July 30, 2008

What if Everything We Think We Know About AIDS is Wrong?

Clark Baker, who is a Los Angeles based Private Investigator, and a former Los Angeles police officer and U.S. Marine, has a compelling new report regarding AIDs. From the web site for his recent interview with Robert Scott Bell:

After the Semmelweis Society International (SSI) presented Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber the Clean Hands Award earlier this year, the controversy that erupted caused SSI to hire a P.I., Clark Baker, to investigate claims by AIDS activist groups that "anyone who questioned HIV as the cause of AIDS" is a criminal.

Baker's new report is called "Gallo's Egg:"

Prof. Duesberg described the flaws in the HIV hypothesis of AIDS causation. Although formal screenings are not required by Academy members, the NAS published Prof. Duesberg's paper after an unprecedented six separate peer reviews. After 20 years, Prof. Duesberg's paper remains unanswered.

Prior to these publications, Dr. Robert Gallo, the cancer virologist who claimed HIV caused AIDS in 1984 described Duesberg as the scientist "who knew more about retroviruses than any man alive."

.....Although he vowed to respond, neither Gallo nor any of his defenders ever published a rebuttal of Duesberg's paper (or the 196 peer citations that supported it) in any peer-reviewed publication.

Instead, Gallo's defenders created the specter of AIDS-Denialists and Denialism, epithets designed to marginalize those who questioned Gallo's opinions as somehow denying the existence of AIDS itself. Because Gallo skeptics never questioned the existence of AIDS, this allegation is false. The fact that malnutrition, septic water, disease, environmental conditions, irresponsible drug use and self-destructive behavior can degrade a body's ability to protect itself from infection and cause death is undeniable. What is in question is Gallo's scientifically unsupported assertions that retroviruses cause leukemia, cancer, and AIDS.

A Nobel-prize-winning scientist, Kary B. Mullis, wrote the forward to Duesberg's book on the subject, published by Regnery in 1995. Mullis' views support Baker's work:

IN 1988 I WAS WORKING as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I had invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they had hired me.

Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques arc so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AII)S connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and asyet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual-who would surely be Nobel material-was on the tip of no one's tongue.

Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twentyfive and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.

I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.

I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."

After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.

Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and NII)S research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he give a talk in San Diego. It would he the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.

With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?"

I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"

"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.

"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.

"I read that too, Dr. Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS."

This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.

Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV. Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDs. When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.

I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.

We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.

We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint than the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take that drug for any reason.

We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.

I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time. Read this book.

Kary B. Mullis
Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993

Baker's report is sparking new interest in this subject. Read Clark Baker's report, "Gallo's Egg," here.

July 29, 2008

Obama’s Policies are Consistently Contrary to What’s Good for the Flag,the Economy, and the Military

An undeniable pattern has emerged in Obama's policies. Again and again, they are policies which are contrary to what's good for the American flag, the American economy, and the American military. The pattern may be seen repeatedly and consistently.

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN FLAG

Obama has refused in the past to wear an American flag pin.

He has refused in the past to put his hand on his heart for the national anthem.

And now he has removed the American flag from his jet: "...the plane that once had an American flag on its tail now sports the Obama 'O.'"

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

Obama is against drilling for oil, preferring instead to have our economy strangled by expensive gas prices.

Obama has sponsored a bill, which is still a danger to this country as it has not yet been defeated, which would require the U.S. to give $845 billion to the United Nations. Don't like paying high taxes? How would you feel about it if your taxes are higher because you're getting taxed by the United Nations too?

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

And Obama wants to nearly double the capital-gains tax rate from 15% to 28%, which not only would devastate the economy, but would also be likely to lose money for the government.

From the NY Sun:

As Senator Obama's presidential platform starts to take shape, economists and tax officials here in New York and Washington are warning that his fiscal policies could have a devastating effect on what is, in effect, New York's biggest crop - capital gains.

Mr. Obama is proposing to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends by a staggering two-thirds, moving the rate up 10 percentage points to 25%, which could curtail investment and business on Wall Street, a backbone of the city's and state's economy.

According to the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Mr. Obama's tax hike would knock off $2.5 trillion in capital formation over five years, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product.

