Bishop Donald Corder: Gaza, Zionism and World Domination: Financial Warfare Global Campaign

Via Intifadah Palestine
26. Aug, 2010

Part 3 of 4: Financial Warfare Global Campaign

Bishop Donald R. Corder  -  Intifada Palestine

By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way. This hatred will be still further magnified by the effects of an Economic Crisis, which will stop dealing on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill. We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all in our hands, a Universal Economic Crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. Jews will be safe. Excerpts from “Protocols of the Meetings of the 70 Learned Elders of Zion.”

In July, 1944, during World War II, economist John Maynard Keynes of England, and Harry Dexter White of the United States, organized the United Nations’ Monetary and Financial Conference (or Bretton Woods Conference) in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to lay out a plan of stabilizing the world economy. In the early 1960′s, the American economy began declining, and the international situation became unbalanced again. On August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced a new economic policy. The dollar was devalued, and its convertibility to gold was suspended. These moves, offered relief to the country’s economic woes, but was an indication that he was retreating from the global policies which were formulated during the 1960′s.

This series of drastic changes in the U.S. international policy motivated David Rockefeller (a Director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and head of the Illuminati in the U.S.), who, after attending the Bilderberg Conference (a Jewish Who’s Who) and consulting Zbigniew Brzezinski, wanted to “bring the best brains in the world to bear on problems of the future.” Speaking at Chase Manhattan International Financial Forums in London, Brussels, Montreal, and Paris, he proposed the creation of an International Commission of Peace and Prosperity (which would later become the Trilateral Commission) in early 1972. “The Trialateral Commission: Final Warning: A History of the New World Order” by David Allen Rivera.

Journalist Bill Moyers a member of the Council of Foreign Relations  (CFR), wrote about the power of purported House of Rothschild stooge David Rockefeller in 1980: “David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital…Private citizen David Rockefeller is accorded privileges of a head of state…He is untouched by customs or passport offices and hardly pauses for traffic lights.” In his 1979 book Who’s Running America?, Thomas Dye said that Rockefeller was the most powerful man in America. “…conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” —–David Rockefeller

For the Trilateral crowd, the game is about over and the endgame is at hand according to the recent reemergence of original members Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and Paul Volker serves to reinforce the conclusion that the Zionist New International Economic Order is near. As serpentine agent for the Theodor Herzl Jewish State the Trilateral Commission and its members have engineered the global economic, trade and financial system that is currently in a state of total chaos. They are using the crisis to destroy what remains of national sovereignty, so that a New Zionist World Order can finally and permanently be put into place.

The Obama presidency was elected by promising to bring change, yet from the start change was never envisioned. He was carefully groomed and financed by the Trilateral Commission and their friends. In short, Obama is merely the continuation of disastrous, non-American policies that have brought economic ruin upon us and the rest of the world. The Obama experience rivals that of Jimmy Carter, whose campaign slogan was “I will never lie to you.”  The August Review Global Elite Research Center Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame by Patrick Wood, Editor January 30, 2009.

No other people in the history of mankind have assembled themselves against the world according to the Zionist design for global domination. Wherein, the Protocols energizing Theodore Herzl’s Jewish State reads, “We must arm ourselves with all the weapons which our opponents might employ against us. The intensification of armaments, the increase of police forces – are all essential for the completion of the aforementioned plans. We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war. The principal factor of success in the political is the secrecy of its undertakings: the word should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat.”

“We must compel the governments of the GOYIM (non-Jews) to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called “Great Power” – The press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands. In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan.” (The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905; Japan; Iraq and Afghanistan – Ed.).

We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries.– David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991. Quotes by Rockefellers.

Dark guile giving birth to these governing Protocols provides the collective genius of a people who relegate the Palestinian peoples as mere animals and bring the notions of their racial superiority and global conquest to the negotiation tables. Through reading the Protocols, The Jewish Talmud and “The Jewish State” written by Father of Modern Zionism, the late Theodore Herzl we engage the wars that are fought for control of our minds, self-interests and agendas. Quantum breakthrough in every facet of diplomacy, business and return of the Golan Heights is accomplished when we open our eyes to see that we are dealing with a spiritual monster whose design is to devour whatever decency we have in our Goyim hearts and suck our blood according to the writings of their books.

Direct negotiations have no place for an Arab win in the annals of Zionist literature. Where Netanyahu’s recent declaration, that there is to be no Palestinian State in the foreseeable future. His latest published confession of having lied to President Bill Clinton was necessitated in order to destroy the Oslo Accords. Or how within these last weeks the United Nations and President Obama were employed to cry out for calm after Lebanese border dispute and Israel returns to complete the demolition of Lebanese property having quieted the overt hostilities.

“The trick,” Netanyahu says, “is not to be there [in the occupied territories] and be broken; the trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.” …Hence the saying:  If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Sun Tzu… “The Art of War.”

Until there is an American Intifada of Zionist and a global awakening to the madness framing the lusts of the Zionist pursuit. The people of the Middle East must stop, consider and shake off the historic usury of American foreign aid after the manner of Lebanon’s Defense Minister Elias al-Murr. Who told reporters, …any party that wished to help the military had to do so without any conditions. “This person wants to make military aid conditional on not protecting (Lebanon’s) land, people and borders against Israeli aggression. Let them keep their money or give it to Israel. We will confront (Israel) with the capabilities we own.” Complexities facing the ruling elite and sovereign must serve to bring the people’s of the region closer with that leadership in order to diffuse the Zionist agendas and terrors referred to in the Protocols levied against them.

Let us not go quietly into the night of eternity or national obliteration. Rather, let those who pray…PRAY.  Those who organize…ORGANIZE. Those on the inside…LEAK. Those who care…REMEMBER … “Her eyes are Palestinian. Her name is Palestinian. Her dress and sorrow Palestinian. Her kerchief, her feet and body Palestinian. Her words and silence Palestinian. Her voice Palestinian. Her birth and her death Palestinian …”Mahmoud Darwish.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Intifada Palestine

Special Thanks to our Writer Bishop Donald R. Corder

See Also

• Part 1 Bishop Donald Corder: Gaza, Zionism and World Domination: Origins of Zionist Ideology


• Part 2 Bishop Donald Corder: Gaza, Zionism and World Domination: Global Economic Warfare and the U.S

Bishop Donald R. Corder is the spiritual leader of the Spirit of Life International Believers Fellowship and Senior Pastor for the Pillar of Truth Ministries.

Mr. Corder is a published author, grassroots organizer and community activist, in addition to his work in urban and international development as a business consultant and entrepreneur. 

