► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘plo’

LA Times Won’t Let You See the Video of Barack Obama with Rabid Anti-Semite Terror Supporter Rashid Khalidi

by 1389AD ( 113 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Barack Obama, Election 2008, Elections 2012, Islam, Israel, Media, Palestinians, Terrorism at January 24th, 2012 - 3:00 pm

Smiley digging a hole

The Mainstream Media Buries Every Negative Story about Barack Hussein Obama:

They’ll bury it and they’ll keep it buried, even when they have all of the proof on video. Under the US Constitution, our free press has the right (and, arguably, the duty) to expose public as well as private wrongdoing. Instead, our mainstream media organizations have become consolidated into a small, closed, wealthy clique that opposes and flouts the beliefs and values of most of its audience. They support and protect hard-left/pro-jihadi/radical-environmental (“red-green-green”) politicians and causes – especially Obama and his policies – while trying its hardest to clear the GOP field of any conservative strong enough to unseat him.

What story is being buried? It’s Barack and Michelle Obama’s longtime association and close friendship with former PLO operative and rabid anti-Semite, Rashid Khalidi.

American Thinker: A GOP Candidate’s Bitter Ex-Wife Receives More Coverage Than a Video of Obama Dining with Terrorist-Supporters

(h/t: Diane)

By Lauri B. Regan
[…]
However, of greater importance in my view is the silence, save for a few journalists and pundits on the right, regarding exposing a videotape recorded in 2003 of Barack Obama at the farewell dinner for terrorist-supporting Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. News of the videotape’s existence came to light while Obama was a candidate, and the free pass given to him by the mainstream media was only just beginning to come to light when the enamored Chris Matthews’ shared news of the tingle up his leg.
[…]
But there is a videotape sitting in the vaults of the Los Angeles Times, and every American should be screaming from the rooftops for its release. In light of the Arab Spring, Obama’s endless attempts to bully Israel into succumbing to all sorts of unprecedented and unsafe demands in the hopes that he would go down in history as the POTUS who made peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the administration’s ineptness in addressing Iran’s nuclear program and military threats, exposing this videotape is of utmost importance.

In April 2010, Roger L. Simon published an article on PajamasMedia entitled, “Why is the L.A. Times Burying the Obama/Khalidi Tape?” Of further consequence is why the media — and Americans — are not demanding that the L.A. Times immediately release the tape. Simon wrote:

The Khalidi tape could be of tremendous significance in revealing the provenance of Obama’s views on the Middle East and the degree to which the public was misled on those views during the presidential campaign[.] …

So what are we to think? We have an administration that not only ascribes most of the Middle East blame to Israel, but also has banned “Islamism” and all related words, even “Islam” and “jihad” from our national security documents. They’re completely gone. Indeed, even the Fort Hood massacre, so clearly inspired by Islamic extremism, has now been shifted into the comfortable category of the lone, angry killer. Rashid Khalidi should be happy. And, in fact, he is.

Sometimes I want to yell and scream. What is wrong with the Los Angeles Times? Are they a news organization or the propaganda wing of some leftover unit of the IWW? No wonder subscribers are deserting them in droves.

While I am sure that Simon’s questions were rhetorical, I will answer the obvious. Of course the paper is a propaganda tool. Were it not for the internet and cable television, true news organizations would no longer exist. It was recently reported that Jerusalem Post editor Steve Linde quoted Bibi Netanyahu calling The New York Times and Haaretz Israel’s two main enemies because “they set the agenda for an anti-Israel campaign all over the world.” Netanyahu denies making this exact statement, but there is no question that both papers’ reporting reflects a bias that can be characterized only as anti-Israel propaganda. Taken a step further, there is no question that the mainstream media as a whole has become completely entrenched in propaganda, bias, anti-Israel and anti-American sentiment, and indoctrination based on liberal, progressive values that are completely out of the “mainstream.”

