Saturday, October 3, 2009

Money, Banking, Economic Collapse...so ya think ya know it all! This should help!

From Storm'n Norm'n
Forward by Norman E. Hooben
Years ago I was taking a course in basic medical procedures and each and every time this particular instructor made this statement while simultaneously writing on the chalk-board that which he wanted you to learn, "I want you to know and I want you to remember." ...you could rest assured that it was going to be on the exam. Then there was this expression that I first read on a small flier as a child sifting through my grandfathers papers... My grandfather had invented the spanner wrench many years before I was born and with the spanner came a set of instructions and/or uses for the spanner. And on the cover page of these instructions was a drawing of a little man shaking a stick with the inscription overhead, "And don't you forget it!"
So what's this all have to do with your money, banking, economic collapse, etc....? For one thing the average person on the street does not have a clue as to what is going on in the political arena...they just think they know it all and that's why we're in trouble (they vote for the wrong person for all the wrong reasons). There are however, some people that do know what's going on and I'm going to try and help you gain some of that knowledge. One such knowledgeable person is someone who devotes much of her time researching (I should repeat that word several times...researching and researching...you get the point) that which most of us know very little. Her name is Ellen Brown and she writes extensively about these behind the headline shenanigans while we tend to the frivolous local news. I've provided a partial reading of of one and a full reading of her latest research so that you will be in-the-know...and everybody else will be still clueless!
With that said... I want you to know and I want you to remember...the following:

From and article published September 21, 2009 "LANDMARK DECISION PROMISES MASSIVE RELIEF FOR HOMEOWNERS AND TROUBLED BANKS"

“...MERS (MERS is an acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) has reduced transparency in the mortgage market in two ways. First, consumers and their counsel can no longer turn to the public recording systems to learn the identity of the holder of their note. Today, county recording systems are increasingly full of one meaningless name, MERS, repeated over and over again. But more importantly, all across the country, MERS now brings foreclosure proceedings in its own name – even though it is not the financial party in interest. This is problematic because MERS is not prepared for or equipped to provide responses to consumers' discovery requests with respect to predatory lending claims and defenses. In effect, the securitization conduit attempts to use a faceless and seemingly innocent proxy with no knowledge of predatory origination or servicing behavior to do the dirty work of seizing the consumer's home. . . . So imposing is this opaque corporate wall, that in a “vast” number of foreclosures, MERS actually succeeds in foreclosing without producing the original note – the legal sine qua non of foreclosure – much less documentation that could support predatory lending defenses.”

The real parties in interest concealed behind MERS have been made so faceless, however, that there is now no party with standing to foreclose. The Kansas Supreme Court stated that MERS' relationship “is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer.” The court opined:

“By statute, assignment of the mortgage carries with it the assignment of the debt. . . . Indeed, in the event that a mortgage loan somehow separates interests of the note and the deed of trust, with the deed of trust lying with some independent entity, the mortgage may become unenforceable. The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan becomes ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust.” [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

MERS as straw man lacks standing to foreclose, but so does original lender, although it was a signatory to the deal. The lender lacks standing because title had to pass to the secured parties for the arrangement to legally qualify as a “security.” The lender has been paid in full and has no further legal interest in the claim. Only the securities holders have skin in the game; but they have no standing to foreclose, because they were not signatories to the original agreement. They cannot satisfy the basic requirement of contract law that a plaintiff suing on a written contract must produce a signed contract proving he is entitled to relief. Read the full article here

________________

So now that you fully understand shenanigans lets move on to Ellen's latest...(This one ought to scare the begeebees out of you. What's going to happen to ALL of your money?)

The IMF Catapults From Shunned Agency To Global Central Bank

"A year ago," said law professor Ross Buckley on Australia's ABC News last week, "nobody wanted to know the International Monetary Fund. Now it's the organiser for the international stimulus package which has been sold as a stimulus package for poor countries."

The IMF may have catapulted to a more exalted status than that. According to Jim Rickards, director of market intelligence for scientific consulting firm Omnis, the unannounced purpose of last week's G20 Summit in Pittsburgh was that "the IMF is being anointed as the global central bank." Rickards said in a CNBC interview on September 25 that the plan is for the IMF to issue a global reserve currency that can replace the dollar.

"They've issued debt for the first time in history," said Rickards. "They're issuing SDRs. The last SDRs came out around 1980 or '81, $30 billion. Now they're issuing $300 billion. When I say issuing, it's printing money; there's nothing behind these SDRs."

SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are a synthetic currency originally created by the IMF to replace gold and silver in large international transactions. But they have been little used until now. Why does the world suddenly need a new global fiat currency and global central bank? Rickards says it because of "Triffin's Dilemma," a problem first noted by economist Robert Triffin in the 1960s. When the world went off the gold standard, a reserve currency had to be provided by some large-currency country to service global trade. But leaving its currency out there for international purposes meant that the country would have to continually buy more than it sold, running large deficits; and that meant it would eventually go broke. The U.S. has fueled the world economy for the last 50 years, but now it is going broke. The U.S. can settle its debts and get its own house in order, but that would cause world trade to contract. A substitute global reserve currency is needed to fuel the global economy while the U.S. solves its debt problems, and that new currency is to be the IMF's SDRs.

That's the solution to Triffin's dilemma, says Rickards, but it leaves the U.S. in a vulnerable position. If we face a war or other global catastrophe, we no longer have the privilege of printing money. We will have to borrow the global reserve currency like everyone else, putting us at the mercy of the global lenders.

To avoid that, the Federal Reserve has hinted that it is prepared to raise interest rates, even though that would mean further squeezing the real estate market and the real economy. Rickards pointed to an oped piece by Fed governor Kevin Warsh, published in The Wall Street Journal on the same day the G20 met. Warsh said that the Fed would need to raise interest rates if asset prices rose - which Rickards interpreted to mean gold, the traditional go-to investment of investors fleeing the dollar. "Central banks hate gold because it limits their ability to print money," said Rickards. If gold were to suddenly go to $1,500 an ounce, it would mean the dollar was collapsing. Warsh was giving the market a heads up that the Fed wasn't going to let that happen. The Fed would raise interest rates to attract dollars back into the country. As Rickards put it, "Warsh is saying, 'We sort of have to trash the dollar, but we're going to do it gradually.' . . . Warsh is trying to preempt an unstable decline in the dollar. What they want, of course, is a stable, steady decline."