Email: DonCorder@gmail.com.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Source: http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/08/bishop-donald-corder-gaza-zionism-and_27.html

»»  read more

Obama, Shame On you!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show: 8/16/10 in :60 Seconds
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

»»  read more

The Real Reasons the U.S. Enables Israeli Crimes and Atrocities

Israel and its relationship to the U.S.
By Kathleen Wells, Race-Talk
Posted on August 16, 2010

Noam Chomsky is internationally recognized as one of America’s most critically engaged public intellectuals today. He spoke with Kathleen Wells, a political correspondent for Race-Talk, about Israel and its interplay with the United States.

Kathleen Wells: I’m speaking with Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and renowned political activist and writer. He has written over 100 books on linguistics, human rights, economics, and politics. Thank you, Professor Chomsky, for taking the time to speak with me this afternoon.

Noam Chomsky: Very pleased to be with you.

KW: Speak to me about the relation between the United States and Israel. Specifically, address, as you have previously stated, how every crime, violation of international law, that Israel commits is done through the direct participation and authorization of the United States.

NC: That’s a ... as a descriptive statement, that is pretty close to accurate. I mean "all" is a very strong word but it is certainly generally true. And, in fact, the United States has overwhelmingly vetoed Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli crimes and atrocities, prevented the Security Council from calling on Israel to terminate aggression, and so on and so forth. The descriptive comment is not really controversial. There are interesting questions about why it’s true. There were also interesting questions about the sources of support for this position in the United States, which helps us explain why it is true.

The history is reasonably clear. This was not the case up until 1967. In fact, before 1967, the relationships were not very different from relationships among other powers. There was sympathy and support for Israel, which has many, many sources, including the Christian Zionism, which is a very powerful force that precedes and is numerically far stronger than Jewish Zionism. But for somebody like, say, Harry Truman, raised in a deeply Christian tradition, it was just taken for granted that the Bible instructs us that God gave the land of Palestine to the Jews. So it is kind of like in his bones. And that’s true for a very large part of the American population, much more so than -- far more than any other country. So that is one factor, and there are other factors.

But the major change in relationships took place in 1967. Just take a look at USA aid to Israel. You can tell that right off. And in many other respects, it’s true, too. Similarly, the attitude towards Israel on the part of the intellectual community -- you know, media, commentary, journals, and so on -- that changed very sharply in 1967, from either lack of interest or sometimes even disdain, to almost passionate support. So what happened in 1967?

Well, in 1967, Israel destroyed the source of secular Arab nationalism -- Nasser's Egypt -- which was considered a major threat and enemy by the West. It is worth remembering that there was a serious conflict at that time between the forces of radical Islamic fundamentalism, centered in Saudi Arabia -- where all the oil is -- and secular Arab nationalism, centered in Nasser's Egypt; in fact, the two countries were at war. They were fighting a kind of a proxy war in Yemen at that time. The United States and Britain were supporting the radical Islamic fundamentalism; in fact, they’ve rather consistently done that – supporting Saudi Arabia. And Nasserite secular nationalism was considered a serious threat, because it was recognized that it might seek to take control of the immense resources of the region and use them for regional interest, rather than allow them to be centrally controlled and exploited by the United States and its allies. So that was a major issue.

Well, Israel effectively destroyed Nasserite secular nationalism and the whole Arab nationalist movement that was centered in it. That was considered a major contribution to U.S. geopolitical strategy and also to its Saudi Arabian ally. And, in fact, that's when attitudes toward Israel changed sharply and the U.S. support for Israel -- material, diplomatic, and other -- also increased sharply. In 1970, there was another turning point. In 1970, the Jordanian army (Jordan was a strong, close U.S. ally) – the Jordanian dictatorship was essentially massacring Palestinians during what's the month that's called Black September.

And the U.S. was in favor of that; it supported that. It looked as though Syria might intervene to support the Palestinians against the attack by the Hashemite dictatorship. The U.S. didn't want that to happen. It regarded it as a threat to its Jordanian ally and also a broader threat, ultimately, to Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown.

While the U.S. was mired in Southeast Asia at the time -- it was right at the time, a little after the Cambodia invasion and everything was blowing up -- the U.S. couldn't do a thing about it. So, it asked Israel to mobilize its very substantial military forces and threaten Syria so that Syria would withdraw. Well, Israel did it. Syria withdrew. That was another gift to U.S. power and, in fact, U.S. aid to Israel shot up very sharply -- maybe quadrupled or something like that -- right at that time. Now at that time, that was the time when the so-called Nixon Doctrine was formulated.

A part of the Nixon Doctrine was that the U.S., of course, has to control Middle-East oil resources -- that goes much farther back -- but it will do so through local, regional allies, what were called “cops on the beat” by Melvin Laird, Secretary of Defense. So there will be local cops on the beat, which will protect the Arab dictatorships from their own populations or any external threat. And then, of course, “police headquarters” is in Washington. Well, the local cops on the beat at the time were Iran, then under the Shah, a U.S. ally; Turkey; to an extent, Pakistan; and Israel was added to that group. It was another cop on the beat. It was one of the local gendarmes that was sometimes called the periphery strategy: non-Arab states protecting the Arab dictatorships from any threat, primarily the threat of what was called radical nationalism -- independent nationalism -- meaning taking over the armed resources for their own purposes.

Well, that structure remained through the 1970s. In 1979, Iran was lost because of the overthrow of the Shah and pretty soon the Khomeini dictatorship -- clerical dictatorship -- and the U.S. once tried to overthrow that and supported Iraq's invasion of Iran, and so on. But, anyway, that “cop” [Iran] was lost and Israel's position became even stronger in the structure that remained. Furthermore, by that time, Israel was performing secondary services to the United States elsewhere in the world. It's worth recalling that especially through the '80s Congress, under public pressure, was imposing constraints on Reagan's support for vicious and brutal dictatorships. The governments around the world -- say Guatemala -- the U.S. could not provide direct aid to Guatemala, because -- which was massacring people in some areas in a genocidal fashion up in the highlands -- Congress blocked it. Congress was also passing sanctions against aid to South-Africa, which the Reagan administration was strongly supporting South Africa and continued to do so right through the 1980s.

This was under the framework of the war on terror that Reagan had declared. The African National Congress -- Mandela’s ANC -- was designated as one of the more notorious terrorist groups in the world as late as 1988. [So] that it [could] support South-African apartheid and the Guatemalan murderous dictatorship and other murderous regimes, Reagan needed a kind of network of terrorist states to help out, to evade the congressional and other limitations, and he turned to, at that time, Taiwan, but, in particular, Israel. Britain helped out. And that was another major service. And so it continued.