"If we are only growing around 2% over the next five years, then we will have virtually zero growth for the period," the president of the institute, Stephen Entin, said. "This will create a permanent hit of 5% or greater to GDP."

From US News & World Report:

As part of his "Tax Fairness for the Middle Class" plan, Barack Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Leaving the fairness issue aside for a moment-as well as the impact of higher taxes on economic growth-the Obama plan could also be called a "Ways in Which Government Can Collect More Taxes to Pay for New Spending" plan, since Democratic candidates are all scrambling to figure out ways to plausibly pay for new healthcare, education, and infrastructure spending if elected.

But Dan Clifton over at Strategas Research thinks the Dems may be disappointed by the ROT-return on taxes-from higher cap-gains rates. After reviewing the connections between changing cap-gains rates and government revenue during the past five decades, he concludes that higher cap gains could well be a revenue loser for Uncle Sam.

OBAMA VS. THE AMERICAN MILITARY

Obama has pledged to cut our military capabilities:

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent defense priorities board to insure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Obama scrapped a visit to wounded American troops in Germany.

Obama wants to have a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as our military:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Professor Eugene Volokh writes:

So - if Obama means what he says - his civilian national security corps would cost at least another $100 billion a year, and perhaps as much as $500 billion a year. With total federal income taxes of $935 billion in 2005, Obama's proposal would mean using up to half of all federal income tax revenues just to fund his promise "to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.

Obama's plan would likely remove money from funding our military in order to finance this ill-defined civilian force.

CONCLUSION

Obama's patriotism is not in question in this article. What is in question is whether his policies would be good for the flag, the economy, and the military. Obama's policies are consistently contrary to what's good for the American flag, the American economy, and the American military.

July 27, 2008

Obama’s White House Social Calendar, March 2009

A peek into a what an Obama White House might be like ...Obama's White House Social Calendar for 2009.

Date/Time	Event	Description and Details
March 2009
Monday 16th March 12:00pm	Luncheon	Description: Guests - William Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn. Location:  President's Dining Room.
Tuesday 17th March 3:30pm	Afternoon Tea and Biscuits	Description: Greet Minister Louis Farrakhan. Accomodations:  The Minister will be staying in the Lincoln Bedroom. Location: West Sitting Room.
Wednesday 18th March 7:00pm	Dinner	Description: Guests - Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend Wright. Location: State Dining Room.
Thursday 19th March 7:00pm	State Dinner	Description: Guests - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Location:  State Dining Room.
Friday 20th March 4:00pm	Photo Op	Description: President Mahmoud Abbas. Accomodations:  The President will be staying in the Lincoln Bedroom. Location:  Oval Office.

 

July 14, 2008

A Window Into What Islamic Youths in the UK Are Being Taught - In the Words of One Such Youth

We often discuss what's going in Islamic schools in the UK, but rarely do we have a view of it from one of the students. What are Islamic youth there being taught to believe? Two comments came in last month, evidently from a 14-year-old Islamic boy named Samir, living in England. According to a plugin I run (the ip2nation plugin for the ExpressionEngine blog engine), the ip address is indeed from the UK. I'm still thinking about these comments.

First comment:

You all do not understand Islam. It is very gentle, kind, non politics religion of peace and loves. Media tells lies about muslims. Muslims love Allah and he sees that they loves him, he helps them to get better in life and makes muslims get good house and jobs in Kafir countries.

In uk muslims even dont haf to work for allah provides money from government benefits. They efen can wer their own cloths without problems, but burka sometimes little problem in schools and places like this.

Allah has made muslims strong in west, and he is teaching kafir leaders how to respect ALL religion but most of all ISLAM.It is allahs will that ALL countries will become muslim, and one day there will be enuf muslims to take over all europ.When this happens you will see how good it is to be muslim, for allah will take alcohol away and immorals who go with own sex will be executed, no music or dancing except Islam music. Everybody will then say to Allah Thank you, we did not understand how good it is to be muslim.

