Note: If you are an average voter it may take two or three readings for you to interpret this...that's why you are an average voter. If you are a Democrat voter you may never be able to interpret this...that's why you are a Democrat. If you are a republican voter it may still take a couple of readings to interpret this but you will get it...that's why you are a Republican. If you are a Conservative voter you will not only interpret this after one read, you'll understand all of its implications...that's why you are a Conservative.
Ask
the average American, “Who is Martin Indyk?” and you’ll get a lot of, “Who?”
right back. Well I don’t really know the
guy myself, but I do know this… Martin Indyk is an inside friend of those on the
left who want nothing less than a one world government. His friends, Bill and Hillary Clinton are top
contenders in this never ending quest to destroy individualism but that’s
another story.
When
you read about the left’s history and their plans for their new world order you
will come across the words, “like-minded individuals”. Succinctly put by Professor D. L. Cuddy, Ph.D.,
in his Chronological History of the New
World Order, “…it is a "networking" of like-minded individuals in
high places to achieve a common goal.”
Martin Indyk is as like-minded as those in power who plucked him. Using a quote from radio talk-show host, Rush
Limbaugh you’ll get what I mean; “You
see, if you amount to anything in Washington these days, it is because you have
been plucked or handpicked from an Ivy League school -- Harvard, Yale, Kennedy
School of Government -- you've shown an aptitude to be a good Ivy League type,
and so you're plucked so-to-speak, and you are assigned success. You are
assigned a certain role in government somewhere, and then your success is
monitored and tracked, and you go where the pluckers and the handpickers can
put you.”
Indyk did not attend any
of the schools mentioned above although he has a Ph.D. from the University of Sydney
(Australia, where he was raised). And if
you read what amounts to be a résumé in Wikiepedia you
would think that he is pro Jewish; after all, he was born a Jew, why not… But like all the like-minded friends of his
he has the ability to hide any disdain for his ancestry’s homeland. That is until he has a few drinks…then the
truth comes out.
This was a headline this past May over at the Washington Free Beacon, “Indyk Caught Bashing Israel at Hotel Bar”; an excerpt from the article follows:
Middle East envoy Martin Indyk was overheard at an
upscale Washington, D.C., bar bashing Israel and fully blaming it for the
recent failure of peace talks with the Palestinians, according to an individual
who overheard the conversation and described it as a surprising and “nasty”
30-minute-long tirade against the Jewish state.
Indyk—who has been identified by
the Washington Free Beacon
as the source of a recent series of anonymous quotes in the press condemning
Israel—was caught openly lashing out at Israel over drinks with several members
of his staff and wife, Gahl Burt.
Now
how the like-minded crowd gets to know who to pluck is obviously a like-minded
thing…it takes one to know one mentality.
Secretary of State John Kerry is one who knows one. Kerry knew that when Indyk was an ambassador he lost his security clearance for improperly handling sensitive material. The first ambassador to ever lose a security clearance!
Read more about Indyk and Kerry here: (should set off some alarms)http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/184713/martin-indyk-Qatar
Post Script: See if you can find another reference to 'like-minded' here.
Read more about Indyk and Kerry here: (should set off some alarms)http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/184713/martin-indyk-Qatar
Post Script: See if you can find another reference to 'like-minded' here.
Now for the story that got me to write the above:
From The Lid
NY Times "Outs" Anti-Israel U.S. Negotiator Martin Indyk As Being On Payroll of
Qatar
Martin
S. Indyk friend of Bill and Hillary, who was hired by John Kerry to mediate
between Israel and the Palestinians (even though he does not like the Jewish
state) was “outed” by the New York Times on Saturday. You see Indyk has a
conflict of interest working on the Middle East conflict and being vice
president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings
Institute, which is getting large donations from Qatar a country known to be
huge donor to terrorist groups including Hamas.
Indyk has been accused of being downright nasty toward Israel in public and even worse in private.
The Times reports that Qatar who provides funding to ISIS and Hamas (and gives sanctuary to Hamas leaders) agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.
German Development Minister Gerd Muller said last month:
Indyk has been accused of being downright nasty toward Israel in public and even worse in private.
The Times reports that Qatar who provides funding to ISIS and Hamas (and gives sanctuary to Hamas leaders) agreed last year to make a $14.8 million, four-year donation to Brookings, which has helped fund a Brookings affiliate in Qatar and a project on United States relations with the Islamic world.