The public will never understand that the Islamists taking over the Mideast are not moderate, will not promote democracy, are not friends of the United States, and wish the ultimate destruction of the West if the public reads and relies upon only The New York Times, L.A. Times, MSNBC, or similar tools of the left for its “news” and information. Americans will not understand the implications of four more years of a pro-Islamist president if they do not understand what Islamism is all about. And they will not know who is sitting in the White House making policy decisions based on personal biases if the media continues to promote Obama’s agenda rather than investigate and report.

So why is the videotape of such paramount importance? Simon quotes from an article published in the L.A.Times discussing the tape and its contents:

[A] young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”

Furthermore, rumors abound regarding additional messages that may or may not have been openly shared at the dinner in Obama’s presence. Ted Belman reported at Israpundit that he has a reliable source that “the audio tape clearly picks up the toast ‘death to Israel’.” Did Obama drink to the death of an American ally that he has been actively intimidating, browbeating, and dissing since he phoned Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on his first day in office? Does Obama liken Israelis living in the West Bank to Osama bin Laden, whose death he claims as his greatest foreign policy accomplishment?

Simon concluded his article with a request that readers send in suggestions on how to make the contents of the tape public. Apparently Donald Trump missed this request when he wasted the media’s energy pushing for the release of Obama’s birth certificate — something with which Obama is still having fun as he mocked the birthers at the Golden Globe awards last week.

But I highly doubt that the POTUS, who had his worldview formed while sitting in the pews of Israel-bashing Jeremiah Wright and at the dinner table of anti-Semite Khalidi, will be mocking people who care enough to properly vet his credentials by urging the release of the tape. And I venture a guess that if the videotape is released, Barack Obama will be packing his bags at the end of this year. But that is a big “if” because until the media stops obsessing over the infidelities of the GOP candidates and starts doing its job, Barack Obama’s chances of a second term continue to scare the living daylights out of those who understand its implications.

Read it all here.


A lesson of the harms of ‘compassionate conservatism’

by Delectable ( 111 Comments › )
Filed under Hezballah, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Palestinians at April 9th, 2010 - 12:00 pm

Certain leftist bloggers pretend that because George Shultz (former Secretary of State under Reagan) apparently is happy with Obama’s call for the USA to unilaterally disarm at a time when the Islamic Republic of Iran is seeking nukes, that Reagan would have agreed with Shultz. This is taken as ipso facto evidence that Reagan would have been seen as some wild-eyed liberal by today’s standards. I believe it is important to understand how fallacious that way of thinking really is, as it serves as a lesson of the harms of compassionate conservatism.

Shultz

Just because George Shultz says something does not mean Reagan would have agreed. And even if Reagan would have agreed (which we have no idea about), it doesn’t make it right. I don’t worship at the alter of Reagan. Moreover, in any case, Shultz was responsible for sending in the U.S. Marines into Lebanon during the 1980s, and it was not to help Israel finish the job, but rather to PREVENT Israel from finishing the job. He literally sent in the U.S. Marines to “protect” the armed ‘Palestinian’ terror camps in Lebanon. And it was also Shultz that opened up a “dialogue” (and legitimization) of the terror group, the PLO. Source. This is Shultz’s legacy and what he remains most famous for.

It is ultimately impossible to know what Reagan would have believed vis-a-vis unilateral disarmament, as practiced under Obama. And certainly there is no reason to think Shultz’s opinion in 2010 is reflective of what Reagan’s opinion would have been in 2010. After all, Frank Gaffney was responsible for Reagan’s nuclear policy, and he has an exactly opposite opinion than George Schultz.

In fact, the U.S. Marines’ presence in Lebanon helped to catapult Hizballah to the world stage. The ‘Palestinians’ were shooting at Shia Lebanese, and mass murdering them in the 1970s and 1980s. This is what brought about the rise of Amal, which was one of the predecessors of Hizballah – aka, ‘Palestinian’ violence against Shia Lebanese! The U.S. Marines came into Lebanon in order to protect the ‘Palestinians,’ and insodoing, ended up killing scores of Druze in the Schuf Mountains. Source. This was later used as justification for the Hizballah attack on the Marine barracks in 1983, which killed 241 U.S. Marines.