What about the Fed's traditional role of maintaining price stability? It's nonsense, said Rickards. "What they do is inflate the dollar to prop up the banks." The dollar has to be inflated because there is more debt outstanding than money to pay it with. The government currently has contingent liabilities of $60 trillion. "There's no feasible combination of growth and taxes that can fund that liability," Rickards said. The government could fund about half that in the next 14 years, which means the dollar needs to be devalued by half in that time.

The Dollar Needs to be Devalued by Half?

Reducing the value of the dollar by half means that our hard-earned dollars are going to go only half as far, something that does not sound like a good thing for Main Street. Indeed, when we look more closely, we see that the move is not designed to serve us but to serve the banks. Why does the dollar need to be devalued? It is to compensate for a dilemma in the current monetary scheme that is even more intractable than Triffin's, one that might be called a fraud. There is never enough money to cover the outstanding debt, because all money today except coins is created by banks in the form of loans, and more money is always owed back to the banks than they advance when they create their loans. Banks create the principal but not the interest necessary to pay their loans back.

The Fed, which is owned by a consortium of banks and was set up to serve their interests, is tasked with seeing that the banks are paid back; and the only way to do that is to inflate the money supply to create the dollars to cover the missing interest. But that means diluting the value of the dollar, which imposes a stealth tax on the citizenry; and the money supply is inflated by making more loans, which adds to the debt and interest burden that the inflated money supply was supposed to relieve. The banking system is basically a pyramid scheme, which can be kept going only by continually creating more debt.

The IMF's $500 Billion Stimulus Package:
Designed to Help Developing Countries or the Banks?

And that brings us back to the IMF's stimulus package discussed last week by Professor Buckley. The package was billed as helping emerging nations hard hit by the global credit crisis, but Buckley doubts that that is what is really going on. Rather, he says, the $500 billion pledged by the G20 nations is "a stimulus package for the rich countries' banks."

Why does he think that? Because stimulus packages are usually grants. The money coming from the IMF will be extended in the form of loans.

These are loans that are made by the G20 countries through the IMF to poor countries. They have to be repaid and what they're going to be used for is to repay the international banks now. . . . [T]he money won't really touch down in the poor countries. It will go straight through them to repay their creditors. . . . But the poor countries will spend the next 30 years repaying the IMF.

Basically, said Professor Buckley, the loans extended by the IMF represent an increase in seniority of the debt. That means developing nations will be even more firmly locked in debt than they are now.

At the moment the debt is owed by poor countries to banks, and if the poor countries had to, they could default on that. The bank debt is going to be replaced by debt that's owed to the IMF, which for very good strategic reasons the poor countries will always service. . . . The rich countries have made this $500 billion available to stimulate their own banks, and the IMF is a wonderful party to put in between the countries and the debtors and the banks.

Not long ago, the IMF was being called obsolete. Now it is back in business with a vengeance; but it's the old unseemly business of serving as the collection agency for the international banking industry. As long as third world debtors can service their loans by paying the interest on them, the banks can count the loans as "assets" on their books, allowing them to keep their pyramid scheme going by inflating the global money supply with yet more loans. It is all for the greater good of the banks and their affiliated multinational corporations; but the $500 billion in funding is coming from the taxpayers of the G20 nations, and the foreseeable outcome will be that the United States will join the ranks of debtor nations subservient to a global empire of central bankers.

Follow Ellen Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ellenhbrown

And don't you forget it!

See also Keeping The Banks Honest

The Original Slap-In-The-Face Award ! ...Click on image to enlarge.

Click on image to enlarge.

Obama reveals unfitness for office more and more every day. ...out to destroy this country.

Copenhagen: President Obama reveals unfitness for office more every day

By Jim Simpson

Ignoring pressing national security issues, President Obama flew off to Denmark yesterday to literally beg the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to accept Chicago as location for the 2016 Olympics.

Chicago.

Barack met up with Michelle, who had arrived on Wednesday, already suffering through her second day of sacrifice exploring Copenhagen with "chit-chat buddy" Oprah Winfrey. As Michelle related in an inspiring speech to supporters:

As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.


She can't be serious. Obama was even less convincing:

I urge you to choose Chicago... And if you do - if we walk this path together - then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud.


Chicago will make the world proud? How? And why shouldn't we feel proud now?

In what is widely percieved as a deliberate snub, the IOC rejected Chicago in the first round of decision- making shortly after Obama's speech. As Axcess News reported, one IOC member was overheard snickering: "there's no 'change' for Mr. Obama here."

Meanwhile PR consultant and Administration behind-the-scenes puppetmaster, David Axelrod, dismissed Obama's failure as "politics." There it is again: racism! I bet there were a bunch of Republicans over there spreading false rumors too! Or maybe it was one of those Tea Party people spreading lies about the corruption of Chicago!

No sitting president has ever gone before the IOC to plead our case. Oh wait! He wasn't pleading our case. He was pleading Chicago's case! Accompanying Obama was "the other side of Obama's brain," Valerie Jarrett. It seems that not only is Valerie Obama's confidante and senior advisor, she also was on the board of the Chicago 2016 olympics committee until joining the White House. No conflict of interest there. And while she resigned that position, she let everyone know this would be a big priority. Two more friends of Obama, John Rogers and Marty Nesbitt, remain on the Board. They went to Denmark too.

In fact an entire contingent of Obama's Chicago network, including Obama campaign finance chair Penny Pritzker, traveled to Copenhagen to "sacrifice" among the glitterati along with Oprah and the Obamas, while the President did his best to bring home the bacon.

This humiliating trip cost U.S. taxpayers one million dollars. That he would sully the office of the President for such naked parochial interests demonstrates just how out of touch, and entrenched in Chicago's corrupt politics, Obama is.

