We can no longer wait !
If you liked this video then try this Tea Party Member...and former Marine...stuns the crowd
Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, June 12, 2010
What's Wrong with Obama?
"My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him."
 |
A Shrink Asks: What's Wrong with Obama?
By Robin of BerkeleySo what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I've written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.
He is not capable of it.
Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama's blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times' Maureen Dowd revamped Obama's "Yes We Can" motto into "Will We Ever?"
The liberal women of the TV show "The View" have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama's living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe, recently pronounced him disconnected.
Obama's odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.
For one, Obama's teleprompter and the men behind the Blackberry keep him well-scripted. We know so little about the facts of his life.
But it's more than just a lack of information. Obama himself is a strange bird. He doesn't fit easily into any diagnostic category.
Many people attribute Obama's oddness to his narcissism. True, Obama has a gargantuan ego, and he is notoriously thin-skinned.
Yet a personality disorder like narcissism does not explain Obama's strangeness: his giggling while being asked about the economy; his continuing a shout-out rather than announcing the Ft. Hood shootings; or his vacations, golfing, partying and fundraising during the calamitous oil spill.
Take also Obama's declaring on the "Today Show" that he wants to know whose ass to kick. Consummate narcissists would never stoop to this vulgar display of adolescent machismo.
Obama is flat when passion is needed; he's aggressive when savvy is required. What's most worrisome is that Obama doesn't even realize that his behavior is inappropriate.
So if it's not just simple narcissism, what is wrong with Obama? Since I've never evaluated him, I can't say for sure. But I can hazard some educated guesses.
If I saw a client as disconnected as him, the first thing I would wonder: Is something wrong with his brain? And I'd consider the following theoretical diagnostic possibilities.
--Physical problems: There are a multitude of physiological conditions that can cause people to act strangely. For instance: head injuries, endocrine disturbances, epilepsy, and toxic chemical exposure.
It makes me wonder: Did Obama ever have a head injury? His stepfather in Indonesia was purportedly an alcoholic abuser. Was Obama subject to any physical abuse?
-- Drugs and alcohol: Damage to the brain from drugs and alcohol can also cause significant cognitive impairments. Obama once said that there were 57 states -- and didn't correct himself. Memory problems can be caused by both illicit and prescription drug use.
Obama admits to a history of drug use in his youth. Did his usage cause some damage? Does Obama still use?
--Asperger's Syndrome: Also known as high-functioning autism, Asperger's causes deficits in social skills. A person with Asperger's can't read social cues. Consequently, he can be insensitive and hurtful without even knowing it.
Could Obama have Asperger's? He might have some mild traits, but certainly not the full-blown disorder. In contrast to Obama, those with Asperger's get fixated on some behavior, like programming computers. Obama lacks this kind of passion and zeal.
--Mental Illness: Obama's family tree is replete with the unbalanced. His maternal great-grandmother committed suicide. His grandfather, Stanley Dunham, was particularly unhinged: He was expelled from high school for punching his principal; named his daughter Stanley because he wanted a boy; and exposed young Barry to not just drunken trash talk, but unrestricted visits with alleged pedophile Frank Marshall Davis (who might or might not be Obama's biological father). Barack Sr. was an abusive, alcoholic bigamist.
Since mental illness runs in the family, does Obama have any signs? Yes and no. No, he is not a schizophrenic babbling about Martians. But there are red flags for some other conditions.
While Obama doesn't appear to hallucinate, he seems to have delusions. His believing he has a Messiah-like special gift smacks of grandiose delusions. His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the "racist" bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions.
Along with a delusional disorder, Obama may fit for a mild psychotic disorder called schizotypal disorder. It may explain some of Obama's oddness.
People with schizotypal disorder hold bizarre beliefs, are suspicious and paranoid, and have inappropriate and constricted affect. They have few close friends and are socially awkward. A schizotypal is someone like your strange cousin Becky who is addicted to astrology, believes she is psychic, and is the oddball at social gatherings.
Schizotypal Disorder does ring some bells vis-à-vis Obama. One way the diagnosis doesn't fit, however, is that schizotypals are generally harmless, odd ducks. Not so with Obama.
--Trauma: My gut tells me that Obama was seriously traumatized in childhood. His mother disregarded his basic needs, dragged him all over the place, and ultimately abandoned him.
But I think there may be something even more insidious in his family background. While I can't prove it, the degree of Obama's disconnect reminds me of my sexually abused clients.
