Friday, March 30, 2007
I have previously written open letters to Mr. Mugabe because I find the situation in Zimbabwe unacceptable as a Pan-Africanist. I had and have no problem with the concept of land liberation. But I have been in complete dismay at the manner it which it was carried out. I was completely P.Oed over the wrecking of shanty towns by the authorities. I could continue to list the numerous problems I have with the party in power but the biggest problem right now is Mr. Mugabe.
Mr. Mugabe is 83 years old. He should have passed the banner to new leadership a long long long time ago. This long term "leadership" is at the center of the problem with Zimbabwe. It is not a government but rather a fiefdom of Mr. Mugabe and his supporters. Mugabe wants to stay in power simply because he knows full well there is nothing else for him to do when he leaves. Why is that? because HE has overseen the financial ruin of his country. Some may say that the problem is because the British have been meddling with Zimbabwe over the expulsion of the white farmers. Rubbish!
Mugabe, as a leader of the liberation movement in Africa and a contemporary of Nkrumah, Sekou Toure and other Pan-Africanists, knew full well that the British would be attempting to interfere with his new state. It was his job as leader to be sure to prepare his country and people to have life lines that did not depend upon the British. When they finally got around to land reclamation why hadn't they prepared people, by sending them to other African countries or other countries with Agriculture expertise, so that they could step in without disrupting the food supply? That's poor leadership.
Furthermore; any and everyone knows they will eventually die. Where was the plan for the new leadership? That Mugabe has been in power as long as he has been is a huge problem. The recent abductions and beatings of members of the opposition party is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in Zimbabwe. Even IF the perpetrators were not members of the ruling party, the fact that there is a climate in Zimbabwe in which people think that abductions and beatings are the proper means of expressing ones political disagreements is a sad reflection on the leadership in Zimbabwe. The problem with this culture of political violence is that it doesn't stop easily. Once other groups realize that they can use violence to foist themselves into power, it becomes a free for all. We have seen how bad this stuff can get in Sierra Leonne, Liberia and The DRC to name a few.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Oh and the Banana argument...
My suggestion to anyone who actually believes in biblical creationism to not ever repeat what you saw here in an argument. Well except the last link. Really. Just don't do it.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Which truly underscores the problem of illegal immigration and exploitation of workers in general.
Out here — just a few miles from world-class golf resorts, private hunting clubs and polo fields — half-naked children toddle barefoot through mud and filth while packs of feral dogs prowl piles of garbage nearby.
Thick smoke from mountains of burning trash drifts through broken windows. People — sometimes 30 or more — are crammed into trailers with no heat, no air-conditioning, undrinkable water, flickering power and plumbing that breaks down for weeks or months at a time.
"I was speechless," said Haider Quintero, a Colombian training for the priesthood who recently visited the parks as part of his studies. "I never expected to see this in America."
"Before the parks, they were living in their cars, in the desert and bathing in the canals. Five guys would pay 50 bucks a month to share a camper shell," said Scott Lawson, a tribal member and co-owner of the Oasis park on the reservation. "Nobody cared when they lived like that, only when they moved into trailers. You can't expect the poorest to live like the wealthiest. They feel comfortable here; it's like being back in Mexico. They tell me that."
Lawson's 300-trailer park has been cited by the EPA for clean-water violations and was recently ordered to stop pumping raw sewage into the nearby Salton Sea.
"We had some citations about water but it's because we didn't know how to test it," he said. "I'm not ashamed of my place. There are a lot worse places than mine."
The tenants are almost entirely Latino farm or construction workers. Many are in the United States legally, but plenty are not. Their average income, according to county officials, is about $10,000 a year. Many parents rent out their children's rooms for extra money, leaving kids to sleep on floors or in sheds. Many families keep warm by burning grape stakes, which fill their trailers with toxic fumes.