As we reported yesterday, it has recently been revealed that Obama isn't the great writer he claims to be either. He relied on the writing skills of Bill Ayers to compose his bestselling book "Dreams From My Father." So nix that qualification.

General Stanley McCrystal revealed Sunday that he has only spoken with Obama once since taking over U.S. military leadership in Afghanistan.

Once. For about a half-hour.

McCrystal requested more troops in August. That Obama would fail to discuss even this with his top military commander in Afghanistan for a month at the height of a shooting war is inexplicable. In an aptly titled post "Obama Lied, People Died," Redstate points out that Obama has dithered on troop strength increases since February, and:

To the detriment of us all, while Obama waffles and flips and flops (like the fish out of water we all knew he WOULD be in trying to fake it as a legitimate Commander in Chief) between all these strategies he can’t seem to make up his mind about, 317 MORE Soldiers have died fighting in defense of Operation Enduring Freedom which is more than 30% of the total lives lost during the entire 8 years of the conflict.


This week however, McCrystal has had an opportunity to speak with Obama twice by video phone. Wonder why? In an apparent effort to blunt criticism of his preoccupation with Chicago's bid for the Olympics, Obama met with the General for 25 minutes on Air Force One while it was parked on the tarmac at Copenhagen Airport.

That's reassuring. The President is on the case. Not to worry.

This comes on the heels of Obama speaking "without preconditions" to that lunatic Ahmadinejad. Note that Ahmadinejad never said he had no preconditions. So while Iranian democracy advocates get murdered in the streets, Obama seeks to "engage" with the Iranian thug responsible, but can't find time to speak with his own military commanders?

What planet are these people from?

Finally, the healthcare debate, the limp economic "stimulus" that appears in need of a big shot of Viagra, the 821 page Cap and Trade (read massive tax increase) bill, and every other facet of Obama's domestic policy, demonstrate an ignorance of basic economic principles so profound it defies belief.

That is why I do not believe these people are ignorant. They are simply reckless. They don't care. They are out to destroy this country.

They are succeeding.

________


Click on picture to enlarge.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Obama a Christian? What an insult! Folks just haven't been reading the Quran

...and why does he celebrate Ramaden? Because he hates Christians! Wake up people!

My Christian Faith? No Way! (he prepped himself good for that lie) - My Muslim faith...it was no slip of the tongue!

video video

The ultimate anti Christian statement from the Muslim in Chief

video

All you people who think that the Muslim faith is a religion of peace just haven't been reading the Quran...folks haven't been reading the Quran....

Muslims want to kill you and take over the world...folks haven't been reading the Quran!

[---lslam's role in advancing justice, progress,. tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings]

[Nothing could be further from the truth. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 &9 charge the Caliph with the duty of attacking Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians & Pagans at least once in every year. Those laws are based on Surahs At-Taubah & Al-Anfal of the Qur'an. Exactly how does that advance justice, tolerance & dignity?]

"His plan is evil!"

video

Rush Limbaugh Speechless? Wow! Susan, you should be President!

Part 1
Part 2
Powerful words!
"I was promoted by God...to be a mother!"

Part 3

Health Care And You...you will be TAXED! ...and Obama laughs!

Obama's Negativity ...More Exposure Needed

When I found this on YouTube it had only 315 views despite the fact that it was posted for six months. By posting it again here, it is hoped those numbers will increase...every little bit helps.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

The Double Standard...Gee, it wasn’t about the troops or the truth after all.

Source: Amy Proctor Bottom Line Up Front

Media Loses Interest in War Caskets Without Bush to Blame
Wednesday, September 30, 2009 at 07:07AM

President George W. Bush is gone, and so is the press covering the dead returning home from combat:

Remember the controversy over the Pentagon policy of not allowing the press to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets of American war dead as they arrived in the United States? Critics accused President Bush of trying to hide the terrible human cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“These young men and women are heroes,” Vice President Biden said in 2004, when he was senator from Delaware. “The idea that they are essentially snuck back into the country under the cover of night so no one can see that their casket has arrived, I just think is wrong.”

In April of this year, the Obama administration lifted the press ban, which had been in place since the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Media outlets rushed to cover the first arrival of a fallen U.S. serviceman, and many photographers came back for the second arrival, and then the third.

But after that, the impassioned advocates of showing the true human cost of war grew tired of the story. Fewer and fewer photographers showed up. “It’s really fallen off,” says Lt. Joe Winter, spokesman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, where all war dead are received. “The flurry of interest has subsided.”

That’s an understatement…..when caskets arrived on Sept. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 26. There has been no television coverage at all in September.

Gee, it wasn’t about the troops or the truth after all. And it certainly wasn’t about reporting the reality of the human cost of war….. more U.S. troops have died under Obama’s watch in Afghanistan than any other year under President Bush.

Article originally appeared on Amy Proctor (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.

Upside down post...comment 1st, Qaddafi at the UN 2nd - [H-T Grizzly Groundswell]

's avatar - Go to profile Norm · 13 hours ago
Good post...lots of points to ponder...I'll keep a copy for later analysis (if I find the time).
I don't believe the average citizen will take the time to read this either in it's entirety or in parts, but it is the kind of stuff that the citizen should be savvy ...it is after all, a March To War.
On a personal note I believe war is closer at hand than what is being reported... it will come when we least expect it but guys like Qaddafi expect it on their terms. My original expectations were for some major happenings in late 2010 and the closer we get to that time frame I've been wanting to alter my predictions...on the same token, the closer we get to that time frame the more I believe in myself...too much going on and all the factions will ultimately clash (shh, don't say anything about factions to Dr. Danielle Allen). Also, many believe that Qaddafi is of little or nor consequence; neither was Archduke Franz Ferdinand (and look what happened!) ~ Norman E. Hooben ( For original click here.)

Transcript: Moammar Gadhafi Speech to the UN General Assembly
March To War

My Google Alert for Gadhafi transcript finally fired, linking to the March to War blog. The blog has the speech on video in nine parts and a transcript.
That is an interesting name for a blog. Their right sidebar contains indications of their slant, toward the left and Islam.