KW: I want to come up to today, because I only have 30 minutes.

NC: So, it basically continues. I mean, if we go right up till this moment ... simply ask, where are the strongest sources of support for Israeli actions? Well, pick the newspapers. By far the most rabid pro-Israel newspaper in the country is the Wall Street Journal. That's the journal of the business community, and it reflects the support of the business world for Israel, which is quite strong. There's a lot of high-tech investment in Israel. [Our] military industry is very close to Israeli military industry. There's a whole network of interactions. Intel, for example, is building its next facility for construct development of the next generation of chips in Israel. But, altogether, the relations are very tight, very intimate, quite natural. And it's not surprising that the main business journal in the country would be supporting Israeli expansion and power. Take a look at the two political parties. Most Jewish money goes to Democrats and most Jews vote Democratic. But the Republican Party is much more strongly supportive of Israeli power and atrocities than the Democrats are. Then again, I think that reflects their closer relations to the business world and to the military system. There is, of course, also a Jewish lobby – an Israeli lobby -- AIPAC, which is a very influential lobby. And so there are many... and there's Christian Zionism, which is a huge element. Well, you know, all of these combined to provide a background for U.S. support for Israel, and they're facing virtually no opposition. Who's calling for support of the Palestinians?

KW: Exactly, and so when you hear statements being made that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and yet you see the occupation and the blockade on Gaza, the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, what shall one think about this fact?

NC: First, let's ask about being the only democracy in the region. First of all, it’s not true. There were free elections in Palestine in January 2006. There were free elections in Palestine, carefully monitored, recognized to be free. The victor was Hamas, okay, centered in the Gaza Strip. Israel and the United States instantly, within days, undertook perfectly public policies to try to punish the Palestinians for voting the wrong way in a free election. I mean, it couldn’t have been... you couldn't see a more dramatic illustration of hatred and contempt for democracy unless it comes out the right way.

A year later, July 2007, the U.S. and Israel, together with the Palestinian authority, tried to carry out a military coup to overthrow the elected government. Well, it failed. Hamas won and drove Fatah out of the Gaza Strip. Now, here, that's described as a demonstration of Hamas terror or something. What they did was preempt and block a U.S.-backed military coup to overthrow the democratically elected government.

KW: What do you say to the fact that Hamas is listed on the United States State Department terrorist list? So they're characterized as terrorist?

NC: Yeah, they are. Because they do things we don't like. The terrorist list has been a historic joke, in fact, a sick joke. So take a look at the history of the terrorist list. Up until 1982, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein's Iraq -- was on the terrorist list.

In 1982, the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the terrorist list. Why? Because they were moving to support Iraq, and, in fact, the Reagan administration and, in fact, the first Bush administration strongly supported Iraq right through its worst – Saddam, right through his worst atrocities. In fact, they tried to ... they succeeded, in fact, in preventing even criticism of condemnation of the worst atrocities, like the Halabja massacre -- and others. So they removed Iraq from the terrorist list because they wanted to support one of the worst monsters and terrorists in the region, namely Saddam Hussein.

And since there was an empty position on the terrorist list, they had to fill it, so they added Cuba. Cuba's probably the target of more terrorism than any country in the world, back from the Kennedy years. Right? In fact, just at that time, there had been a rash of major terrorist acts against Cuba. So Cuba was added to the terrorist list to replace Saddam Hussein, who was removed because the U.S. wanted to support him. Now, you take a look through the terrorist list, yeah, that's the way it is. So, for example, Hezbollah is on the terrorist list. Well, you know, probably it's carried out terrorist acts, but by the standards of the U.S. and Israel, they're barely visible. The main reason why Hezbollah is on the terrorist list is because it resisted Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon and, in fact, drove Israel out of Southern Lebanon after 22 years of occupation -- that's called terrorism. In fact, Lebanon has a national holiday, May 25th, which is called Liberation Day. That's the national holiday in Lebanon commemorating, celebrating the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in year 2000, and largely under Hezbollah attack.

KW: How would you characterize Hezbollah and Hamas?

NC: Hezbollah happens to be the major political grouping in Lebanon. It's the Hezbollah-based coalition, handily won the last election in the year 2009. Now you know it's not a perfect election, but it's one of the ... by the standards of U.S.-backed dictatorships it was an amazing election, and they won it. They didn't happen to win the largest number of representatives because of the way the confessional system works, but they won the popular vote by about the same amount that Obama had won. So they're the main political grouping in the country. They largely -- almost completely -- control southern Lebanon. They're a national Lebanese organization. They've ... they're charged with some terrorist acts outside of Lebanon, maybe correctly. But again, if the charges ... we take all the charges and weigh them against U.S./Israeli violence, aggression, and terror, they don't even count. But that's basically what they are. As far as Israel's concerned, Hezbollah‘s position is they don't recognize Israel.

They don't ... they... but they say their position is, well, they'll accept any agreement with Israel that the Palestinians accept; we're a Lebanese organization. What about Hamas? Hamas is a ... its background is it's an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization, which would be a major competitor in Egypt's elections, if Egypt permitted democratic elections, which it won't. The Egyptian dictatorship -- which the U.S. strongly backs, Obama personally strongly backs -- doesn't permit anything remotely like elections and is very brutal and harsh. But they don't ... they hate the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas is an offshoot. In its early days, Israel supported Hamas as a weapon against the secular PLO. Later, when Hamas really crystallized, became a significant organization, Israel turned against them, and it became bitterly opposed to them in January 2006, as the U.S. did, when they won a free election.

That was intolerable and they had to be overthrown. Hamas's position is that as a political party it does not recognize Israel, but that doesn't mean much: the Democratic Party doesn't recognize countries either. It says that their position is that they’re willing to accept a two-state settlement in accordance with the international consensus, which the U.S. and Israel have blocked for 35 years. So they say, "Yes, we'll accept that, but we don't want to recognize Israel." Well, okay, that's their position. Are they a nice organization? No. I wouldn't ... I certainly wouldn't want to live under their clerical rule.

But compared with organizations and states that the United States strongly supports, they don't stand out as particularly harsh, say Egypt, for example.

KW: So respond to those who defend Israel's policy and state that Israel is surrounded by enemies. Their Arab neighbors -- Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Ahmadinejad in Iran -- they pose a threat to Israel. They want to see Israel's destruction, and they feel like these Arab countries are an imminent threat to Israel. Give me your thoughts on those who defend Israel's policies.