I tell you all there is no reason to be afraid of Islam, just accept and see how allah will change your lifes.

peace to you all Allua Ackbar

Second comment, posted within an hour of the first:

Sorry forget to say I am 14 only but already I no the way to be happy without trubles. If only everybody see with my eyes, it is so sample if you just bleve what allah says. No body want to go hell so sample thing is just trust allah and the prophet mohammed (pbuh). One thing for shure is if you try verry hard to do good, allah will try his best to take you to paradise with servants there to serve you, and wine to. If anybody want to here about islam I will be happy to tell them.

peace to evry country samir

It's a very revealing set of comments. First of all:

In uk muslims even dont haf to work for allah provides money from government benefits.

Rather than seeing welfare as a safety net for those temporarily out of work, Samir sees welfare as a benefit from Allah so that Muslims don't have to work at all. Is Samir aware that the government benefits come from taxes paid by working Brits? His teachers surely are. It appears that, if not Samir himself, then most likely his teachers, see the welfare payments as tribute paid by a public, subservient to Islam, which works hard so that Muslims in the UK don't have to.

This suggests that in the UK, welfare is a factor that operates powerfully against assimilation of Islamic populations into the broader UK culture. In successful western cultures the need for money forces immigrant populations to assimilate so as to get along with their neighbors, work for them and with them, and make a living. It appears, on the evidence of Samir's comment, that this may not be operational in the UK today.

Also, the comments provide multiple examples of something which has been identified as a characteristic of Islamic teaching - specifically, a tendency to argue in favor of two contradictory things at the same time. Samir says that Islam is a "very gentle, kind, non politics religion of peace and loves." At the same time, he believes that Islam will force people to stop drinking, outlaw music and dancing, and 'execute' gays.

Samir says that Islam is a "non politics religion", and at the same time argues that "Allah has made muslims strong in west, and he is teaching kafir leaders how to respect ALL religion but most of all ISLAM," and says that "one day there will be enuf muslims to take over all europ."

He says that "When this happens you will see how good it is to be muslim," and "Everybody will then say to Allah Thank you, we did not understand how good it is to be muslim." This presumably does not apply to the gays who have been "executed."

His repeated use of the term "kafir" is also notable, since it is a derogatory term, i.e. a term that is "expressive of low opinion." Per Wikipedia:

In cultural terms, it is seen as a derogatory term used to describe an unbeliever, non-Muslims, apostate from Islam and even between Muslims of different sects.

To summarize, this appears to be a window into the Islamic teaching of at least one Muslim youth in the United Kingdom. Samir is being taught that:

• Islam is a peaceful religion that is not political.
• Islam will take over all of Europe.
• Islam will outlaw music, dancing, and drinking, and will execute gays.
• Islam will force non-Muslims to become Muslim.
  

If the United Kingdom wishes to protect its citizens, it must put an end to schools that teach that Islam requires Muslims to take over Europe, enforce Islamic law, and kill non-Muslims.

June 24, 2008

Top Ten Arguments Against Obama

Obama's campaign has two powerful things going for it.

• We've had a Republican President for 8 years, and it's unusual to have a President of the same party 3 terms in a row.
• He's Black, and Obama's come-from-nowhere success as a major-party nominee is evidence that America rightfully wants to have a Black President already. Obama's candidacy is welcomed, not just by those on the Left, but by the majority of Americans. From the Washington Post: "In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. [.....] And by nearly 3 to 1, those who think Obama's candidacy will affect race relations said it will have a positive impact."
  

On every other measure, the facts are massively against him:

• He has no experience. Per Rasmussen, "As the general election campaign gets started, 41% of voters nationwide say that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be President..."
• He has a 20-year history of close ties with people who hate America and say so. His official position is that he had no idea what his close friend Reverend Wright was like ("The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation"), or what his business associate Tony Rezko was like ("this isn't the Tony Rezko I knew"). At times, he'd like us to believe, he doesn't know what his own statements mean. From Reuters: "NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama misused a 'code word' in Middle East politics when he said Jerusalem should be Israel's 'undivided' capital but that does not mean he is naive on foreign policy, a top adviser said on Tuesday." In short, his official position of excuse after excuse after excuse, is tantamount to admitting that he had insufficient judgment to recognize who he was associating with, or at times, what he himself was saying.
• He wants to pull our troops out of Iraq, and turn victory into defeat, as even the Washington Post now admits. From the Washington Post: "While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have 'never been closer to defeat than they are now.' ..... Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the 'this-war-is-lost' caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)."
  