I greet you on behalf of the African Union, and I pray that this will be a historic convene in the life of the world.
On behalf of the General Assembly of the United Nations, chaired by Libya, on behalf of the African Union, on behalf of the traditional African Kingdom, and for you all . I congratulate our son the president, “Obama,” who for the first time attended our General Meeting as President of the United States, and I commend him because he is the host country.

Evidently Gadhafi considers President Obama to be a “son of Africa”. He listed several challenges to the world including this apparent gem of lunacy.

… spread of diseases created by man himself and others because some of the viruses are manufactures as weapons and became beyond control . Perhaps Swine Flu is one of these viruses that were not controlled and it is produced in laboratories as war weapon.

If some diseases were engineered, how does he know about it if he was not involved in it? Who engineered diseases? What proof does he have?

Complaining of the structure of the Security Council and the wars occurring since its formation, he added this.

This is in clear and open contradiction with the Charter’s preamble that we accepted and the joined the organization accordingly .
If the matter does not comply with the preamble that we approved , then even our presence in this organization is no longer valid as of now .

It must be that he could not find the exit, because he stayed put and continued his oration. Of course, he continued to display the signs of lunacy.

If they told us there is a veto right , we would not have joined the UN , we joined the UN because we are equal in rights.
But when one country has the veto over all our resolutions and enjoys a permanent seat, Who gave it that permanent seat ?!
These four nations gave themselves the permanent seat .

The only nation that we voted for in this assembly to have a permanent seat is China . We gave our votes to China to become a permanent member of the Security Council . It is the only country with democratic presence, but the presence of the other four seats is undemocratic , rather it is dictatorial and imposed on us , so we do not recognize that and it does not apply to us .

Why would Libya join without first reading the Charter and appendant documents? Is Libya so primitive that it lacks lawyers who can read and comprehend the UN Charter? Gadhafi calls China, a repressive, dictatorial one party state, the only democracy inn the Security Council.

He proposes to reform the Security Council by eliminating the veto and allocating membership to regional groups instead of nations. Of course the missing element is limited government. The veto was necessary to assure rival states that the UN would not be seized by its rivals and used to their disadvantage. Democracy has been defined as “two wolves and one sheep voting on the dinner menu”.

This is what’s presented to you…to the General Assembly for voting.
This is the decisive essential issue, presented to the General Assembly the master of the world…the world’s parliament…it is the world’s congress, no one opposes it and we will not recognize anyone outside the hall, we’re the United Nations.
Ali Traiki and Ban Ki-moon will make the administrative and legal drafts, form committees that will vote on this issue, the Security Council, from now on, will be formed by unions.
This is justice and democracy and we’re finished with the Security Council which is occupied by certain nations…one possess atomic bomb, another possess economic power, other possess technology, and another possess technique…this is terrorism.

Unlimited rule by numbers; prejudiced by regional & racial rivalry. Thats what we need. And the current system is terrorism; yeah, right.

We cannot live in a Security Council dominated by those with overwhelming powers…this is terrorism.
This is if you want a world that lives in united and secure and peaceful, and if you want to us to live in terrorism, live in conflict…let us continue conflict until judgment day.

Conflict until judgment day; shades of Muhammad’s prophecy that “and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist).”. [Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526]

But for a nation to have veto power…and another does not, a nation to have a permanent seat and another that does not, this is annulled as of now, we absolutely do not recognize this and we will not be subject to any resolution passed by the Security Council with its current form.

Is he speaking for the African Union when he rejects Security Council resolutions? Is it safe to assume that the real agenda is protection for Iran against any new or augmented sanctions?

As for now, the Security Council is a feudal security…a feudal policy for permanent members, it protects them and they use it against us, hence, it should not be called the Security Council rather the Terror Council.

Equating the structure of the Security Council to terrorism is obvious evidence of insanity. The idea that the council protects us from Gadhafi & co. should serve as a warning.

Brothers, you can in our political life when they want to use the Security Council against us they resort to it, and if they do not need to use it against us, they ignore it, and if they have interest in the charter to use it against us, they respect and sanctify it, they search for the 7th chapter to apply it against these nations, and if they want to carry out an act in violation of the charter they would ignore it as if it did not exist.

It is unjust and terrorism that veto and permanent seat are for the powerful, we can neither take this nor can we live under it.
Powerful nations have saturated interests in the world, and they use veto, they use the force of the UN to protect their interests…this is terrorizing the third world, the third world is now terrorized, they are living under terrorism.
Since the Security Council was established in 1945 and until now it didn’t provide security for us, rather provided punishments and terror…it is only used against us, therefore, we are not obliged to obey Security Council resolutions as from the fortieth speech.

65 wars were waged since the establishment of the Security Council…against small nations, or fighting against each other, or an aggression by superpower against a small nation, the Security Council did not deter a violation of the charter.

The more he talks, the more he exposes his agenda. Russia’s power to protect Iran from meaningful sanctions by wielding the veto is terrorism. Yeah, right; it is enabling Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, soon to include nuclear extortion.

Here is the confirmation of my speculation about the Iranian agenda.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is an important UN body but the major powers are not answerable to it.. it is merely made for us ..if it is international as you say it should inspect the atomic stock of the nuclear countries ..as of this speech.
Ali al Treiki in the General Assembly will question the Director of the agency and question al Braedei to see if they looking into the stockpiles of these countries.

If they say yes these countries are subject to inspection ..so we will be subject to inspection ..but if not we will slab the door shut in it s face.

No such rambling oration would be complete without mention of reparations.

It is proposed to the general assembly to vote for the compensation of the countries that were colonised in order that colonisation is not repeated and in order not to repeat the robbery of the wealth of nations and not to repeat the immigration of these countries to the nations that robbed their wealth.

Perhaps you could start by making Italy, Greece, Spain, the Balkans and India whole for what the Muslim invaders and colonizers took from them, both lives and property hauled away as booty. That is not what Gadhafi has in mind.