It is a travesty that the U.S. Marines were ever sent to Lebanon to begin with, which made them sitting ducks for jihadists. They were not sent in to protect the Maronite Christians, or to aid Israel in its fight against the PLO. At least that would be understandable, from an American interests perspective. The U.S. Marines were sent in to prevent Israel from finishing its war against Arafat and the PLO, who were harming not only Israel (lobbing rockets into the country), but also the Lebanese (mass murdering scores of Lebanese civilians), and Americans (American diplomats were killed by the PLO in Khartoum).

Lebanon is George Shultz’s primary legacy. The very State Department page on George Shultz literally goes into detail about Lebanon, more than anything else, as the legacy that he is known for.

George Shultz’s thinking is part of what is wrong with this country.

It is more critical than ever before to reject this “compassionate conservatism,” which Shultz represents so well, and to move towards a new policy which combines concern for human rights with a concern for what is in the best interests of America.

Explaining The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The 1974 PLO Phased Plan

by WrathofG-d ( 78 Comments › )
Filed under Fatah, Gaza, Hamas, Islamic Invasion, Islamic Terrorism, Islamists, Israel, Jihad, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Middle East, Palestinians, Religion, Terrorism, United Nations, World at January 6th, 2010 - 3:00 pm

Much of the Arab-Israeli conflict is “complex”, and misunderstood by a majority of the World.  Based on the complete lack of factual information, and actual historical context presented by the horribly ignorant, and therefore exceptionally biased media, universities, political parties, and some Religious organizations, this really isn’t all that surprising.

One significant aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict that is never discussed, yet would explain the PLO/”Palestinians” actions perfectly, is an agreed upon PLO/”Palestinian” strategy from 1974 commonly referred to as the PLO Phased Plan.  In the context of the Phased Plan, the practically all steps taken by the Arabs/PLO/”Palestinians” make complete logical sense.   In addition, an understanding of the historical context of this Phased Plan will help rip the mask of a “peace process” off the face of the “moderate” Fatah and show their actions in their true context – a desire and change of method to their ultimate goal of destroying Israel.

In 1974, the PLO outlined their future goals, according to the Phased Plan.  The Phased Plan calls for Palestinians to create a state on any land that is given to them, and to use that land as a launching ground for attacks against Israel, with the end goal, to take over all of Israel. This plan is well documented, and can be found on the Phakestinian Arab-controlled Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre, and even “Palestine’s” official UN website.

To best understand the importance of this 1974 PLO Phased Plan as a switch of tactics, more than a change of heart, however one must understand what historically was taking place around this time. (h/t United Jerusalem)

Just prior to 1974, the Arab-Muslims had just lost their fifth all out traditional military battle against Israel.  The most recent being the Yom Kippur War which was begun by the Arabs in October 1973.   In this war, the Arab states launched a surprise attack against Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar,  once again attempting to destroy Israel.  In addition, because of their humiliating defeat in the 1967 Six-Day-War, the Arabs had the additional goal of attempting to redeem their honor.  Though Israel was initially caught off guard, it then regrouped and repelled the Arab attack, but not before incurring heavy casualties.

This loss finally convinced the Arabs that they would not be able to destroy Israel militarily within its post-1967 boundaries, but because of the previously unheard of successes raised their moral, and reinvigorated their zeal for destroying Israel.  Accordingly, instead of accepting that their desire to destroy Israel was unattainable, they instead switched gears, embraced the tactic of Terrorism over full military attacks, and embarked upon a new three-stage strategy for Israel’s destruction: The PLO’s 1974 decision commonly known as the Phased Plan.

The Phased Plan, Adopted at the 12th Session of the Palestinian National Council in Cairo, on June 9, 1974, is summed up as follows:

PHASE 1. Through the “armed struggle” (i.e., terrorism), to establish an “independent combatant national authority” over any territory that is “liberated” from Israeli rule. (Article 2)

PHASE 2. To continue the struggle against Israel, using the territory of the national authority as a base of operations. (Article 4)

PHASE 3. To provoke an all-out war in which Israel’s Arab neighbors destroy it entirely (“liberate all Palestinian territory”) (Article 8 )

Full text of the Plan can be found here, and again here at “Palestine’s” official UN website.