With serious sexual abuse, the brain chemistry may change. The child dissociates -- that is, disconnects from his being -- in order to cope. Many adult survivors still dissociate, from occasional trances to the most extreme cases of multiple personality disorder.
Apparently, young Barry was left in the care of Communist Frank Marshall Davis, who admitted to molesting a 13-year-old girl. As a teenager, Obama wrote a disturbing poem, "Pop," that evoked images of sexual abuse -- for instance, describing dual amber stains on both his and "Pop's" shorts.
Would trauma explain Obama's disconnect? In many ways, yes. A damaged and unattached child may develop a "false self." To compensate for the enormous deficits in identity and attachment, the child invents his own personality. For Obama, it may have been as a special, gifted person.
Let's return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.
Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There's even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.
If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?
It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid...and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.
Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.
Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama's fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone:
He is not capable of it.
A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist in Berkeley and a recovering liberal. You can e-mail Robin at robinofberkeley@hotmail.com. She regrets that she may not be able to acknowledge your e-mail.
From: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/a_shrink_asks_whats_wrong_with.html at June 12, 2010 - 10:00:12 AM CDT
Friday, June 11, 2010
16 Year-old found alive at sea...
I feel a certain closeness to this story...see below. ~ Norm
The Qantas Airways jetliner with dozens of harbor patrol spotters on board made radio contact with Sunderland.
Her boat was upright, but the mast had been knocked off by rough seas. She was in good health and had plenty of food and was waiting for the arrival of a fishing boat in about a day...Read full story here Los Angeles Times
________________________-_
I feel close to this story because I often wanted to do the same thing...
This is a few years ago...
Teen sailor Abby Sunderland is found alive by spotter aircraft
The 16-year-old Thousand Oaks girl trying to be the youngest solo sailor to circle the world had lost contact with her family early Thursday in the southern Indian Ocean.
 Jeff Casher, left, and Bill Bennett, technical support staff members for the Sunderlands, talk to reporters outside the family's home in Thousand Oaks after they had heard that searchers had contacted Abby Sunderland. (Mark J. Terrill, Associated Press / June 11, 2010) |
la-me-0611-abby-sunderland-20100611
A spotter jet over the Indian Ocean late Thursday made contact with 16-year-old Abby Sunderland, the Thousand Oaks solo sailor who was adrift in rough seas and heavy winds in her quest to circumnavigate the globe, a spokesman for the teen's family said.
Her boat was upright, but the mast had been knocked off by rough seas. She was in good health and had plenty of food and was waiting for the arrival of a fishing boat in about a day...Read full story here Los Angeles Times
________________________-_
I feel close to this story because I often wanted to do the same thing...
This is a few years ago...
Not exactly for blue-water sailors...but loads of fun!
What do I have to do to get your attention?
Allah promised Islam a victory against all the religions..."If that is not a call to war then I don't know what is..."
In a recent speech, Libyan leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi said that the Muslims, who currently constitute a minority in Europe, would become a majority and would "inherit the continent," despite attempts by the new imperialism to eradicate the Muslims from the world. Al-Qadhafi told heads of delegations of the Islamic People's Leadership and of Muslims from the Balkans[1] – including scholars, sheikhs, young people, and women's rights activists – that Turkey's joining the European Union would be a Trojan horse.
Following are excerpts from his remarks:[2]
The New Imperialism Is Trying to Eradicate Islam
"We are proud of Europe's Islam and Muslims, particularly in the Balkans, because of the Muslim presence in the heart of the Christian continent – which once attacked Islam on its own lands, in the Middle East and in nearby North Africa, and tried to eradicate Islam from the face of the earth with the Crusades and during the era of the new imperialism..."In Algeria, millions were killed... by the imperialist invaders, who aimed to annihilate the Muslims there. In Libya, hundreds of thousands were killed in their land by the Italian imperialism. There were [also] massacres in Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, and all the Islamic countries of Africa and Asia. [These reflect] an attempt by the new Western imperialism to eradicate Islam.
"Today, massacres are being perpetrated in Palestine, with the aim of eliminating the Palestinians as a people and the Muslims [in Palestine]. [In Iraq,] the number of victims has exceeded one million... They want to eliminate the Muslims in Iraq. In Afghanistan and in Pakistan [people are being] killed daily in NATO operations, on land that does not belong to NATO... They are trying to kill the Muslims everywhere, by any means possible.