NC: Well, the truth of the matter is that Israel and the United States, which act in tandem, are a tremendous threat mainly to the Palestinians. In fact, while we're discussing the potential threat to Israel that might exist, the United States and Israel are crushing and destroying the Palestinians. That's the live reality. Now what about the threat? Well, yeah, there's a potential threat, and Israel and the United States are substantially responsible for it. I mean, if the U.S. and Israel would accept the overwhelming international consensus on a political settlement, that would very sharply reduce the threat. But Israel and the U.S. prefer Israeli expansion to diplomatic settlement and, therefore, are blocking that settlement -- they're alone. I mean, Europe, the non-aligned countries -- the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic States, which includes Iran -- have all accepted the international consensus on the two-state settlement. I mean, there are details to be worked out, but the basic structure is clear. For 35 years, the U.S. and Israel have been blocking it. There are a few rare and temporary exceptions, but that's basically the story. I don't have time to run through all the details here.

KW: But what's the rationale?

NC: The rationale‘s very simple.

KW: Exactly.

NC: They prefer expansion to security. That's been explicitly true since 1971. I think the most fateful decision that Israel and the U.S. made in this regard was in February 1971 when President Sadat of Egypt offered Israel a full peace settlement -- full peace settlement; no conditions -- nothing for the Palestinians, in return for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, and, in fact, he cared only about Sinai. Jordan made the same proposal a year later with regard to the West Bank. Israel had to decide, at that point, whether to accept security -- which would certainly have followed from the withdrawal from the conflict of the major Arab military forces, primarily Egypt, secondly Jordan -- whether to accept security or to insist on expansion. Now expansion at that time was mostly into the Sinai. Israel was developing plans for substantial expansion into the Egyptian Sinai, including a major city, Yamit, supposedly a million people, a lot of settlements, and so on. And that was a very clear choice: do we choose expansion or security? They chose expansion. The crucial question is what would the United States do? Well, there was an internal bureaucratic battle in the U.S., and Henry Kissinger won out. He was in favor of what he called “stalemate.” A stalemate meant no negotiations, just force.

So the U.S. and Israel proceeded with expansion. Sadat, for the next... he made gesture after... move after move for the next year or two to try to convince the U.S. to accept the political settlement. It was disregarded. He kept threatening war if Israel continued to develop the northeast Sinai. It was dismissed. Then came the October 1973 war, which was a very close thing for Israel, the worst moment in its history. Well, at that point, Kissinger and the Israeli leaders recognized they can't simply dismiss Egypt, and they moved slowly toward the Camp David Settlement in 1978, which pretty much accepted what Sadat had offered in 1971 -- a diplomatic catastrophe. Meanwhile, Israel has continued its expansion, by then mostly into the West Bank, and the U.S. was supporting it all the way, and so it continues. So, sure, if Israel continues to settle in the occupied territories -- illegally, incidentally, as Israel recognized in 1967 (it's all illegal; they recognized it) -- it's undermining the possibilities for the viable existence of any small Palestinian entity. And as long as the United States and Israel continue with that, yes, there will be insecurity.

Read the rest of the interview on Race TalkSource: http://spiderlegsworld.blogspot.com/2010/08/real-reasons-us-enables-israeli-crimes.html

»»  read more

Source:

With thanks to Caroline Glick

»»  read more

Senator Reid says mosque shouldn't be built near ground zero

Breaking from President Obama, top Democrat says despite First Amendment, mosque should not be built near site of 9/11 attacks

WASHINGTON - The Senate's top Democrat says a mosque should not be built near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada on Monday became the highest-profile Democrat to break with President Barack Obama, who on Friday backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero.

In a statement, Reid said the First Amendment protects freedom of religion and he respects that, but the mosque should be built somewhere else.

Critics have said the location of the mosque is insensitive because the terrorists who struck were Islamic extremists.

The plan to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center not far from ground zero in Manhattan has irked the Right. Many Republicans, including former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin, are working hard, and with significant success, to place the issue on the public agenda ahead of the mid-term elections on November 2.

Reid is in a tight campaign for re-election in Nevada. His opponent, Republican Sharron Angle, earlier in the day called for Reid to say whether he agreed with Obama.
source:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3937824,00.htm

»»  read more

Standing on a landmine

 

by Caroline B. Glick

 

US President Barack Obama's warm endorsement of the plan to build a mosque by the ruins of the World Trade Center tells Israel - and its enemies - everything we need to know about the president of the United States of America.

Speaking during a Ramadan fast breaking meal at the White House to an audience of people affiliated with various Muslim Brotherhood- related groups in the US, Obama couched his support for the mosque at Ground Zero in constitutional terms.

In his words, "As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure."

Of course, none of those who have voiced opposition to the mosque project at Ground Zero have claimed that the Islamic group behind the mosque project is acting unlawfully in seeking to construct a mosque. The nearly 70 percent of Americans who oppose building a mosque at Ground Zero oppose the mosque because they believe it is wrong to build a mosque at the site where less than a decade ago Muslims acting in the name of Islam murdered nearly 3,000 people in an act of war against the US and an act of terror against the American people.

Obama has been pilloried by his opponents for his position. And his fellow Democrats, facing the likelihood of massive defeats in the Congressional elections in three months, are reportedly deeply frustrated by his statements. Indeed, the uproar Obama's pro-mosque remarks has unleashed has been so harsh it raises the question of why he made it.

 

THERE ARE two possible explanations for Obama's move. Either he was motivated by politics or he was motivated by ideology. The view that Obama was motivated by politics is easily dismissed. With more than two-thirds of Americans telling pollsters they oppose the Ground Zero mosque project, it makes no political sense for a politician to strike out a position in favor of the mosque. Indeed, major Democrats have either refused to state a position on the issue or, like New York Governor David Paterson, they have recommended that the mosque builders construct their mosque elsewhere.

Perhaps Obama thought he could he could get away with making his statement. However, with his polling numbers consistently eroding, it is hard to imagine Obama's advisers would have told him that was a realistic view.

This leaves ideology. But what ideology motivates Obama to embrace such an unpopular initiative at such an explosive political juncture? Obama and his supporters would like us to believe this is a civil rights issue. In his defense of the Ground Zero mosque, Obama claimed his position was based on the American values such as, "The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us."

But if Obama is motivated by a belief in civil rights that is so strong it propels him to take on deeply unpopular causes in an election season, then one could reasonably expect that his support for civil rights would be absolute. That is, one could expect him to use the same yardstick for all groups, in all places and at all times.