Africa deserves compensation to the tune of 777 trillion that is seven hundred and seventy seven trillion as compensation for Africa from the coloniser countries and Africa will demand that. And if these trillions are not returned the Africans will keep going to where you have invested these trillions and they have the right to go after it. You return it to them and they will stop. There is no Libyan immigration to Italy which is the closest country to Libya. That is because Italy decided to compensate the Libyan people for colonisation and apologised and signed a treaty with Libya ratified by the Libyan and Italian people to turn the page of the past.

Italy acknowledged that colonisation is wrong, a failed programme and it will not return and Italy will not allow any aggression against Libya but sea, air or land from Italy or from any other place. Italy is compensating Libya for twenty years of colonisation. It is paying a quarter of a billion annually. It is building hospitals for those children whose limbs were dismembered through the mines planted by the Italians during the two world wars. Italy apologised and expressed regret for the colonisation. Italy has done the glorious thing. This is a historic action. It is a civilised action by Berluconi and has to be an example.

Remember how the oration began with congratulations for President Obama? There is more along that line, and it is potentially revealing.

The second point which I hope to face patiently is rather sensitive. There will be some sentences which I mentioned in brackets. Undoubtedly we the real Africans are happy and proud that one of Africa’s sons has become president of the USA. This is a historic event at the time when the black was not admitted to the cafe of the white, nor the restaurant of the white and was not allowed in the bus of the white. Now the American people have voted enthusiastically for Obama, the African-Kenyan black youth to become the US president. This is something great which we are proud of. We consider it the beginning of the change and he has raised the slogan for change.

However I consider Obama as a beacon in the darkness for about four or eight years but I am afraid things will come to the old habit because nobody guarantees anything after Obama. Nobody guarantees it, not the chairman nor Ban ki-Moon. We are satisfied at present and wish Obama to be permanently President of the USA.

So Obama is a “Kenyan black youth”? Kenyans can’t be elected President, American citizenship is a required element of eligibility for that office. And he wants Obama to be President for life. This is America, not Venezuela nor Honduras; we have a two term limit, and we are keeping it!

The issue of the headquarters also came up. Gadhafi wants it relocated, perhaps the only issue we agree on. He raised the issue of security, adding this revelation.

For your information this headquarters is targeted by Al Qaeda. Yes this headquarters is targeted and we wonder why it was not struck in 9/11. It could be involuntary. Probably the flights were aborted but the next target is this place and I don’t speak in a vacuum. We have scores of Al Qaeda members detained in our prisons and their confessions are highly worrying

Gadhafi knows the next target? Only because he has prisoners? Yeah, right. After a long, insane rant about various criminal cases, war crimes and Iraq, Gadhafi raves about Afghanistan.

Then the war in Afghanistan. It has to be investigated. Why are we antagonising the taleban? Why are we antagonising Afghanistan. Who are the taleban? If the taleban want to establish a religious state in Afghanistan let them do so. We have nothing to do with it. It is like the Vatican. Does the Vatican pose any threat to us? No it is a very peaceful, religious state.
If the Afghans want to establish an Islamic emirate let it be like the Vatican. Who said the taleban are the enemy and has to be struck by the armies? Is bin Laden an Afghan. Is he a taleban. Bin Laden is not from the taleban and is not from Afghanistan. The terrorists who struck New York? Are they Afghans? Are they from the taleban? No they are not Afghani and they are not from the taleban. So why were Iraq and Afghanistan targeted?

Does the Vatican oppress women and arbitrarily amputate hands and feet? Does the Vatican give sanctuary & assistance to terrorists before and after they kill thousands of civilians? The Taliban did, those students of the Qur’an. Would a peaceful religious state sponsor training camps where terrorists mastered small arms, bomb making skills and developed confidence & morale? Yeah, right. A demand was made to turn over the culprits, it was refused, and the invasion ensued. This is not an issue of nationality. It is an issue of Islamic aggression against disbelievers, a doctrine common to all Muslims.

Who says that if the taleban rule Afghanistan they will become a threat? Do the taleban have any intercontinental missiles? The airliner that hit New York. Did it come from Afghanistan or Iraq. These airliners took off from Kennedy airport in New York. So why do we go and strike Afghanistan. They are not Afghans, not taleban, nor Iraqis. Why should we keep silent about these things. Those who keep silent regarding what is right is like a silent devil. We won’t be silent devils. It is our right because we are keen on world peace. We are keen on the destiny of the world. We do not want to undermine humanity in this manner.

Who says they will be a threat? The Qur’an, that book which serves as the source of their laws: 8:39 & 9:29 say it in plain, clear language which is easily understood. The terrorists came from Arabia, they trained in Afghanistan and Iraq. They traveled here by air and hijacked planes which they flew into buildings while their leader celebrated in his cave in Afghanistan. Keen on world peace; your destiny? Death & damnation!! Gadhafi is keen on deceiving and conquering the entire world, the same project the “Magnificent 19″ were engaged in. When a Muslim rants and raves about peace, it means the condition appertaining after Islam has conquered the world and dominates it entirely. Their expressions are Orwellian, totally inverting truth & morality.

Continuing his wide ranging rant, Gadhafi raves about the Somali pirates, proposing a silly solution before switching suddenly to medicine. How does he expect pharmaceutical companies to fund research & development of new drugs and vaccines?

Our handling of matters is actually wrong. If the vaccination for swine flu is produced and there could be more flus of God or flus of fish then the factories that belong to the intelligence operate and they sell at a high price. This is trade. They produce a virus and they spread it across the world so that capitalist companies gain money from selling vaccines. This is shameful. The vaccines are not to be sold. Medicines are not to be sold. You have to read the Green Book. It does not allow the selling of medicines. If we say the medicines are free and the vaccines are free and no viruses are spread because it is they who produce these viruses in order to produce vaccines. That is how capitalist companies work. This is the wrong approach. You have to declare that medicines are free and not for sale.

Even if the viruses are real we should not sell the vaccines. They have to be offered for free.

Next, he raves about needing land mines for self-defense and launches into a wonderful solution for the conflict with Israel.

As for the Palestinian cause the two-state solution is impossible. I urge you not to speak about it. The only solution is one democratic state for Jews and for Muslims for Palestinians and Christians and all others – like Lebanon.