"The Muslims have no choice but to unite to save themselves from these mass murderers who slaughter and massacre on Islamic land – whether by means of missiles, airplanes, cannon, rifles, [and] poison, as was the case with Yasser Arafat and others. They excuse their increasingly fiery war against the Muslims by calling it a war on terror. If terrorism exists, we are all its victims. We are all against terrorism..."
Turkey Will Be a Trojan Horse in the EU
"Allah promised Islam a victory against all the religions... You [Muslims] are a minority in Europe. Allah willing, you will become a majority one day, and you will gain the upper hand... You will be the imams and the heirs of the European continent."Turkey's joining the European Union... means that the European continent will no longer be a Crusader or Christian continent. Islam will become a powerful partner on the European continent in terms of territory, people, and actions. We await the day that Turkey will join the EU, so that it will go down in history as a Trojan horse.
"You must act to unite the Muslims in Europe, [joining the Muslims] from Turkey to Bosnia-Herzegovina with the Muslims [in the rest] of Europe. There are millions of Muslims across Europe – from Britain through Greece to Eastern European countries that have joined the European Union and have a Muslim majority."
"No One Can Prohibit Us from Living in Europe – It Was Allah, Not the Europeans, Who Created Europe"
"The statistics on the number of Muslims in Europe are incorrect... [The number] of Muslims [there] is greater than that indicated by the official statistics."Fortunately, the Muslims are multiplying, and their number is growing many times faster than those of other religions... This may be proof that Allah ultimately wants the Muslims to be more numerous than the others.
"Even within Palestine, no one can stop this phenomenon. The Palestinian Muslims are multiplying four times faster than the Jews. Ultimately, the Palestinian Muslims will be a majority, even within the so-called Israel...
"Allah created the land for all people; no one can prohibit us from living in Europe. It was Allah, not the Europeans, who created Europe. You [Muslims] are residents of Europe. It is your land. It is inconceivable for you to be humiliated and persecuted there..."
[1] In addition to the Islamic People's Leadership, the delegates were from the Muammar Friendship and Intercommunication Forum in the Balkans and the Gaddafi Youth Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
[2] Al-Shams (Libya), June 8, 2010.
________________
Related....
From: Planck's Constant
Thank God Turkey is Not in the EU
By Bernie
Turkey has been trying to join the European Union for more than 50 years. It should never be allowed to join. It is not a European country, its culture is not European, its people are still rooted in the barbaric 7th century.
If Europe ever needed proof of Turkey's true sentiments, we have only to note the recent attempts by Turkey to force Israel, the only democracy in the entire Middle East, to lift its blockade of Gaza 1. We see that even though it was once a close ally of Israel, even holding joint military exercises, that it would sever all its economic, military, and political ties with any infidel nation in favor of Islamic thugs.
This was an intentional act of provocation by Turkey in support of those who desire the complete eradication of Israel from the map of the world. Now that we see Turkey siding with terrorists, it is evident that should it ever win EU membership, the floodgates would open for every Muslim extremist in the world to come to Turkey, establish citizenship there, and then, utilizing the rule of the Freedom of movement for workers, proceed to infest every European city on the continent. And without dismantling the EU, there would be nothing that Europe will be able to do to stop it.
If any activists are dead, it is because they were purposely looking for confrontation. They got it - they're lucky the whole ship wasn't blasted out of the water.
If any activists are dead, it is Turkey's fault. It has no business supporting terror.
If any activists are dead, it is Obama's fault for treating Israel like a junkyard dog suitable for kicking. Obama should have told Turkey that the Gaza blockade is none of its business.
Israel has to stop pussy-footing around. She should declare outright that any aid to Gaza would be viewed as an act of war and any ship which did not follow Israel's orders would be sunk. Period. End of story.
When Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing was asked what the effect of including Turkey in the EU would be, he said: "In my opinion, it would be the end of Europe." 2
Now everyone has to figure out what to do with the Muslims who have already infiltrated Europe.
Related....
Quoted from Ben Powell's Provocative Quotes from OIC
"Islam is a war cult, a predatory way of life, not a race. It originated in Arabia, but was spread by the sword into Africa, Asia and Europe. Our objection to Islam is not based on race, it is based on Islam's assertion of a divine right and mandate to rape, pillage, plunder and enslave us until we join them. For the doubters & dissenters, I offer a piece of evidence similar to the barbarian response to Jefferson & Adams when they asked by what right the Barbary Pirates attacked us.
"... Islam is a real, proximate and continuing existential threat. An Islamic attack on our soil nine years ago killed 3000 people and caused billions of dollars in economic loss. Because of our First Amendment, we can not be arrested, fined and imprisoned for revealing the damnable doctrines of Islam. We need to preserve our First Amendment rights."
Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386
"A nation can survive its' fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor--He speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation--he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city--he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared."Cicero, 42 B.C., Roman Statesman, orator, and author. The enemy within...  |
Religion as a Bond of Union
“The people of the city were not only united about a common citadel; they were also bound together by a common religion. Each smaller group – like the family, the gens, etc. – retained its own particular worship; but to be part of the city it must also recognize the common deity under whose protection the city was founded, and whose continual worship the city life was maintained. Religion was thus the sacred bond of union which held together the various parts of the community.” ~ From Outlines of Greek History by William C. Morey, Ph.D., D.C.L. copyright 1903
One could make the claim that the above quote is the greatest un-learned history lesson of all time. I don’t know how many times nor how many history books that I ran across similar statements about the cohesion of the early city states. The use of Dr. Morey’s quote here was simply because it predates me…but also that I have the book in my possession.
It should be noted that the sacred bond of union was one of mutually shared assimilation and not a dictate by the government for as soon as such authoritative force came upon the population then the decline of the city state soon followed; especially when that force was dominated by outside religious beliefs or no religion at all. Most indigenous peoples have a religion that guides there every day moral compass; those that do not generally have no morals and a particular observation is that lying comes easy for there is no law written in stone to guide them…they have no conscience that disturbs the alarms that should ring when wrong dominates right. Such secular people usually have little in common with those of established faiths…though there is some toleration but usually for political trickery intents.
So what is happening now in the once very cohesive United States? We have the influence of an unconscionable, authoritative leader that dictates policy influenced by non Judeo-Christian beliefs (mostly Islam and Marxism) backed by gangs schooled in the art of Saul Alinsky and deceit (is that a double negative? Alinsky and deceit). Remember, it was Judeo-Christian beliefs that were our common bond. Let’s not forget it. This moment in time is your part in history for another generation to learn about so let’s prolong our bond before the United States of America becomes history. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Ps: The New World Order crowd (Carter, Clinton [x2], Bush[x 2], Pelosi, Reid, Obama) never learned the above history lesson.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
They Must Be Stopped...starting with Obama
Source The Wall Street Journal cross-post from: Granny With A Pitchfork
The Disconnect of the White House and its Potentially Disastrous Results
This is from the Wall Street Journal. It’s depressing but Ms Rabinowitz gives a clear picture of what is actually going on the the minds of Mr. President and his hand-picked Socialists. What really scares me is that our enemies are watching in wonderment the hapless antics of our “fearless leaders". They must be stopped. This should be required reading for all Obama enthusiasts out there:
The Alien in the White House
The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.
Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.
It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.”
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
Please share this. Thank you. And thank you, Ms Rabinowitz, for such an insightful article.
Love
Granny
...also at Granny's site:
I'm from the government and I'm here to
I'm from the government and I'm here to 
I'm from the government and I'm here to
The Alien in the White House
The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.
Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration.
It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.”
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
Please share this. Thank you. And thank you, Ms Rabinowitz, for such an insightful article.
Love
Granny
__________________________
...also at Granny's site:
I'm from the government and I'm here to
I'm from the government and I'm here to
I'm from the government and I'm here to
Post Turtle...I think we heard this one before...no, no, no, this one is true!
Eventually the topic got around to Barack Obama and his bid to be the president.
The old rancher said, ”Well, ya know, Obama is a ‘post turtle,’ ”
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ”post turtle” was. The old rancher said, ”When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle.’ ”
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain.
”You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb fool put him up there!”
____________
Obama's Friends Hang 7 Year Old Boy
So as not to fool the easily fooled, these people (Taliban) are the ones Obama cares more about than our friends the Israelis. Obama can care less how old someone is (i.e. the 7 year-old boy) and death of any kind is not a factor with the guy who would be king (Obama).
Lashkargah, 9 June (AKI): Taliban fighters have hanged a seven-year-old boy, claiming he was passing information to foreign soldiers in the volatile southern province of Helmand, the governor's spokesman, Daud Ahmadi, told Pajhwok Afghan News.
The child's shocking murder took place in the Sarwan Qala area of Sangin district late on Tuesday. The boy, whose name was not immediately known, was abducted from the village of Heratyan, Ahmadi said.