But for Obama, there are some groups who must be denied the same civil rights he upholds as absolute in his defense of the plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero. As Obama has made clear since his first days in office, he believes that Jews should be denied the right to their property in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews.

 

OBAMA IS so firm in his belief that Jews should be denied civil rights in Israel's capital and in the heartland of Jewish history that he has provoked multiple crises in his relations with Israel to advance this bigoted view. Almost from his first day in office Obama has struck out a radical position in which he has insisted that Jews must be prohibited from building anything - synagogues, homes, nurseries, schools - in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria on land they own. Jews - Israeli and non-Israeli - should be barred from exercising their property rights even if their construction plans have already been approved "in accordance with local laws and ordinances."

At the same time, Obama has insisted that Israel take no action to enforce its "local laws and ordinances" against illegal structures built by Arabs in Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria.

Next month the deeply discriminatory and legally dubious 10-month moratorium on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria that Obama coerced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into instituting is set to end. So now Obama is putting the full weight of the White House on Israel to again coerce Netanyahu into prolonging the discriminatory ban that denies the civil rights and property rights of Jews simply because they are Jewish.

Obama claims to be embracing the nullification of Jewish civil right in the interests of peace. In his stated view, to forge peace in the Middle East it is necessary for the Palestinians to achieve statehood. But it hard to see how the establishment of a Palestinian state squares with Obama's purported dedication to civil rights.

In a briefing with the Egyptian media last week Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told reporters that no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. He also said that while he would agree to allow NATO forces to deploy in the future Palestinian state, he would not permit any Jewish soldiers to serve in the NATO units stationed on the territory of such a state. As he put it, "I will not agree that there will be Jews among NATO forces and I will not allow even one Israeli to live amongst us on the Palestinian soil."

The notion that an inherently anti-Semitic Palestinian state, predicated on Jew hatred that strong, could possibly live at peace with Israel is simply ridiculous. But tellingly, in all the American pressure that has been placed on Abbas to begin direct negotiations with Israel, at no time has the administration been reported to have insisted that Abbas abandon his anti-Semitism. Obama has made no statement addressing the fact that the Palestinians demand that Jews be barred from living in the future Palestinian state. He has certainly not objected to this position although it squares with none of the American values of tolerance and property rights he upheld so strongly in his remarks on the Ground Zero mosque.

 

SO THE ideology Obama holds so strongly that it provokes him to take positions antithetical to the political interests of his party during an election season is not civil rights. Rather it has to do with his commitment to advancing the interests of a specific group or groups over the interests of other specific groups. In the case of the Ground Zero mosque he prefers the rights of Muslims over the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. In the case of the Palestinians, he prefers their anti-Semitic nationalism over the civil rights of Jews.

Obama's behavior tells Israel's leaders something very important about how they should think about their relations with the Obama administration. It tells them that Obama is so wed to his ideology that he will push it regardless of political conditions. This means that for Israel, dealing with Obama is like standing on a landmine. Just as a landmine can explode at any minute, Obama can attack Israel at any moment. He is so ideologically bound to the Palestinian cause against Israel that he is liable to provoke a crisis when it is least politically advantageous - from his perspective - for him to do so.

This lesson is particularly urgent on the eve of yet another round of direct negotiations with the Palestinians and as the freeze on Jewish property rights is about to expire. Obama's ideological fanaticism means that nothing Israel does in the upcoming talks will help us.

As Obama's media surrogates like Tony Karon at Time magazine have made clear in recent weeks, the anti-Israel narrative has already coalesced. Everything that happens regarding those negotiations is Israel's fault. It is Israel's fault that they haven't begun. It will be Israel's fault when they falter. It will be Israel's fault when they fail. And if they succeed, Israel will still be blameworthy.

Facing this US President and his radical ideology, Netanyahu and his deputies must understand that they cannot appease him. They cannot convince him of Israel's good intentions.

The US leader who has rejected the expressed views of 68 percent of his fellow citizens in favor of the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero is not going to be moved by reason. The American president who defends the Ground Zero mosque builders even though their leader refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization and has claimed that the US had the Sept. 11 attacks coming to it; and the American president who upholds the Palestinian cause even though it is virulently, and often genocidally anti-Semitic is not going to be appeased by Israeli building freezes and other confidence building gestures.

What this means is that Netanyahu and his deputies must concentrate on defending Israel and advancing its national interests. It is in Israel's national interests to guarantee the civil rights and property rights of Jews. It is in Israel's national interests to forthrightly set out and defend Israel's legal rights in Judea and Samaria and its sovereignty in united Jerusalem. It is in Israel's national interest to enforce its laws without prejudice towards all its citizens and expect all its citizens to respect its laws.

We are dealing with a self-consciously radical President who intends to remake the US relationship with the Muslim world. We will find no understanding from him.

 

 

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

»»  read more

Dems May Use Food Stamp Money to Pay for Michelle Obama's Nutrition Initiative

Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.'

Read more...

»»  read more

NATEPERKINS.TV: Happy-Hour with Beaufort's Author Bernie Schein, Comic Terry Sweeney, with his Partner, Lanier Laney - HappyWinos

Click to Play

February 20, 2009, Beaufort, South Carolina (USA) with NATEPERKINS.TV: An Happy-Hour Interview with Beaufort's city new Author Mr. Bernie Schein, at the WREN Restaurant Bistro Bar Market http://www.wren-sc.com in the Histoic Downtown Beaufort. His wife Dr. Martha Schein and complement comic Terry Sweeney (Original members of Saturday Night Live, MadTV... Comic) the only male celebrity he has impersonated. His most notable recurring character was a portrayal of then-First Lady Nancy Reagan; Sweeney was told by Ron Reagan Jr., who hosted one of that season's episodes, that he was "more like his mother than she is." from http://www.theHappyWinos.com who, ... Sweeney's partner and former SNL writer Lanier Laney http://thehappywinos.blogspot.com/    "You know our rule." Indeed I do...it's 'NEVER answer the phone during Happy Hour'. During his season on SNL, he became known for his celebrity impersonations, particularly female impersonations of stars like Diana Ross, Patti LaBelle, Joan Collins, Brooke Shields's mother Teri Shields, and Joan Rivers, as well as Ted Kennedy.