The italicized portion is what should concern people. Understand that the companies are paying what I can barely say are "poverty" wages. and when these companies, who are largely breaking various laws, are allowed to get away with this blatant exploitation, it then creates an environment where the rest of us (citizens) are next in line. It is already being done and many of us have been discussing this before the immigration issue came to the forefront of the nation's conscience. So long as employers can hang the "there's someone out there who will accept x-wages" over the head of citizens for various work, then conditions like this will continue. Do we really think that the construction companies that hire these individuals give a damn how or where they are living? If you, the citizen were on the "pick up corner" with these folk, do you think they would give a damn how YOU were living? Toxic dump? Cold at night? Not the construction firm's problem or their client's problem either.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
on the backs of those who came before us …. Odu Ifa Orangun Meji –
On March 25th we will pour libation for and make Bibo (appeasement
offerings) for those African's that survived the Transatlantic Maafa,
as a humble way to say thank you for what they did and for what they
gave. This date is important because March 25, 2007 is exactly the
200 year marker of the beginning of the end of the tragic Middle
Passage. That day is important for us to acknowledge breaking the
Those that see this point or feel the need are welcome. For those
that choose to acknowledge the sacrifice of their ancestors and
commemorate this 200th year on March 25th, 2007 practitioners of
traditional African spirituality: Ifa, Orisha, etc. should give ebo
to the Earth, to our ancestors individually and/or with others to mark
the 200th year since the British Government signed the
1807declaration, making it illegal to transport Africans to the New
World and to abolish the Trans-Atlantic slave
And those that do not feel it important, it is not an issue, we are
all moved in different ways to do different things in life.
Last year the United Nations (UN) declared 2007 as the year to mark
The 200th year - International Day for the Commemoration of the 200th
Anniversary of the Abolition of the Trans-Atlantic SlaveTrade signed
on March 25th 1807 by the British Parliament. It is
also important to note that the USA , signed the bill on March 3rd
1807 to take effect beginning Jan 1st , 1808.
For those that want to recognise the collective sacrifices of our
ancestors: spread the word to commemorate this important bicentennial
in preparation for Jan 1st 2008 which will mark 200 years that the US
signed to cease exporting Africans as enslaved people.
Remember that March 25th, 2007 , can make an impact in our own back
yard. The 25th of March will mark the recognition of how our
realities were shaped within the USA: by stopping the massive exodus
of more Africans, and prevented them from going through the dreaded
Middle Passage, to arrive in the USA to work as slave labor, and
to our people here still enslaved. This is a very important marker
and one we cannot forgo.
What have you done within your lifetime to commemorate the efforts of
those that came before you on a large scale like the Ifa Council-
Maafa Project is proposing?
The British Federal Government plans to fund national events with 20
million British pounds (approx $40 million US dollars) for events and
activities with the main event at the national memorial service
outside of London, UK . The Jamaican Government is already into its
year of commemoration that began Jan 2nd 2007 and will run until Jan
25, 2008 and their theme: "Our Freedom Journey….Honoring our
The Ifa Council's – Maafa Project, is generating a theme and ideas to
commemorate this important bicentennial, with several major
activities geared towards honoring the sacrifice of our ancestors.
The 3 key activities wish to acknowledge our progenitors & their
1) Ceremony to those that did not make it through the middle passage
(the 8+ weeks on the slave ships when disease, infections, rapes and
mass murder were rampant, which had no formal burial rites or
anything as yet.
2) A Memorial Event should be used to acknowledge those that did make
it to New World, yet either died holding onto and refusing to give up
our ancestral ways, or for playing African drums and not hiding the
practice of the traditional rites and were massacred for openly
practicing our traditions.
3) Then honor those that managed to survive and hold on to the Yoruba
& other traditions that were carried to the New World (Americas), by
camouflaging the practices with things more acceptable to the slave
master / colonizer, and by calling them something else, all as a
means to allow what they believed inside to survive, until another
day today. ++++++++++++++++
For more info and to be included email: email@example.com
Friday, March 16, 2007
I said that I thought that the officer who fired off two clips was supposed to be indicted as well as the officer that started the shooting. The other fellow I'm not sure about but in each case these are the officers that fired the most shots.
Personally, I'm not at all concerned that the other two officers (Carey and Headley) were not indicted because from what I know, those two only fired a single shot and therefore it would be reasonably argued that they fired because they heard a shot but they followed police proceedure by not shooting numerous times. Since I, if I was on the jury, would likely be convinced of reasonable doubt on those two. This post will be updated as more information is made available.