Afghanistan: Taliban 'hang 7-year-old boy for spying'
Lashkargah, 9 June (AKI): Taliban fighters have hanged a seven-year-old boy, claiming he was passing information to foreign soldiers in the volatile southern province of Helmand, the governor's spokesman, Daud Ahmadi, told Pajhwok Afghan News.The child's shocking murder took place in the Sarwan Qala area of Sangin district late on Tuesday. The boy, whose name was not immediately known, was abducted from the village of Heratyan, Ahmadi said.
Source: Adnkronos
The Carbon Hunters...interesting fools, they'll have us all believe in something thats not.
The Carbon Hunters From pbs.org
FRONTLINE/World journeys to the remote rainforests of Brazil, where several American companies have been on the hunt for an increasingly valuable new commodity -- carbon. But investing in big tracts of forest in order to soak up the carbon they may have to account for in proposed energy legislation is not without its costs.
Click here to watch the approximate 21 minute long video. This has to be the most insane political tom-foolery this nation has ever witnessed. ...another reason why we must stop Cap & Trade legislation! ~ Norman E. Hooben
FRONTLINE/World journeys to the remote rainforests of Brazil, where several American companies have been on the hunt for an increasingly valuable new commodity -- carbon. But investing in big tracts of forest in order to soak up the carbon they may have to account for in proposed energy legislation is not without its costs.
Click here to watch the approximate 21 minute long video. This has to be the most insane political tom-foolery this nation has ever witnessed. ...another reason why we must stop Cap & Trade legislation! ~ Norman E. Hooben
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Osama Bin Laden Located
Osama bin Laden in Savzevar, Iran with Ayman al-Zawahiri: What do we do now?
Not surprising, but what do we do now that we know? Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have enjoyed Iranian hospitality for 5 years, along with three other unnamed "high-ranking" al Qaeda members. Home to bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri has been the town of Savzevar or Sabzevar
Turkey has been in on the secret, according to Kuwaiti sources:
Linked by teresamerica - Thanks Teresa!
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri
Savzevar, a small town of about a quarter of a million inhabitants, is connected by road toTehran andMashhad and has a small airport. A center for producing grapes and raisins, its location is remote and difficult to access because it is enclosed by lofty mountains and a salt desert 50,000 square kilometers in area.
DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources disclose that the purpose of airing their precise whereabouts at this time, aside from implicating the Turkish leader, was first, to warn al Qaeda's leaders that their hideout was blown and they had better move on - which would make them easier to catch; and, second, to nudge US president Barak Obama into a decision to go after them.Really, what do we do now? Bin Laden is in Iran...and we know it, and...what do we do now? Read the story at DEBKAfile, including what American intelligence knew about American targets by mid-May, 2010. As you will read in the DEBKAfile, they have a theory about why this story is breaking now, and that basically is, since Kuwait broke the story to get these two scumbags on the run so they can be hunted down by the good guys. Holger Awakens, on the other hand, has another theory. Read it at Holger Awakens.
Linked by teresamerica - Thanks Teresa!
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Last Great Hope For Mankind...no, it is not Norway...its not Greece either !
Patriotism at its best... vocalized by Dennis Prager
More patriotism...
If you liked this, then try this Tea Party Member...and former Marine...stuns the crowd
State Owned Banks...the time has come!
The following article is not meant to be unprovocative. On the contrary, it should challenge all States to start seriously thinking about ways to combat the Federal Reserve which is neither federal or reserve. How we managed to get this far under the Federal Reserve system is unimaginable especially since the United States has been officially bankrupt...at least since 1933. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Source: The Web Of Debt
Source: The Web Of Debt
THE GROWING MOVEMENT FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED BANKS
by Ellen Brown
As the states’ credit crisis deepens, four states have initiated bills for state-owned banks, and candidates in seven states have now included that solution in their platforms.
“Hundreds of job-creating projects are still on hold because Michigan businesses and entrepreneurs cannot get bank financing. We can break the credit crunch and beat Wall Street at their own game by keeping our money right here in Michigan and investing it to retool our economy and create jobs.”
Struggling with 14% unemployment, Michigan has been particularly hard hit by the nation’s economic downturn. Virg Bernero, mayor of the state’s capitol and a leading Democratic candidate for governor, proposes that the state relieve its economic ills by opening a state-owned bank. He says the bank could protect consumers by making low-interest loans to those most in need, including students and small businesses; and could help community banks by buying mortgages off their books and working with them to fund development projects.
Bernero joins a growing list of candidates proposing this sensible solution to their states’ fiscal ills. Local economies have collapsed because of the Wall Street credit freeze. To reinvigorate local business, Main Street needs a heavy infusion of credit; and publicly-owned banks could fill that need.