Yeah, right, Lebanon is so calm and peaceful; what a success! After a decade of Muslim aggression against Christians followed by Syrian occupation, Iran’s proxy has amassed a great stock of missiles and threatens to plunge Lebanon into the abyss at any moment.

The West Bank has half a million Israeli settlers. The so-called Israel has a million Palestinian settlers. How can we establish two states. The world has to go to impose one democratic state without any religious, nationalist or linguistic bigotry. Bigotry is reactionary and it is time is well over. These are thoughts of the guard. The ideas of the Third World War. The ideas of men like Yasser Arafat and Sharon. All these are over. The new generation wants one democratic state. We have to exert every effort to impose on them one state where all people co-exist.

That proposal is completely insane, a non-starter. Where there is Islam, there is bigotry. Islam will not coexist with Jews on an equal basis! Islam demands that it be superior and dominant. Examine the Pact of Umar. Examine 9:29 and the infamous genocide hadith.

Let us expose this reality. We are not enemies of the Jews. They are our cousins. The Jews will need the Arabs one day but the Arabs will not protect them as they did in the past. Let us have a look at what Tito did. What Hadrin did. What Edward 1 did and what Hitler did to the Jews. You hate them and you are anti-Semitic.

And Hajj Amin Al-Husseini spent most of WW2 in Germany begging Hitler to ship the Levantine Jews to Europe for extermination. He also organized a Bosnian SS brigade. Who was he? Arafat’s uncle, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a real Jew lover; of course, all Muslims are, until they kill the last Jew on the last day.

Arrogant insanity continues to the very end of the long rant.

At any rate the UN General Assembly is chaired by Libya and this is its right. The work that could be done by Libya is to help the world in moving from one phase to another, from this world which is lost, bitter, shameful, terrorised and threatened to move to a more human world where there is peace and tolerance.

I will follow up this work with the General Assembly and with Ali Al Teriki and with the UN Secretary General because we will not be complacent and we will not be submissive regarding the fate of humanity.

Humanity has to struggle in order to live in peace. The struggle by the Third World and the smaller states, 100 of them in order to live in dignity and in freedom is a continued struggle and it has to continue till the end. Peace and blessings.

Obama Care...Food for thought.

I was over at PlanksConstant and found this to be a great analogy to the future of health care in this country. Only it will get worse because it won't be the food we run out of, but the doctors, nurses and all the health care professionals we've gotten so used to. Can I see a doctor? We're out of doctors. Can I see a nurse? We're out of nurses. Can I get an X-ray? We've got one opening left. Good, I'll take it! ~ Norman E. Hooben

Government Run Food Care


By Bernie on 01 Oct 2009:
Trackbacks

Comments




I just finished reading Bill Maher's stupid article "Not Everything in America Has to Make a Profit." The poor moron thinks that just because something is done for profit that it is evil or must lead to bad results (1). He states that health care should not be run for profit.

SO I thought to myself, what is more important than health care? What is more critical to our health? I quickly answered myself: food care. Many of us can go decades through life without ever needing to see a doctor or need medical care; food on the other hand we need every day. So food care is one thing that the government should get involved in. I'm not saying food should be free, but rather that there should be a government option to the supply of food.

For example, next August my family (eight of us) will be in Walt Disney World Resorts for 11 days during which time we will be using Disney's new Dining Plan where for about $43 per day we will have our dinners, breakfasts, and snacks prepaid. Whether we eat or not, at the end of the stay, unused meals expire.

Not everyone can afford private food care, so we should have something similar to the Disney Plan, but affordable for everyone. In fact, everyone would be required to have food insurance or face stiff penalties. It wouldn't be right for someone not to pay into the system and then when they are starving expect the government to pay for it.

Before you go knocking the idea, it already exists. Or I should say it existed in Poland in 1968. During the Summer of 1968 my brother Pete, a college buddy named Bill, and I went traveling through Europe. In August we arrived in Poland and found that the private rate of exchange for dollars was 20 times more than the official bank rate. Instead of exchanging our dollars for złotys at the exchange rate of 24 to 1, we received almost 500 złotys. To put it into perspective, a hotel room cost us only $3 a night (instead of $60) and a dinner cost perhaps 50 cents (instead of $10).

Sorry for the digression.

On our first day in Poland we went to a government-run restaurant which seemed to be almost completely empty even though it was lunch hour. We sat down, looked at the menu, and picked a few items for lunch. Here's the conversation (I ordered in Polish, which I speak quite well, but translated for my readers):

Me: I'd like to try the pork chops.
Waiter: We're out of that.
Me: Um, OK, how about the roast duck?
Waiter: We ran out of that this morning.
Me: Well then, what would you suggest?
Waiter: We have lots of things, pick something from the menu.
Me: Hmmm. Do you have cheese pierogies? [Photo]
Waiter: I don't think there are any left.
Me: Kiełbasa with fried onions, then? [Photo]
Waiter: No.
Me: What do you have?
Waiter: Pick something.
Me: (faster) Gołąbki with potatoes? [Photo]
Waiter: Shakes head no.
Me: (even faster) Please tell me what you have?
Waiter: Nods impatiently at menu.
Me: (with one eye squinting) Potato Latkes? [Photo]
Waiter: Yes, how many orders?
Me: (hopefully) Three?
Waiter: Two.
Me: Perfect!

And so this is how the government option works. The waiter is not allowed to admit that the government-run restaurant is almost completely out of products to serve. Why so low on food? Because the farmers refuse to sell meat, dairy and vegetable produce to the government at the prices the government sets.

The next day we met up with my Polish cousins and we went out to eat at a private-run restaurant. There was a line about 40 people deep to get in. When we got to our table we looked at the menu and I asked my cousin to help me select since I didn't want to go through another long, drawn out process. She said order whatever I like. I said, "Yeah right." But she insisted. To my surprise, everything on the menu was available.

When the government runs out of butter, their restaurants have no butter. When private (for profit) restaurants start getting low on butter, the owner goes out and buys the butter and pays whatever it takes to get it.