German Development Minister Gerd Muller said last month:
You
have to ask who is arming, who is financing ISIS troops? The key word there is
Qatar - and how do we deal with these people and states politically.
Qatar,
a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that
continues to undermine regional stability,” Undersecretary for Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence David Cohen told the Center for New American Security on
"Confronting New Threats in Terrorist Financing" in March. “Press
reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups
operating in Syria. To say the least, this threatens to aggravate an already
volatile situation in a particularly dangerous and unwelcome manner."
This is who was paying part of Martin Indyk's salary.
This is who was paying part of Martin Indyk's salary.
In
interviews, top executives at the think tanks strongly defended the
arrangements, saying the money never compromised the integrity of their
organizations’ research. Where their scholars’ views overlapped with those of
donors, they said, was coincidence.
“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk.
“Our business is to influence policy with scholarly, independent research, based on objective criteria, and to be policy-relevant, we need to engage policy makers,” said Martin S. Indyk.
Indyk's
feeling's about Israel overlaps that of the Hamas supporting Qatar. Perhaps he
always felt that way but I am sure the financial gains from Qatar reinforce
that feeling. The fact that he has the relationship with Qatar is at the very
least a conflict of interest.
Scholars
at other Washington think tanks, who were granted anonymity to detail
confidential internal discussions, described similar experiences that had a
chilling effect on their research and ability to make public statements that
might offend current or future foreign sponsors. At Brookings, for example, a
donor with apparent ties to the Turkish government suspended its support after
a scholar there made critical statements about the country, sending a message,
one scholar there said.
“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the moment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”
The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.
Brookings executives cited strict internal policies that they said ensure their scholars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criticized the role it has played in supporting militants in Syria.
But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.
Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visiting fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though unwritten, was clear.
“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.”
“It is the self-censorship that really affects us over time,” the scholar said. “But the fund-raising environment is very difficult at the moment, and Brookings keeps growing and it has to support itself.”
The sensitivities are especially important when it comes to the Qatari government — the single biggest foreign donor to Brookings.
Brookings executives cited strict internal policies that they said ensure their scholars’ work is “not influenced by the views of our funders,” in Qatar or in Washington. They also pointed to several reports published at the Brookings Doha Center in recent years that, for example, questioned the Qatari government’s efforts to revamp its education system or criticized the role it has played in supporting militants in Syria.
But in 2012, when a revised agreement was signed between Brookings and the Qatari government, the Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself praised the agreement on its website, announcing that “the center will assume its role in reflecting the bright image of Qatar in the international media, especially the American ones.” Brookings officials also acknowledged that they have regular meetings with Qatari government officials about the center’s activities and budget, and that the former Qatar prime minister sits on the center’s advisory board.
Mr. Ali, who served as one of the first visiting fellows at the Brookings Doha Center after it opened in 2009, said such a policy, though unwritten, was clear.
“There was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” said Mr. Ali, who is now a professor at the University of Queensland in Australia. “It was unsettling for the academics there. But it was the price we had to pay.”
Sounds like the country funding Hamas had a word or
two to say to the guy who was supposed to be a neutral negotiator in the
Israeli/PA talks.
There is no indication that the State Department was aware of this arraignment before selecting Indyk to work on the peace talks. However Kerry was a strong supporter of getting Qatar involved in the talks with Hamas, a stance that did not make Egypt, the P.A., or Israel happy.
On the other hand Indyk's anti-Israel stance is not that much different than other progressives including his good friend Hillary Clinton, so it's difficult to discern which came first, the hatred or the cash.
There is no indication that the State Department was aware of this arraignment before selecting Indyk to work on the peace talks. However Kerry was a strong supporter of getting Qatar involved in the talks with Hamas, a stance that did not make Egypt, the P.A., or Israel happy.
On the other hand Indyk's anti-Israel stance is not that much different than other progressives including his good friend Hillary Clinton, so it's difficult to discern which came first, the hatred or the cash.
See also:
_____________________________________
Meanwhile...
Will Hillary Clinton make a difference?
If you are an average voter it may take two or three viewings for you to interpret this...that's why you are an average voter. If you are a Democrat voter you may never be able to interpret this...that's why you are a Democrat. If you are a republican voter it may still take a couple of viewings to interpret this but you will get it...that's why you are a Republican. If you are a Conservative voter you will not only interpret this after one viewing, you'll understand all of its implications...that's why you are a Conservative.
POS in a septic tank.
ReplyDelete