The Phased Plan remains the basis of PLO actions to this day, even despite the naive folly of the Oslo Accords.

Speaking on September 1, 1993, just after the announcement of the 1993 Israel-PLO agreement, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat announced on Radio Monte Carlo that the Oslo agreement:

will be a basis for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Palestine National Council resolution issued in 1974… The PNC resolution issued in 1974 calls for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian soil from which Israel withdraws or which is liberated.

(More at “Palestine Facts“)

As is noted by “Middle East Facts“:

It is worth noting that the PLO’s term for the self-rule council now in place in Gaza and the West Bank is the “Palestinian National Authority,” echoing the language of the Phased Plan.

But, let’s take this all out of the theoretical, and look at some of the present facts on the ground to see how the 1974 PLO Phased Plan is relevant today.

Additional Sources On This Topic:

Free Middle East

The PLO’s “Phased Plan”
The Phased Plan, Piece by Piece, The Piece Process
PLO’s Aim Continues to be the Destruction of Israel
Israel and “Palestine”

Netizen Freespeech Debate: Seriously, Tell Me He Is Wrong!

by WrathofG-d ( 159 Comments › )
Filed under Dhimmitude, Free Speech, Islamists, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Politics, Religion at November 23rd, 2009 - 9:46 am

Although I do not support everything Meir Kahane has ever said or done, I believe in free speech, fighting Terrorism, and the truth.    In addition, the more I learn about the progressive machine’s standard operating procedure for shutting down debate on issues they wish to completely control, the less I care what the politically correct ignorant smear mongers call me – when I know it is they who are wrong!  In the end, the truth is more important than their paper thin emotions.  When the truth is ignored, the silence can result in death.   I will no longer allow that to happen out of fear of being called names.  Avoiding the truth does not make it any less true.

It is my personal belief that Meir Kahane was exceptionally misunderstood by naive, small-minded, and politically motivated hucksters, who slandered him with disgusting epithets in order to serve their own power and agenda.  This is just like how these same forces excuse away the Islamic connection to Terrorism, and whitewash Socialism.  The most commonly held negative opinion of Meir Kahane is one based on misrepresentations of his message, misquotations, lies and ignorance.

But the aforementioned is solely my opinion, and I do not want you to simply take my word for it.  Thus, I greatly encourage you to read his books, and speeches then make up your own mind.

The best way to know anything about someone is to hear it from their own mouth, and then to make up your own mind.  The more I actually hear from Kahane himself, the more I realize one thing….he was right!

Meir Kahane in his own words on issues including violence, democracy, Arabs, Israel, the U.S., and more…

(The first 6 minutes or so is an intro about Kahane.  The direct interview with Rabbi Kahane begins thereafter.)

Meir Kahane was a man who could clearly see through the forces at work to blind us from the uncomfortable truths about Progressive myths.  He warned Israel (and by association the U.S.) of the horrors of Islamic terrorism and the unfortunate necessities in fighting it long before most of us were even thinking about Islam or terrorism at all.  Sure, he wasn’t politically correct, but now I see that to be to his credit!

Kahane was assassinated in a Manhattan hotel in 1990, after concluding a speech warning American Jews to emigrate to Israel before it was “too late.”

The assassination occurred shortly after 9 p.m., following a speech to an audience of mostly Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn; as a crowd of well-wishers gathered around Kahane following the speech in the second-floor lecture hall in midtown Manhattan’s Marriott East Side Hotel.   El Sayyid Nosair, an Egyptian-born American citizen, fatally shot Kahane in the neck.  Kahane ultimately was a victim of the same Islamic terrorism he warned others about!

Instead of just accepting the progressive slander of Meir Kahane that many of us have heard (or will hear if you bring Kahane up in conversation) which is often spread by those who know nothing about him at all but are only repeating what they have heard from others who are also ignorant, hear Kahane from Kahane’s own mouth….and then if you still can, tell me he was wrong!