• He was raised from the ages of 6 to 10 in Jakarta, Indonesia, and as a result does not have the deep understanding of America and love for it that an American President needs to have if he is to take every possible action for the good of this country and its citizens.
  
• He claims to have no Muslim background, despite having a Muslim father, a Muslim middle name, and being able to recite the first prayer in the Koran from memory, in Arabic. From the NY Times: "Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.'" Obama also admitted to the Times that as a child in Jakarta he "studied the Koran". (same link). Video is available of Obama saying "We are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just...."
  
• He wants to meet with Ahmadinejad, giving his support to a world leader who has stated that he wants to destroy America.
• He has no backbone: he backed down within 48 hours when this was demanded by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. From the Washington Post: "Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city 'must remain undivided.'"
• He opposes the things that would bring gas prices down, like drilling.
• Obama would leave America open to a future 9-11 style attack. He wants to use the courts only to prevent a future 9-11, somehow missing the fact that those who committed the 9-11 attacks were not deterred by this approach.
  
• He wants to nearly double the capital gains tax, which would result in lowering tax revenue to the U.S. government, not in raising it.
  

It would be very good for America to have a Black president. But it has to be the right guy. Being Black is a huge plus for Barack, because it would be a great step forward for America to have a Black president - but you can't elect a President based on that alone. Surely even Barack would agree that a job as important as that of President of the United States has to be awarded based on the ability of the candidate to do the job.

Obama has shown that the majority of Americans are comfortable with a Black candidate for President. But he has also shown that he himself, does not have the qualifications to do a good job of being President of this country. He does not have the qualifications to seek out, identify, and to take every action he can for the good of this nation and of its citizens. He is not prepared to be the Commander in Chief of our military forces.

It would be great if America's first Black President does a fantastic job of leading this country, so as to make the way easier for future Black candidates for the office. Obama has neither the experience, nor the qualifications, to do so.

June 13, 2008

Is it Time to March on the Supreme Court of California and on the Supreme Court of the U.S.?

This democracy cannot survive if our supreme court justices arrogate to themselves the right to dictate to the people - to be, in the words of Mark Steyn, our "monarchs".

Just last month, the Supreme Court of California, seeking to make law from the bench, rather than to do its rightful job of merely interpreting the State Constitution, sought to overturn the expressed will of the people and force gay marriage on the people of California. Per Mark Steyn:

...what happened here was not just a sly judicial coup, but an explicit one in the wake of the expressed will of the California electorate, and their elected representatives. And what's interesting to me about this general business of judicial activism, in a period when most sort of sources of authority in society, whether you're talking about politicians or the Church, or I suppose the media, if you mean fellows like Walter Cronkite, when most of those sources have diminished in authority, we have kind of compensated by over-venerating a handful of guys in black robes, just because they happen to be called judges, and sit on a fancy court. And there's no reason for this. It's entirely at odds with the founders' conception of a functioning republic, that in effect, you should turn a handful of judges into super monarchs who can overrule.

This week the Supreme Court of our nation, by a 5-4 vote, declared that enemy soldiers who are trying to kill us have protections under our laws that, in the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Scalia's dissent states:

Today the Court warps our Constitution in a way that goes beyond the narrow issue of the reach of the Suspension Clause, invoking judicially brainstormed separation-of-powers principles to establish a manipulable “functional” test for the extraterritorial reach of habeas corpus (and, no doubt, for the extraterritorial reach of other constitutional protections as well). It blatantly misdescribes important precedents, most conspicuously Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Johnson v. Eisentrager. It breaks a chain of precedent as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization. And, most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner.

The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.

The Supreme Court of the nation has made a ruling that, in the words of dissenting Justice Scalia, "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." 

There's one thing the 5 Supreme Court justices who seek to be our super-monarchs have overlooked.

We, the American people, do not like things that put our countrymen in danger of being killed. We, the American people, do not like our officials arrogating to themselves powers that were not intended by the Constitution, and making decisions which put our lives in danger.

There is one power in this country that is greater than the Supreme Court. That is we, the people. If the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the U.S. are to try to become our monarchs, it may be time for a popular march on both courts, in the tradition of American's great historic marches.

June 06, 2008

What Does It Mean that Obama is Responding to Pressure from Abbas, Rather Than From US Voters?