SENTIENT PUBLICATIONS: Authors - Bernie Schein

In his over 40 years as an educator, Bernie Schein has gotten personal with countless students, bucking the conventional wisdom that education must be ...
www.sentientpublications.com/authors/b_schein.php -

For Parents: A Workshop to Go with If Holden Caulfield Were in My Classroom

Are your kids open to reading, writing, strong, healthy relationships in which they can truly discover, develop and express who they really are? Kids' relationships with parents, as we know, carry over into those with siblings, peers, teachers and coaches, and vice-versa. Yet when they need you, rarely do they express it openly and honestly and directly. They rarely, at this age, walk up to you and volunteer, Hi Dad, Im screwed up. Can you help me? (In fact the reason conventional therapy often fails them is that they expect the therapist to read their minds, just like they do you. Passivity to them is indifference.)

Divorced Parents Must Help Kids Express Their Feelings. No matter how it is handled, children view divorce through traumatized eyes.

Schein holds a Master of Education degree from Harvard University, with an emphasis in educational psychology. His stories and essays have been published in Atlanta Magazine, Atlanta Weekly, Creative Loafing, and the Mississippi Educational Advance. His previous book (co-authored with his wife, Martha Schein), Open Classrooms in the Middle School, was a featured selection of the Educators Book Club. Bernie Schein lives in Beaufort, SC, near Charleston.

To contact Bernie, email him at this address: bernie@bernieschein.com

CONTACT: PUBLIC RELATIONS--Toren Anderson, CEO, Toren Anderson Media & Events
AtlantaSavannahNew York Office: +1.770/591.8191 Mobile: +1.404/422.6671 Fax: +1.770/928.3635
www.intheloopatlanta.com

Nate Perkins Enterprises, LLC (NPE) is an Internet Protocol TV Company based in Atlanta, dedicated to the creation and production of original documentary films about contemporary moral history, social and political issues in America Legacy. Hosted by Atlanta's TV/Radio NatePerkins.TV! Headquarters: Atlanta, GA. USA FRONTPAGE-ATLANTA.TV FRONTPAGE-BALTIMORE.TV FRONTPAGE-BIRMINGHAM.TV FRONTPAGE-CHICAGO.TV FRONTPAGE-CLEVLAND.TV FRONTPAGE-COLUMBUS.TV FRONTPAGE-DALLAS.TV FRONTPAGE-DETROIT.TV FRONTPAGE-JACKSON.TV FRONTPAGE-LITTLEROCK.TV FRONTPAGE-LOS ANGELES.TV FRONTPAGE-NEW ORLEANS.TV FRONTPAGE-NEW YORK CITY.TV FRONTPAGE-SOUTH FLORIDA.TV FRONTPAGE-ST LOUIS.TV FRONTPAGE-WASHINGTON-DC.TV Nate Perkins TV NatePerkins.TV: 

»»  read more

Left handed Day!

Obama and I hold the pen in the same way!!!

I know it was on August 13th but it was too tempting to post this:

1. Left Hander's Day was started in August 13 1976 by Left handers International.

2. About 7 percent of the population is left handed.
3. Lefties are also called "southpaws".
4. In twins, there is a high tendency for one to be left-handed.
5. 1 in 4 Apollo astronauts were left-handed.
6. 4 of the 5 original designers of the Macintosh computer were left-handed.
7. Left-handers usually reach puberty 4 to 5 months after right-handers.
8. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama are all left handed. Ronald Regan was left handed too.
9. Pablo Picasso, Isaac Newton, Leonardo Di Vinci, and Michelangelo were also left handed.
10. Right handed people tend to use the left side of their brains more. Left handed people tend to use the rights.
11. Left handers tend to adjust quickly to seeing underwater.
12. Right handers tend to chew food on the right side, left handers tend to chew on the left side.
13. Albert Einstein was left handed.
14. Left handed people who have higher I.Q.s tend to have an I.Q. of over 140.
15. In some cultures it is impolite to touch your food with your left hand

Saluto to all my left-handed friends out there. :

»»  read more

Obama's ‘Teachable’ Shariah Moment

 

by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

 

On Friday night, Barack Obama gave his full-throated endorsement to a mosque and "cultural center" on private property that has been purchased in Lower Manhattan adjacent to the site where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood.  By Saturday, however, he wanted the American people to know that he was not commenting on "the wisdom" of putting such a mosque by that hallowed ground - just "the right" of its backers like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to do it, pursuant to the Constitution's protection of religious freedom.

Unfortunately for the President - but fortunately for the country - it is too late for such ludicrous contortions and dissembling.  However much Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats now regret his original White House statement, it has created a "teachable moment."  Not just about the Ground Zero mosque but about the larger enterprise it is intended to serve: bringing the law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, shariah, to America.

Imam Rauf makes no bones about that being his purpose.  So do some of his most prominent backers, like the Muslim Brotherhood front, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Brotherhood's Palestinian franchise, the designated terrorist group Hamas.  In fact, according to the New York Post, on Sunday, Mahmoud al-Zahar, an Hamas co-founder and leader in Gaza, told WABC Radio host Aaron Klein: "We have to build the mosque [at Ground Zero].  We have to build everywhere. In every area we have [as] Muslim[s], we have to pray and this mosque is the only site of prayer."

Al-Zahar also enthused about shariah, calling it the "tradition of Islam" which "is controlling every source of our life as regards to marriage, divorce, our commercial relations."  He added ominously that, "Even the Islamic people or Muslims in [the United States] are living now in the tradition of Islam."

What else have we learned so far from Mr. Obama's teachable shariah moment?  We now know that the President is willing to associate with members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), not just in Cairo - where he insisted they be invited to hear his famous paean to Islam last year - but in the White House.  For example, leaders of known MB front groups like Ingrid Mattson of the Islamic Society of North America and Salam al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council were in the company at the Iftar dinner Friday when Mr. Obama fervently embraced the Ground Zero mosque.

This is an important insight since we know from uncontested evidence submitted by the government in the largest terrorism finance trial in U.S. history - the Holy Land Foundation case - that the Muslim Brotherhood's mission in America is "destroying Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." 

What on earth is the President of the United States doing fraternizing with, and thereby legitimating, operatives of an organization with such a seditious mission - to say nothing of endorsing their most immediate priority: the Ground Zero Mosque?

We have also learned that the Obama administration insists that Imam Rauf, another Brotherhood apparatchik, is a "moderate."  Never mind the abundant evidence to the contrary - not least his statement that he wants to bring shariah to America.  Believing him to be a good "ambassador" for the United States, the Obama-Hillary Clinton State Department has gone so far as to send Rauf on a taxpayer-funded trip to Arab capitals. While there, he will surely try to parlay the President of the United States' explicit endorsement of his Ground Zero project and sponsorship of his travels into funding from oil-rich promoters of shariah to build his 13-story, $100 million megamosque within spitting distance of some of America's most hallowed real estate.