I will admit that the government restaurant was three times cheaper than the private one. The argument will offered that there are lots of people who cannot afford to eat at expensive restaurants. So I suppose if you are happy eating only potato pancakes then government-run restaurants are great.

Some socialist morons like Bill Maher will look at the food situation in Poland at that time and complain that the problem is that someone is making a profit serving food, an essential item, and that the solution would have been to only have government-run restaurants. But because he is a very stupid person, Bill does not understand that there were only government-run restaurants after the Communists took over and because those didn't work, they had to allow private ones to spring up. Private, for-profit restaurants are the solution, not the problem.

Health Care in America is the best despite all efforts by government to hobble it. Medicaid and Medicare have driven health care costs through the roof. The problem is not for-profit health care, but free health care.

Canada and the UK now allow their citizens to go to private clinics because their public health care systems are failing (2). That's right - these countries now find that for-profit medical systems are needed to fix their great experiment in socialized medicine.

I've seen government-run food care, I shudder to think what choices I will have picking items from a government-run health care menu.

This facility has 24 hr security...

----- Original Message -----
From: link removed
To: link removed
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Mexican Lion
Sheer genius – work with what ya got!

This is the true story of a Garage Owner in the Southwest. ( New Mexico )
He was sick and tired of thugs breaking into his garage shop to steal tools, etc. So he came up with this idea. He put the word out that he had a Mexican Lion that would attack anyone that would break in or climb his fence. Would-be thieves saw the "Lion" from a distance and fled the scene.


The dog's probably trying to figure out why his head's so hot and his butt's so cold?

Davy, Davy Crockett, King Of The Wild Frontier...wish he were here to take care of the stimulus bill!

"He went off to Congress and served a spell. Fixin’ up the government and laws as well.
Took over Washington, so we hear tell, and patched up the crack in the Liberty Bell."
(The complete lyrics here)
____________________________________
Not Yours To Give
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." --James Madison

David Crockett

My paternal ancestors settled in East Tennessee about 10 years before it was admitted to the Union (1796). Not far from where they settled lived a fellow who was the region's most famous frontiersman.

David Crockett was his name.

He has been immortalized as a folk hero, known for his battles with the Red Stick Creek Indians under Andrew Jackson, and his last stand at the Alamo with fellow Patriots James Bowie from Kentucky and William Travis from South Carolina.

Crockett battled the Creek side-by-side with fellow Tennessean Sam Houston, but both men were friends to the Cherokee clans, which were composed of highly civilized native peoples living in the border regions between Tennessee and North Carolina.

At the end of his formal service as a soldier, he was elected Lieutenant Colonel of the Tennessee Militia.

Crockett is less known for the several terms he served in Congress between 1827 and 1835 during the presidency of his old commander, Andrew Jackson. Crockett's friend, Sam Houston, had been elected governor of Tennessee. (Houston, who would later become governor of Texas, is the only American in history to serve as governor of two states.)

Though he had little formal education, Crockett exuded a commanding presence and was feared, if not loathed, by his more refined congressional colleagues for his backwoods rhetoric.

In one of his more legendary orations, Crockett proclaimed: "Mr. Speaker ... the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Everett] talks of summing up the merits of the question, but I'll sum up my own. In one word I'm a screamer, and have got the roughest racking horse, the prettiest sister, the surest rifle and the ugliest dog in the district. I'm a leetle the savagest crittur you ever did see. My father can whip any man in Kentucky, and I can lick my father. I can out-speak any man on this floor, and give him two hours start. I can run faster, dive deeper, stay longer under, and come out drier, than any chap this side the big Swamp. I can outlook a panther and outstare a flash of lightning, tote a steamboat on my back and play at rough and tumble with a lion, and an occasional kick from a zebra."

Crockett continued, "I can take the rag off -- frighten the old folks -- astonish the natives -- and beat the Dutch all to smash, make nothing of sleeping under a blanket of snow and don't mind being frozen more than a rotten apple. I can walk like an ox, run like a fox, swim like an eel, yell like an Indian, fight like a devil, spout like an earthquake, make love like a mad bull, and swallow a Mexican whole without choking if you butter his head and pin his ears back."

What I wouldn't give to hear a tad more of that on the floor of the House these days!

Though his rhetoric may have been unorthodox, Crockett was a man of principle.

His fervent opposition to Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act of 1830 (forcing removal of the peaceful Cherokee tribes along the infamous "Trail of Tears") cost Crockett his congressional seat, but he declared, "I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the White House no matter who he is."

But it was Crockett's stalwart opposition to unconstitutional spending that is most worth noting given today's congressional penchant for such spending in the trillions.

According to the Register of Debates for the House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session on April 2, 1828, Crocket stood to challenge the constitutionality of one of the earliest welfare spending bills.

While the exact text of his speech was not recorded in full (as that was not the practice of the time), the spirit of his words was captured years later under the heading "Not yours to give" in the book "The Life of Colonel David Crockett" by Edward Ellis.

Ellis wrote, "One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose..."

According to Ellis, Crockett said, "Mr. Speaker; I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Though the measure was expected to receive unanimous support, after Crockett's objection, it did not pass.

Be sure you are right...

Ellis recounts that Crocket was later asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, and he replied: "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done."

Crocket explained, "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and..."

His constituent interrupted, "Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

Crockett replied, "This was a sockdolager ... I begged him to tell me what was the matter."

The farmer said, "Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

Crocket responded, "Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

But the farmer fired back, "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. ... So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."

Thus, Crockett explained of his opposition to support the widow of that distinguished naval officer: "Now, sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday."

Today, there are but a handful of Senate and House incumbents who dare support and defend the Constitution as Crockett did. But there are candidates emerging around the nation who, with our support, will deliver orations as brazen and eloquent, and stand firm behind those words.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

US Interests Versus 'The Jewish State' - A View From The Other Side...and Obama still looks bad!

US Interests Versus 'The Jewish State'

By Jeff Gates

Barack Obama's recent conduct at the U.N. removed all remaining doubt as to Israeli influence inside this latest U.S. presidency. When he uttered the phrase 'the Jewish state of Israel,' he provided precisely the provocation required to ensure that peace in the Middle East will continue to be deferred.