Just last Wednesday Obama stated to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee that Jerusalem "must remain undivided." The very next day Obama contradicted his own statement. From the Washington Post: 

Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city "must remain undivided."

Obama's statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

"This statement is totally rejected," Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state."

...Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Under pressure from Palestinians, Obama contradicted himself. Under pressure from Palestinians, Obama changed his position. 

Not pressure from U.S. citizens. Not pressure from U.S. voters. Pressure from Palestinians. Think about that. Does Obama wish to represent the people of the country of which he seeks the presidency? Does Obama wish to represent the people of the United States?

Here we see him caving, in less than 48 hours, to a mere statement from Abbas, the leader of another people. How fast would Obama cave in a face-to-face meeting with Ahmadinejad - a meeting that Obama says he wishes to have?

What does it mean that Obama is responding to pressure from Abbas, rather than to pressure from US voters? It appears to mean that the interests of voters of United States are not high on his list of priorities. The explanation for this may be in part, that from the age of 6 years old to 10 years old, he lived in Jakarta, Indonesia, rather than in the U.S. 

Update on Effort Of UN Committee, Chaired by Genocidal, Slave-Holding Sudan, to Eject WUPJ from UN

Scanning Google News for "United Nations World Union of Progressive Judaism" shows no new articles, suggesting that there is no vote yet. See this previous article for details.

June 04, 2008

UN Committee, Led by Genocidal Sudan, Votes Today Seeking to Expel Jewish NGO from the UN

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights was so dishonest, so packed full of brutal dictators and oppressors, and had made so many biased decisions, that even the U.N. could no longer tolerate it, and it was disbanded in 2006. From Wikipedia:

The New York Times, in its editorial The Shame of the United Nations, praised those intent on "reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission." The Times said that the Commission was composed of "some of the world's most abusive regimes" who used their membership as cover to continue their abusiveness. On 15 March 2006, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to replace UNCHR with the UN Human Rights Council.

...The Commission was repeatedly criticized for the composition of its membership. In particular, several of its member countries themselves had dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives have been elected to chair the commission.

Another criticism was that the Commission did not engage in constructive discussion of human rights issues, but was a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission was viewed largely as a way to defend themselves from such attacks.

Activist groups had long expressed concern over the memberships of the People's Republic of China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and the past memberships of Algeria, Syria, Libya, and Vietnam on the Commission. These countries had extensive records of human rights violations, and one concern was that by working against resolutions on the commission condemning human rights violations, they indirectly promoted despotism and domestic repression.

On May 4, 2004, United States ambassador Sichan Siv walked out of the Commission following the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission, calling it an "absurdity" in light of Sudan's ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region. One major consequence of the election of Sudan to the Commission was the lack of willingness for some countries to work through the commission. Indeed, on July 30, 2004, it was the United Nations Security Council, not the Commission, that passed a resolution - by 13-0, with China and Pakistan abstaining - threatening Sudan with unspecified sanctions if the situation in the Darfur region did not improve within the following 30 days. The reasons given for the action were the attacks by the Janjaweed Arab militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African Muslim population of Darfur, a region in western Sudan.

The U.N. replaced the Commission, with the United Nations Human Rights Council. This new Human Rights Council almost immediately proved that it intended to conduct business as usual. From the NY Times in March 2007:

UNITED NATIONS, March 12 - A United Nations Human Rights Council mission to Darfur said Monday that the Sudanese government had organized and taken part in human rights crimes against its own population, and that international action to stop the killings and rapes had been inadequate.

...The rights council has been widely criticized for being no more effective than the discredited Human Rights Commission it replaced this year. Taking action on Darfur is seen by rights groups as a measure of whether the council can start to build credibility during its formal session, the fourth it has held, which began Monday.

So far, all eight of the condemnations of human rights performance it has issued since its creation in June have been against one country, Israel.

The UN Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations is currently meeting with the intention to eject one particular NGO from the UN - the World Union of Progressive Judaism. The reason? WUPJ representative, Mr. David Littman, a friend of this site, dared to suggest to the Human Rights Council that it was derelict in its duties. From the Daily News, Monday:

...the UN is on a warpath against one particular NGO. It is poised tomorrow to revoke these basic access rights from the World Union of Progressive Judaism. Yes, the WUPJ - which represents more than 1.7 million reform, progressive, liberal and reconstructionist Jews all over the world - is about to have its privileges to attend and speak at UN events erased.