There is much more yet to be learned, of course.  For example: Why is the U.S. government promoting the Brotherhood's effort to penetrate our capital markets via "shariah-compliant finance," including its direct ownership of a huge player in that field, AIG?  Which other shariah-adherent Muslims are getting their expenses paid by the State Department as they network around the globe on behalf of their seditious agenda?  How much is this outrageous program costing, and what does Foggy Bottom have to show for it?  Why did Team Obama cosponsor a UN resolution last Fall imposing "shariah blasphemy" laws that utterly conflict with the First Amendment's protection of free speech?

As he hosted the Ramadan fast-breaking dinner at the White House on Friday, President Obama showed his true colors on shariah.  Trying to dress up the Ground Zero mosque or any other aspect of this brutally repressive, totalitarian and inherently unconstitutional program as a matter of "religious freedom" does not pass the giggle test.  Shariah is about power, not faith, and no amount of Obama subsidies, solidarity or spin on behalf of that agenda will persuade the American people to allow the so-called "tradition of Islam" to supplant our civil liberties, form of government and way of life.

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy in the Reagan Administration, heads the Center for Security Policy.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

»»  read more

foreignpolicy:Bob Gates Interview

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/the_transformer

Bob Gates Interview

...One of his most searing experiences was as the CIA's deputy director during the Reagan years, watching the Soviet empire collapse in the Afghan quagmire. If the Afghan people see the war as an American war, Gates told the senators, "we will go the way of other imperial occupiers."

Yet late in the summer of 2009, Gates changed his mind. He was reading a lot of articles on Afghanistan, and one had particular resonance: a piece by Frederick Kagan, a military analyst and vocal war supporter at the American Enterprise Institute, called "We're Not the Soviets in Afghanistan," published that August by the Weekly Standard. Gates said the article reminded him of some facts about the earlier war that he'd forgotten -- that the Soviets had killed 1 million Afghans, displaced 5 million more, and set out basically to destroy the country. "Clearly," Gates said in our interview, "none of that is what we were about in Afghanistan."

..."The basis of my previous view was that once the Afghans come to see you as an occupier, you're toast," Gates recalled in our interview, which took place soon after McChrystal was sacked. "McChrystal's whole approach was avoiding that. How do you demonstrate to the Afghans that you're there as their partner and their liberator rather than as their oppressor? His strategy for doing that seemed to be really compelling."

...

Two elements are key here. First, Gates's idea of an endgame is not the Bushian notion that Afghanistan becomes a democracy or even necessarily a stable country, but rather that its security forces can fight the war for the most part by themselves. Second, some U.S. armed forces will end up staying in Afghanistan -- just as some (between 30,000 and 50,000) are due to stay in Iraq -- for a long while.

"But by the same token," Gates added, "the one thing that I've made clear to everybody is that I'm not going to support a strategy that leads to a stalemate." In December, Obama's national security team will conduct an assessment of whether the strategy is working. "If we're not making any headway," Gates said, "then I think we have to look at making adjustments." What kinds of adjustments, he doesn't know. "But we're not just going to plunge ahead with exactly the same strategy if it's clear it's not working."

»»  read more

Why is Washington Ignoring its Biggest Corruption Scandal?

Too few in Washington have been digging into the scandals behind the collapse of the “government-sponsored entities” (GSE's) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their role in helping trigger the global financial crisis.

Their collapse has cost taxpayers $146 billion thus far. Freddie Mac sought an additional $1.8 billion in taxpayer support just last week. There is no end in sight, as the Obama administration, through executive fiat, has placed no upper limit on the taxpayer liability for these two monstrosities.'

Read more...

»»  read more

It doesn't work!

While the Obama Administration is frantically pushing our country toward the British system of health care, the British are trying to figure out how they can get out of it. It doesn't work!

The new coalition government there says it aims to shift control of England's $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. In a document outlining the plan, the government said, "Liberating the NHS, and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management." This would change the current system in which how and where patients are treated is largely determined by 150 entities known as primary care trusts.

Hey -- Pelosi, Reid, Obama -- are you paying attention?

"Leaders plan to turn health care upside down." The Dallas Morning News; July 25, 2010; p. 12A

»»  read more

NATEPERKINS.TV: Happy-Hour with Beaufort's Author Bernie Schein, Comic Terry Sweeney, with his Partner, Lanier Laney - HappyWinos

Click to Play

February 20, 2009, Beaufort, South Carolina (USA) with NATEPERKINS.TV: An Happy-Hour Interview with Beaufort's city new Author Mr. Bernie Schein, at the WREN Restaurant Bistro Bar Market http://www.wren-sc.com in the Histoic Downtown Beaufort. His wife Dr. Martha Schein and complement comic Terry Sweeney (Original members of Saturday Night Live, MadTV... Comic) the only male celebrity he has impersonated. His most notable recurring character was a portrayal of then-First Lady Nancy Reagan; Sweeney was told by Ron Reagan Jr., who hosted one of that season's episodes, that he was "more like his mother than she is." from http://www.theHappyWinos.com who, ... Sweeney's partner and former SNL writer Lanier Laney http://thehappywinos.blogspot.com/    "You know our rule." Indeed I do...it's 'NEVER answer the phone during Happy Hour'. During his season on SNL, he became known for his celebrity impersonations, particularly female impersonations of stars like Diana Ross, Patti LaBelle, Joan Collins, Brooke Shields's mother Teri Shields, and Joan Rivers, as well as Ted Kennedy.

SENTIENT PUBLICATIONS: Authors - Bernie Schein

In his over 40 years as an educator, Bernie Schein has gotten personal with countless students, bucking the conventional wisdom that education must be ...
www.sentientpublications.com/authors/b_schein.php -

For Parents: A Workshop to Go with If Holden Caulfield Were in My Classroom

Are your kids open to reading, writing, strong, healthy relationships in which they can truly discover, develop and express who they really are? Kids' relationships with parents, as we know, carry over into those with siblings, peers, teachers and coaches, and vice-versa. Yet when they need you, rarely do they express it openly and honestly and directly. They rarely, at this age, walk up to you and volunteer, Hi Dad, Im screwed up. Can you help me? (In fact the reason conventional therapy often fails them is that they expect the therapist to read their minds, just like they do you. Passivity to them is indifference.)

Divorced Parents Must Help Kids Express Their Feelings. No matter how it is handled, children view divorce through traumatized eyes.