When, in May 1948, Christian-Zionist Harry Truman agreed to recognize an enclave of Jewish-Zionist extremists as a nation state, he struck out “Jewish state” and wrote the “state of Israel.” Despite assurances from Zionist lobbyist Chaim Weizmann that Israel would be a democracy, Truman feared the Zionist state might become what it became: a racist theocracy committed to an expansionist agenda that endangers U.S. interests in the region.

Barack Obama is a political product of Chicago’s West Side Jewish community and the nation’s “first Jewish president” according to former Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva. Though branded an agent of change, when the zeitgeist of his campaign suggested that change might encompass a shift in the U.S.-Israeli relationship, those Ashkenazim who produced this presidential phenomenon let their displeasure be known.

The candidate of change quickly made the requisite rounds of pro-Israeli venues where he promised his benefactors there would be no change in an entangled alliance that, in retrospect, is the primary reason the U.S. finds itself at war in the Middle East. His U.N. performance thrilled those colonial Zionists whose duplicity troubled Truman. Meanwhile his “Jewish state” comment was guaranteed to inflame tensions in the region.

In the lead-up to this speech, Israelis told Obama what they intended to do—and then did it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he would use agreed-to terms of the Road Map to trade for stronger action against Iran. When Obama blinked and failed to insist that Israel comply with the agreed-to freeze on settlements, Netanyahu got what he sought—an emphasis on war with Iran rather than peace with the Palestinians.

Rather than announcing progress in negotiations, Obama announced only his hope that negotiations could soon resume—maybe. When Tel Aviv saw how easily they outwitted this novice negotiator, their agenda became more audacious. Obama’s mention of the code phrase “Jewish state” confirmed the ongoing role of the same stage managers who flew him directly from his speech in Cairo to a photo-op at Germany’s Buchenwald death camp.

Confirming the Zionists’ insider influence, Rahm Emanuel, widely described as the most powerful Chief of Staff in decades, assumed a prominent position in the U.N. chamber alongside the Secretary of State, the U.N. Ambassador and the National Security Adviser.

As with Cairo, Obama not only missed another opportunity to build goodwill, he missed a chance to restore the tattered credibility of the U.S after eight years of a Christian-Zionist president. Instead of progress toward peace, he offered yet another photo-op featuring Israeli and Palestinian leaders in yet another handshake signifying ... nothing.

At what point will Americans realize they’ve been played for the fool by a purported ally? At what point does presidential conduct become culpable complicity? Why would The New York Times report a decline in Barack Obama’s approval ratings in Israel?

Pundits put a positive spin on this foreign policy disaster by suggesting that Obama boxed Netanyahu in by finessing the settlements issue and forcing the Israeli leader to mention final status negotiations. That analysis misses the point. For Tel Aviv, there is no final status. The point of this six-decade process is more process—to avoid resolution.

Should Washington maneuver Israel into a box, Tel Aviv will collapse yet another coalition government. Or announce a resignation. That was Ben-Gurion’s ruse in June 1963 when John F. Kennedy insisted on inspections to stop Israel’s nuclear arms program. Ehud Olmert used the same negotiating tactic when it appeared that the Road Map could lead to a final status agreement. His well-timed resignation brought back Netanyahu.

The only party in a box is the U.S. The way out is to end this entangled alliance and the perils to U.S. interests that this “special relationship” was certain to create. In practical effect, in order to keep an Israeli government intact with which to negotiate, the U.S. must satisfy the most right-wing elements of the most right-wing political party of an infamously right-wing foreign government. How can that be in America’s interest?

Harry Truman’s recognition of this enclave as a legitimate state was an overwrought reaction to a unique combination of domestic and international circumstances that were manipulated to the advantage of violent religious extremists. Their ethnic cleansing of Palestine has yet to be either acknowledged or addressed.

After six decades of occupation and oppression, the best a U.S. president could offer Palestinians was an assurance that a U.S. ally—should negotiations resume—would come to the table with “clear terms of reference.” What greater insult could a U.S. president inflict on the Arab world than such an empty promise?

Obama’s performance was pathetic. Also, in effect, he gave the green light for another mass murder in the U.S. or in the European Union. As part of the pre-staging of another plausible rationale for the invasion of yet another Middle Eastern nation, mainstream U.S. media misrepresented remarks to the U.N. by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, giving credence to Iran as a nuclear threat. That Evil Doer portrayal is consistent with the pre-staging of other operations by which the U.S. was induced to war on false pretenses.

The next incident could be nuclear. While Obama was conceding to Israeli demands, Defense Minister Ehud Barack was meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates to assure him that Tel Aviv may yet attack Iran. In yet another signal to a worldwide audience about just who shapes U.S. foreign policy, the Pentagon chief was accompanied by Dennis Ross who joined Obama’s Iran advisory team from a think tank affiliate of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

For the first time in history, a U.S. president chaired a meeting of the U.N. Security Council. Presented with an occasion to caution an ally not to aggravate the nuclear arms race that Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy, Obama focused instead on Iran, forgoing a warning to the one nation in the Middle East known to have a nuclear arsenal. And the only nation able to deliver on the threat of deployment.

As an additional insult to Arab nations, the U.S. negotiating team urged—despite no sign of good faith by Tel Aviv—that those nations offer diplomatic gestures of goodwill. Or make “substantive concessions” as Netanyahu put it. No reason was offered why, after enduring more than sixty years of nonstop duplicity, they should agree to do so.

For anyone to assume or suggest that Israel is operating in good faith reflects a perilous misreading of history. What we just witnessed at the U.N. is how warfare is waged in the Information Age. This was neither the behavior of a U.S. ally nor a nation deserving U.S. support, friendship, arms or even recognition. Any further appeasement of this extremist enclave and Obama can rightly be charged with breach of his oath of office to defend the U.S. from all enemies, both domestic and foreign.

- Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide. Gates' latest book is ‘Guilt By Association - How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War’ (2008). His previous books include ‘Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street’ and ‘The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century’. For two decades, an adviser to policy-makers worldwide. Counsel to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee (1980-87) He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.