A February posting tracked candidates in five states running on a state-bank platform and one state with a bill pending (Massachusetts). There are now three more bills on the rolls – in Washington State, Illinois and Michigan – and two more candidates on the list of proponents (joining Bernero is Gaelan Brown of Vermont). That brings the total to seven candidates in as many states (Florida, Oregon, Illinois, California, Washington State, Vermont, and Idaho), including three Democrats, two Greens, one Republican and one Independent.
The Independent, Vermont’s Gaelan Brown, says on his website, “Washington DC has lost all moral authority over Vermont.” He maintains that:
“Vermont should explore creating a State-owned bank that would work with private VT-based banks, to insulate VT from Wall Street corruption, and to increase investment capital for VT businesses, modeled after the very successful State-owned Bank of North Dakota.”
The Bank of North Dakota, currently the nation’s only state-owned bank, is the model (with variations) for all the other proposals on the table. The Bank of North Dakota acts as a “bankers’ bank,” including doing “participation loans” with other banks, allowing them to compete with larger banks. In a participation loan, the community bank originates the loan and takes responsibility for it, while the participating bank contributes funds and shares in the risk and profits. The Bank of North Dakota also makes low-interest loans to students, farmers and businesses; underwrites municipal bonds; and serves as the state’s “Mini Fed,” providing liquidity and clearing checks for more than 100 banks around the state.
Three New Bills Pending for Publicly-owned Banks
Proposals for publicly-owned banks in other states have now gone beyond the campaign talk of political hopefuls to be drafted into several bills.
The Michigan Development Bank
The Michigan bill has gotten the most press. Introduced into the legislature earlier this month, it mirrors Bernero’s state bank idea. According to a press release issued by Senate Democrats on March 9, the bill’s aim is to “keep Michigan’s money in Michigan” by putting tax dollars into a proposed “Michigan Development Bank”. The Bank would function like a traditional bank but would focus on economic development rather than profit. The press release quoted Senator Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing):
“Investing in the state’s economy is the greatest way to create jobs, and this proposal will provide small businesses and entrepreneurs the funding they need to invest and grow. Our economy has stagnated due in part to stale thinking in Lansing, and this is just the type of innovative idea we need to create real economic change, using our own money to rebuild the state.”
Senate Democratic Leader Mike Prusi (D-Ishpeming) stated:
“Michigan’s economy has been suffering, and working families in the state have had difficulty keeping up with credit card bills, college tuition prices and mortgage payments. Establishing the Michigan Development Bank will keep our hard-earned dollars right here in the state to invest in small business, create good-paying jobs to get people back to work, and help protect the middle class.”
Also quoted was Senator Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit):
“With the current state of our economy, every dollar counts, yet we’re depositing our money in other people’s pockets by investing in big corporate banks without seeing much lending in return. It’s time for the Mitten State to lend itself a helping hand and establish a bank that is willing to invest in our small businesses and offer the financial support necessary to see job growth.”
For startup capital, Senate Democrats suggested that Michigan could sell voter-approved bonds. With an initial capitalization of $150 million, they estimated the bank could lend up to $1 billion to small businesses, students and farmers, and offer low-interest credit cards to consumers. For deposits, the bank could follow the model of the Bank of North Dakota and use state revenues. So says Gene Taliercio, a Republican candidate for the state Senate, who has also put his weight behind the Michigan Development Bank. In a video clip on the website of the local Oakland Press, he says:
“We’re talking about restructuring the whole tax system, in the sense that the way its set up is that all taxes are going to go into this central bank. . . . Every dollar that the state of Michigan makes goes into this bank.”
The State Bank of Washington
A similar bill, HB 3162, was introduced to the Washington State Legislature on February 1. The bill has generated so much interest that Steve Kirby, chair of the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee, has scheduled a special work session on it. According to John Nichols in The Nation, the State Bank of Washington was formally proposed by House finance committee vice chair Bob Hasegawa, a Seattle Democrat. Nichols quotes Hasegawa:
“Imagine financing student aid, infrastructure, industry and community development. Imagine providing access to capital for small businesses, or otherwise leveraging our resources instead of having to do it with tax incentives. Imagine keeping our resources local instead of exporting them as profits, never to be seen again—that’s what this bank could do.”
Leveraging rather than taxing is how private banks have been creating “credit” for centuries. States could do the same thing, cutting the middlemen out of the equation, saving significant sums in interest and fees and generating revenue for the state.