Schein holds a Master of Education degree from Harvard University, with an emphasis in educational psychology. His stories and essays have been published in Atlanta Magazine, Atlanta Weekly, Creative Loafing, and the Mississippi Educational Advance. His previous book (co-authored with his wife, Martha Schein), Open Classrooms in the Middle School, was a featured selection of the Educators Book Club. Bernie Schein lives in Beaufort, SC, near Charleston.

To contact Bernie, email him at this address: bernie@bernieschein.com

CONTACT: PUBLIC RELATIONS--Toren Anderson, CEO, Toren Anderson Media & Events
AtlantaSavannahNew York Office: +1.770/591.8191 Mobile: +1.404/422.6671 Fax: +1.770/928.3635
www.intheloopatlanta.com

Nate Perkins Enterprises, LLC (NPE) is an Internet Protocol TV Company based in Atlanta, dedicated to the creation and production of original documentary films about contemporary moral history, social and political issues in America Legacy. Hosted by Atlanta's TV/Radio NatePerkins.TV! Headquarters: Atlanta, GA. USA FRONTPAGE-ATLANTA.TV FRONTPAGE-BALTIMORE.TV FRONTPAGE-BIRMINGHAM.TV FRONTPAGE-CHICAGO.TV FRONTPAGE-CLEVLAND.TV FRONTPAGE-COLUMBUS.TV FRONTPAGE-DALLAS.TV FRONTPAGE-DETROIT.TV FRONTPAGE-JACKSON.TV FRONTPAGE-LITTLEROCK.TV FRONTPAGE-LOS ANGELES.TV FRONTPAGE-NEW ORLEANS.TV FRONTPAGE-NEW YORK CITY.TV FRONTPAGE-SOUTH FLORIDA.TV FRONTPAGE-ST LOUIS.TV FRONTPAGE-WASHINGTON-DC.TV Nate Perkins TV NatePerkins.TV: 

»»  read more

Obama to debate Ahmadinejad?

"The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently challenged the American president, Barack Obama, to a televised debate, "to see who has the best solutions for the world's problems." Many Iranians themselves would likely view the diminutive man's blustering as completely laughable, since civil rights activists have been complaining for decades now that the Iranian government is an oppressively tyrannical regime that has tortured and slaughtered thousands. The lack of human rights all around and the status of women in that nation are deplorable, including institutionalized sex slavery justified in the name of Islam. Iranian/Persian freedom fighters claim that they are under Islamic rule against their will, and millions, it is said, want to leave the religion but are afraid of the death penalty for apostasy." by D.M. Murdock.

See Article...Freethought-Examiner~Obama-to-debate-Ahmadinejad

Continued...by D.M. Murdock

An important potential outcome

Pertinent and timely, Obama meets Ahmadinejad is a fictional dialogue between the two world leaders, taking place at the Iranian "fascist's" palace in Tehran. The momentous, history-making meeting unfolds as an astonishing conversation that might not be far from the truth in what would occur if Obama actually took up Ahmadinejad on his invitation.

In Obama meets Ahmadinejad, we find the two politicians indulging in raucous and vulgar male grunting, as well as in mind-altering substances, of which the Iranian is said to be fond, while we are reminded that the "fraud" was also a partier in his youth. As Amil writes in an article entitled, "Mullahs and opiates":

"Lest you think these men should at least be admired for their self discipline and abstention from personal sins, know that the majority of mullahs are heavy opium smokers. In that land, opium smoking is still very popular with people who can afford the fruit of the Poppy. It is the Muslim’s alcohol. Although its use is prohibited by law, with stiff penalties on the books, the use of opium continues and has become more endemic than ever under the mullahs’ rule. This is in part because many of the mullahs as well as the law-enforcement officials are users and many officials make a personal fortune by getting their cuts from the traffickers. Opium is the drug of choice in the countryside, and heroin is primarily used by the more affluent city dwellers. Moreover, this is the drug that is used to calm the restless people."

But the most important part of this satire comes in the form of political commentary on each man's policies and peccadilloes, as they discuss:

Voter fraud

Killing of opposition

The Shah, Jimmy Carter, Ayatollah Khomeini and the CIA

Drug use

Religious affiliations and megalomaniacal delusions

Islam, infidels and apostates

The Quran and sharia law

Iranian oppression of minority religions

Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden

Homosexuals and women in Iran

Hangings and stonings

Oil and nuclear policies

Israel, Zionists, Jews and anti-Semitism

9/11 conspiracy theories

The American economy and the Gulf oil spill

Basij and Revolutionary Guard crimes against humanity

The "Birther" movement and Kenya connection

"Crypto-Muslim" and "Manchurian Candidate" contentions
Shiite v. Sunni sects

Anti-Americanism, the "Great Satan" and Islamic supremacism

The Twelfth Imam

Iraq and Saddam Hussein

Iran's role in terrorism

China, Russia, Pakistan, et al.

Islamization of Europe

And many more shocking revelations...

These contentious comments are "ripped from the headlines" and other sources, frequently comprising scandals that each man throws up in the other's face.

In light of Ahmadinejad's continuing overtures towards American politicians in asking for meetings and debates, it may be wise to investigate what very well might transpire if Obama agreed to Ahmadinejad's invitation. This book will give you insight that runs the gamut from the ridiculous to the sublime. The tale is so intelligently and realistically woven that the reader just might forget it's a satire, a parody, a work of fiction. And the astounding ending will be sure to stun you - frankly, the way things are going, it seems likely to come true. Yet, if we neglect this frightening possible outcome, future historians (if there are any) will surely ask: How could the entire world have seen it coming and done nothing about it?" END Article...

Now my firt thought here is not about anything other than why would any President of the United States, ever consider meeeting with a piece a shit, wasted energy & oxygen on the planet, in the 3D illusion... anyway? WTF is wrong with people? (Rehtorical Question) Obama isn't going to meet with this Beast and if he did...he is of the same Beast...but doesn't expose it so bluntly. So yeah, I'd say they would get along just fine, but it makes no sense to meet with a man who disrepects evrything in life excpect Power, Gred & Money (with some sprinkling of INSANITY thrown in!) like thess listed above....what is there to discuss...really?
So Obama, representing the USA & The World no less willl go like this??? I'll pick a few vage events from the list above and comment as to my toths on the matter... :)

"Iraq and Saddam Hussein"

"ObamaNation - Oh, you have been a bad boy consoting with Irag, we can but you can...so there. And for slaughtering all your people, we will take some more desert form you ...ooops, they are already doing that,,,he he

»»  read more

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)