What was its sin? Daring to speak clearly against UN human rights hypocrisy.

Bureaucrats at the UN trace the problem back to a statement made by the WUPJ during a Jan. 24, 2008, session of the Human Rights Council. The meeting marked the fourth time the UN's lead human rights body had convened an entire session to condemn Israel. That brought the total to four special sessions on Israel - compared with six sessions to address human rights in the other 191 UN member states.

As the council conducted its predetermined witch hunt, WUPJ representative David Littman made the mistake of referring to Hamas' genocidal charter. He began three times, quoting the charter's words that "Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it," and calling upon the council to invoke the Genocide Convention.

Each time, the council president interrupted and warned him to "focus on the issue." Littman stood his ground: "The issue is what Hamas and the government in Gaza wishes to do to Israel." Bang, bang, bang went the gavel. Stymied, Littman recalled his Shakespeare and said: "There is a general malaise in the air. A feeling that something is rotten in the state of this council."

That was the last straw. Those words were "disrespectful" to the Human Rights Council, the diplomats from the Muslim world declared.

That brings us to the present day - tomorrow, actually - when the UN committee charged with ensuring NGOs' equal access rights is set to expel the WUPJ from the premises.

Chairing the committee is that bastion of civil liberties, Sudan. Vice-chairs include Pakistan and Cuba. Among the other 16 members are serial free speech abusers Angola, China, Egypt, Qatar and Russia.

At this past Thursday's committee meeting, Sudan - currently committing genocide - expressed concern that the WUPJ's behavior "violates the spirit and the letter of the charter of the UN." China - where you're arrested for logging on to the Internet and typing in "human rights" - was upset because "We respect civil society and NGOs."

Absurdly, the chair of the UN Committee on NGO's is that very same nation - Sudan - whose election to the Human Rights Commission was a key factor in publicizing the illegitimacy of the Human Rights Commission, and causing it to be disbanded. Sudan - which is committing genocide, and which still permits slavery! From the NY Times, February 2008:

The Sudanese government started the first genocide of the 21st century in Darfur, and now it seems to be preparing to start the second here among the thatch-roof huts of southern Sudan.

Yet Sudan is chairing the committee which is seeking to eject the WUPJ from the UN! This is the UN writ large - an organization controlled too much by oppressors, dictators, slave-holders and even committers of genocide.

The mere fact that ejection of the WUPJ from the UN is under consideration, has the makings of international scandal - even more so since the head of the committee that is to rule on it is Sudan.

If the WUPJ is ejected, the illegitimacy of the UN will be underlined in gigantic letters for the world to see.

The vote is expected today.

May 31, 2008

Barack’s Church- Are We Really Supposed to Believe that It Suddenly Changed When He Started Running?

So Barack finally resigned from his church of 20 years, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.  With one preacher after another making horrendous comments there, he had no choice.

Barack would still have us believe that speeches like those of Wright and Pfleger are recent anomalies there:

"It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my longheld views, statements and principles," he said.

"By anyone associated with Trinity"? "Guest pastors"? Who is he kidding? Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright wasn't a guest pastor. He wasn't just remotely associated with Trinity. He was the leader of Trinity from 1972 to 2008.

And the preachings of Pfleger weren't unexpected. He is well known at Trinity.  In his introduction, Pastor Otis said of Pfleger, "He needs no introduction. He is a friend of Trinity. He is a brother beloved. He is a preacher par excellence. He is a prophetic powerful pulpiteer. He is our friend. He is our brother. He is none other than Father Michael Pfleger. We welcome him once again!"

Pfleger's rant wasn't considered shocking or surprising at Trinity. After Pfleger spoke, Otis said, "We thank God for the message and we thank God for the messenger!"

Will anyone believe, as Obama evidently would like us to believe, that the speeches currently heard at this church, are significantly different than those that have been heard there for the last 20 years? Are we really supposed to think, that the normal goings-on at that church suddenly changed since Obama began running for office?

May 22, 2008

If Only there Were Some Pattern to the Things Obama Does…