A nonpartisan analysis of the Washington bill prepared for the state legislature noted that the bank would be the depository for all state funds and the funds of state institutions, and that these deposits would be guaranteed by the state. The bank would be run by a board of 11 members and would be chaired by the State Treasurer. It would have the same rules and privileges as a private bank chartered in the state. To get the bank off the ground, voters would have to approve amendments to the state Constitution, since current law prohibits the state from lending credit and investing in private firms.
The Community Bank of Illinois
A third bill, introduced by Illinois Representative Mary Flowers, is on its way through the legislative process in Illinois. According to the Illinois General Assembly website, the Community Bank of Illinois Act would establish a state bank with the express purpose of boosting agriculture, commerce and industry. State funds and money held by penal, educational, and industrial institutions owned by the state would be deposited in the bank and would serve as reserves for loans. The bank could also serve as a clearinghouse for other banks, including handling domestic and foreign exchange; and it could buy property under Eminent Domain. All deposits would be guaranteed with the assets of the state. The Bank would be managed and controlled by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, with input from an advisory board representing private banking and public interests.
An amendment to the initial bill would enable the Community Bank of Illinois to make loans directly to the state’s General Revenue Fund, helping the state cope with its current budget challenges.
A Massachusetts-owned Bank
On March 12, the Associated Press reported that a jobs bill sponsored by Massachusetts Senate President Therese Murray also includes a call to study a Massachusetts-owned bank. She told a business group that a state-owned bank has worked in North Dakota, helping to insulate that state from the worst of the recession while also keeping its foreclosure rate down. A state-owned bank could spur job creation and free up lending to Massachusetts businesses.
Grandfather of the Concept: The Bank of North Dakota
All of these proposals take their inspiration from the Bank of North Dakota, which was founded in 1919 to resolve a credit crisis like that facing other states today. Last year, North Dakota had the largest budget surplus it had ever had; and it was the only state that was actually adding jobs when others were losing them. In March 2009, when 46 of 50 states were in fiscal crisis, North Dakota was in the enviable position of discussing tax cuts and looking for ways to spend its surplus.
By January 2010, according to a National Public Radio news clip, only two states could still meet their budgets – North Dakota and Montana. On February 8, however, the Montana paper the Missoulian reported that the Montana State Legislature’s chief revenue forecaster foresees a budget deficit by mid-2011, leaving North Dakota the only state still boasting a surplus.
North Dakota’s riches have been attributed to oil, but many states with oil are floundering. The sole truly distinguishing feature of North Dakota seems to be that it has managed to avoid the Wall Street credit freeze by owning and operating its own bank. According to the North Dakota Department of Commerce, the BND turned a profit in 2009 of $58.1 million; and this money goes into the state’s General Fund. North Dakota’s economy is ten times smaller than Michigan’s, suggesting that Michigan could generate $500 million per year in this way; and Washington State and Illinois present similarly inviting possibilities.
That defuses the objection raised in a March 15 editorial in The Detroit News, arguing that Michigan can ill afford the $150 million capital investment to start a bank. If operated like the BND, the Michigan Development Bank would soon be a net generator of state revenues. There are other possibilities besides a bond issue for providing the capital to start a bank, but that subject will be reserved for another article.
The BND’s 90-year track record of prudent and profitable lending defuses another objection to state-owned banks: that a public agency cannot be trusted to act responsibly in managing public funds. The Detroit News editorial concluded that Michigan should “leave banking to the bankers,” but it is precisely because the bankers have destroyed the economy with their reckless lending practices that the public needs to step in. We need a “public option” in banking to set standards and keep private banks honest.
The True Potential of Publicly-owned Banks
North Dakota broke new ground nearly a century ago, but the true potential of publicly-owned banks remains to be explored. Nearly all of our money today is created by banks when they extend loans. (See the Chicago Federal Reserve’s “Modern Money Mechanics”, which begins, “The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.”) We the people have given away our sovereign money-creating power to private, for-profit lending institutions, which have used it to siphon wealth from the productive economy. If we were to take that power back, we could generate the credit we need to underwrite a whole cornucopia of projects that we don’t even consider because we think we lack the “money.” We have the labor and we have the materials; we just lack the “liquidity” necessary to put them together to create products and services.
