with pride everything about the U.S. Government’s relationship to the conflict that should disqualify it from ever again having a shred of diplomatic credibility as a third party intermediary. Starting with the fawning “[w]hat a remarkable, remarkable crowd” to his heartfelt words of sympathy for Israeli victims of violence without even a scintilla of empathy for the far, far greater suffering daily endured by the entire Palestinian people: dispossessed, living under occupation, blockade, in refugee camps and exile, or as persons displaced physically and psychologically.
The passage on military assistance to a prosperous Israel should have come as a shock to American taxpayers but passes without notice by the Western media. I quote in full because it so shamelessly overlooks Israeli defiance of international law and its militarist outlook toward the future: “..I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels. And that includes additional support—beyond regular military aid—for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system.” It is not surprising that there was loud applause after each sentence in the paragraph just quoted, but it is surprising that an American president would try to please even an AIPAC audience this abject manner. After all, others are listening! Or should be!
Obama similarly brushes aside any concern about the unlawfulness of the Israeli occupation or its uses of force against a defenseless population in Gaza in its massive attacks launched at the end of 2008, and carried on for three weeks. Obama brushes aside the Goldstone Report by name, suggesting that its assessment of Israel’s wrongdoing somehow challenges Israel’s right of self-defense when in actuality the Goldstone legal analysis does just the opposite, and far more ardently and unconditionally than appropriate, in my view. There is not a word about the Flotilla Incident of a year ago or the recent excessive use of lethal force at the Israeli borders in response to the ‘right of return’ demonstrations associated with the Palestinian remembrance of the 2011 Nakba.
Going beyond the negativity of his State Department comments, Obama mimics Netanyahu in condemning the moves toward Palestinian Authority/Hamas reconciliation and unity. He has the temerity to insist that “the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace.” Actually, reasonably considered, the agreement should have been welcomed as an indispensable step toward creating the possibility of peace.
Not a word of challenge is uttered by Obama in front of this AIPAC audience about settlements, Jerusalem, and refugees. Not a word about the Palestinian ordeal, or diminished horizons of possibility, and no White House plan announced to give a talk before a Palestinian audience. The Obama talk was so outrageously one-sided, so contrary to American strategic interests, that it implicitly suggests that the Palestinians are so weak and passive as to let it slip by in silence. Only a justifiable outburst of Palestinian rage could begin to counter this impression of diplomatic surrender.
Palestinian prudence would go further that an angry reaction. After such a speech the only responsible response by the Palestinian leadership is to conclude once and for all, however belatedly, that it is no longer possible to look to Washington for guidance in reaching a peaceful, just, and sustainable resolution of the conflict. Indeed, to allow such a Washington framing of peace at this point, in light of this Obama/Netanyahu posturing, would further disclose the incompetence and illegitimacy that have long handicapped the Palestinian struggle for self-determination based on a just and sustainable peace and founded on respect for Palestinian rights under international law.
--MORE--"
Obama’s AIPAC Speech Placates Netanyahu
Just days ago he was angrily condemning the US president for mentioning the 1967 borders, but in the wake of a high profile AIPAC speech by President Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared himself “pleased” by the comments.
Also see: Peace in the Middle East Puppet Show
Can you tell I'm tired of the show?
*******************
Netanyahu’s angry reaction last week infuriated Obama administration officials....
(Yawn)
In particular, administration officials were angered by Netanyahu’s lecturing tone during statements the two leaders gave Friday....
Yesterday’s audience, which had been quiet, cheered Obama, although the cheers were far more muted than the standing ovation they had given at other points of Obama’s speech, like when he talked about Iran and when he reiterated his opposition to a looming UN vote on Palestinian statehood....
In other words, Falk's article was a more accurate interpretation of what happened than this PoS propaganda from you-know-who.
--more--"
Oh, I love the photograph of those protesters!
Making it a TRIPLESTUFF:
"Obama sanctions firms with Iran deals; Nuclear program allegedly aided" May 25, 2011|By Matthew Lee, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration yesterday hit seven foreign companies, including Venezuela’s state-owned oil company and an Israeli shipping firm, with sanctions for doing business with Iran that helps fund its nuclear program.
An Israeli firm helping Iran with its nuclear program?
Related: Globe Xmas Gifts: Iranian Exemption
Doing Business in Iran
Israeli Oil Shipments Exempt From Iran Sanctions
I want any talk of war to cease right now!
The administration imposed separate sanctions on more than 15 people and companies in China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and elsewhere for illicit trading in missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.
The State Department announced the penalties as the administration widened the scope of measures against firms that supply or transport refined petroleum products, including gasoline, to Iran. The announcement came a day after President Obama signed an executive order giving the departments of Treasury and State more leeway in targeting companies involved in Iran’s energy sector to boost pressure on Iran to meet international demands and prove its nuclear program is peaceful....
How do you prove a negative?
For the most part, the sanctions will cut the companies off from business with the United States, although Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg said the penalties had been tailored to fit each firm. Petróleos de Venezuela, for example, will be barred from US government contracts, US import-export financing, and export licenses for sensitive technology. But it will not be banned from selling oil to the United States or affect any of its subsidiaries, including the US firm Citgo....
It's what KEEPS the WAR MACHINE GOING!!!
--more--"
Also see: Netanyahu To The West–Destroy Iran Before Israel Destroys You
Only a cookie left now:
"Obama receives royal welcome
Obama immersed himself in grandeur yesterday as the queen welcomed him to Buckingham Palace for the first day of a state visit that kept the president largely out of sight for most of the British public.
Related: Queen humilitates President Obama at Buckingham Palace by refusing toast
Once again there is something the paper is not telling us.
There was an elaborate arrival ceremony on the steps of the palace’s West Terrace, complete with a 41-gun salute; a tour of the queen’s private gallery, where the monarch highlighted items she thought would hold personal significance to the president; and a short meeting with newlyweds Prince William and his new wife, the duchess of Cambridge.
Related: Globe's Good Morning Kiss
Related: Queen humilitates President Obama at Buckingham Palace by refusing toast
Once again there is something the paper is not telling us.
There was an elaborate arrival ceremony on the steps of the palace’s West Terrace, complete with a 41-gun salute; a tour of the queen’s private gallery, where the monarch highlighted items she thought would hold personal significance to the president; and a short meeting with newlyweds Prince William and his new wife, the duchess of Cambridge.
Related: Globe's Good Morning Kiss
But the pomp and pageantry happened largely behind the palace walls. Though pictures of Obama’s visit blanketed British television, the president made no formal remarks, except for a brief statement on the deadly tornadoes in the United States.
The day stood in stark contrast to Obama’s stopover Monday in Ireland, where the US president with a touch of Irish in his family history set out to connect with the public....
Related: Ireland Welcomes a King
Cutting a Quick One For the Queen
Yup, a royal fart!
The Obamas were guests of the queen at a lavish banquet at Buckingham Palace last night....
Who cares if half the world is hungry or starving?
Also see: Obama stresses need for US-British leadership
Yes, Israel needs your kids to fulfill its Zionist agenda.