Money today is just a ticket, a receipt for work performed and goods delivered. We can fund the work we need done by creating our own credit. The real promise of publicly-owned banks is not that they can bail out subprime borrowers but that they can jumpstart the economy by creating real wealth. They can provide the liquidity to put labor and materials together, allowing the economy to build and grow. Our private, profit-driven banking sector has been bleeding wealth from the rest of the economy. Public-interest banks can transfuse the economy with the credit it needs to flourish and be productive once again.
For more updates on the movement for publicly-owned banks, see http://www.public-banking.com.
To sign a petition for a citizen-owned bank in California, go to http://www.change.org/actions/view/help_the_terminator_save_california.
To sign a petition for a citizen-owned bank in California, go to http://www.change.org/actions/view/help_the_terminator_save_california.
First posted on Yes! Magazine
Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com, www.ellenbrown.com, and www.public-banking.com.
Niko Kyriakou contributed to this article.
Is Palestine a country?
Source: Yahoo Answers
Is Palestine a country? Or is it a part of Israel? by mande
I often get confused on this... Is Palestine a country or just a disputed area inside Israel like "Kashmir" in India?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
This is a HUGE question!!!
And the answers will vary depending on who answers it.
Right after WWII, the British (& the UN) made the decision to carve out a chunk of what was the original homeland of the Jews - Israel, to give to Jews to have their own homeland once again. (It had been taken from them almost 2,000 years ago).
The reasons for this are fairly obvious; everywhere Jews went, (Germany for instance), people didn't want them there, and the world kinda sat by and let them be almost annihilated by the Germans.
So, the obvious question was "what about the Arabs already living here?" (They were not called Palestinians yet))
So they gave Israel this small chunk of land, and gave the Arabs this giant chunk of land with all the best fertile farmland, water sources, etc., and named that TransJordan.
Mission accomplished, you might think - the Arabs got without question the best and biggest chunk of land, and the Jews got this fairly miserable piece with malarial swamps, etc.
The Jews started pouring in from all over the world to live in their new(old) homeland, and brought all their skill and money to rebuild.
They drained the swamps, made fertile farmland there, built viable towns & cities out of what were slums, and then Arabs from all over started immigrating there, because it was a better place to live, and there were more jobs there.
Most of the people who call themselves Palestinians now, living there, are from these Arabs who did not even have roots there.
These people hated the fact the Jews were there, and started the Palestinian movements you see still going on today, to try to take the land from the Jews, saying it's theirs.
The issue is MUCH more complicated than this, but I'm trying to show a part of the story that never gets told, and that is:
They ALREADY gave the Arabs/Palestinians their own land & country, and it's what is known today as JORDAN.
But that's not good enough, they want it all.
Anyway, to clarify one thing; there is not, nor has there ever been, a country named Palestine.
It's what the territory of Israel was called in antiquity, but there has NEVER been a nation called Palestine.
The people there didn't even call themselves that until after WWII.
And the answers will vary depending on who answers it.
Right after WWII, the British (& the UN) made the decision to carve out a chunk of what was the original homeland of the Jews - Israel, to give to Jews to have their own homeland once again. (It had been taken from them almost 2,000 years ago).
The reasons for this are fairly obvious; everywhere Jews went, (Germany for instance), people didn't want them there, and the world kinda sat by and let them be almost annihilated by the Germans.
So, the obvious question was "what about the Arabs already living here?" (They were not called Palestinians yet))
So they gave Israel this small chunk of land, and gave the Arabs this giant chunk of land with all the best fertile farmland, water sources, etc., and named that TransJordan.
Mission accomplished, you might think - the Arabs got without question the best and biggest chunk of land, and the Jews got this fairly miserable piece with malarial swamps, etc.
The Jews started pouring in from all over the world to live in their new(old) homeland, and brought all their skill and money to rebuild.
They drained the swamps, made fertile farmland there, built viable towns & cities out of what were slums, and then Arabs from all over started immigrating there, because it was a better place to live, and there were more jobs there.
Most of the people who call themselves Palestinians now, living there, are from these Arabs who did not even have roots there.
These people hated the fact the Jews were there, and started the Palestinian movements you see still going on today, to try to take the land from the Jews, saying it's theirs.
The issue is MUCH more complicated than this, but I'm trying to show a part of the story that never gets told, and that is:
They ALREADY gave the Arabs/Palestinians their own land & country, and it's what is known today as JORDAN.
But that's not good enough, they want it all.
Anyway, to clarify one thing; there is not, nor has there ever been, a country named Palestine.
It's what the territory of Israel was called in antiquity, but there has NEVER been a nation called Palestine.
The people there didn't even call themselves that until after WWII.
Asker's Rating: 