Update: According to the NY Times:
The jury charged two of the detectives — Gescard F. Isnora, an undercover officer who fired the first shot, and Michael Oliver, who fired 31 shots — with manslaughter, two people with direct knowledge of the case said. The third detective, Marc Cooper, who fired four shots, faces a lesser charge of reckless endangerment, those two people said...
The person with direct knowledge of the case who said Detectives Isnora and Oliver faced manslaughter charges did not know if they were first- or second-degree counts. Second-degree manslaughter is defined as recklessly causing the death of another person. The three officers may also face additional lesser charges.\
According to Letlaw manslaughter is defined:
The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.
It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.
The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
The provocation which reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter is an answer to the presumption of malice which the law raises in every case of homicide; it is therefore no answer when express malice is proved and to be available the provocation must have been reasonable and recent, for no words or slight provocation will be sufficient, and if the party has had time to cool, malice will be inferred.
In cases of mutual combat, it is generally manslaughter only when one of the parties is killed. When death ensues from duelling the rule is different, and such killing is murder.
The killing of an officer by resistance to him while acting under lawful authority is murder; but if the officer be acting under a void or illegal authority, or out of his jurisdiction, the killing is manslaughter, or excusable homicide, according to the circumstances of the case.
Killing a person while doing an act of mere wantonness, is manslaughter as, if a person throws down stones in a coal-pit, by which a man is killed, although the offender was only a trespasser.
When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter. For instance, if the death has been occasioned by negligent driving. Again, when death ensues, from the gross negligence of a medical or surgical practitioner, it is manslaughter.
Here at the Ghost, we think that definition 5 would be the basis for a manslaughter indictment. I also think this may be the best charge (even though we have called it murder before) because to go to trial and attempt to prove intent, necessary for a murder charge, would leave a wide door open called reasonable doubt as it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that the officers did not intend to kill Sean Bell.
To me the biggest hurdle faced now is to prove that either of the three killed Sean Bell. I'm not sure if that is legally necessary, but assuming it is, then that may be a problem for the prosecution and the officers may well walk or be found guilty of reckless endangerment charge which I think is unavoidable given the number of shots and the fact that bullets entered a home and the train station and the one officer emptied two clips in clear violation of his training.
OK. So I stand corrected, well actually I stand clarified. The evidence shows who shot Sean Bell and co. so the charges are in fact related to the specific bullets that struck the victims as well as those that went into one of the houses as well as the AirTran station. The NY Times has a link to the indictment document which I want to highlight some important problems.
The first count is for 1st degree manslaughter. The problem with that is I think it will be very very very hard to prove intent on the part of police officers. I said earlier that any charge with intent would not work. I don't know what evidence the grand jury heard, that made them think 1st degree manslaughter was appropriate, but from what little I know, that charge is NOT going to stick.
The second count of second degree manslaughter is, in my opinion, provable because it only states that the officers acted "recklessly" using a "loaded pistol". To me, that is basically a statement of fact. Again, I don't know what evidence is going to be entered into evidence but even though the officers will claim they feared for their lives, police regulations are quite clear about shooting at moving vehicles. Secondly, because an alternate (and I believe regulation) procedure would have been to call in uniformed backup as to not blow the cover of the undercover officer(s).
on the third and fourth charges of 1st degree assault, I have to restate my doubt that intent will be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The fifth count of second degree assault is provable beyond doubt. Again to me the charge is a statement of fact, unless some seriously exculpatory evidence comes to light.
On the 6th, 7th and 8th counts of reckless endangerment, I simply don't see how they will get off on those. Discharging 50 shots in such a manner that houses are shot into, and the public is put into danger is simply shoddy police work and shows a blatant disregard for the lives of civilians.
So to close, my position is that anything requiring intent will result in an acquittal and anything else is provable but depends on the jury (or judge).
Thursday, March 15, 2007
According Mr. Palladino and a lawyer involved in the case, a man walked into the 115th Precinct station house in Queens and said he had seen something important. The man, a worker in the area, described seeing a black man at the shooting scene on Liverpool Street fire a handgun and then run into a building, Mr. Palladino said.
Mr. Palladino said the witness had seen the gunman fire “once, maybe twice” at the police officers.
The problem with this "story" is this:
"He said he heard the clash of the car. He looks up and sees a male black fire one shot, maybe two, and run from the scene, possibly running into a building...
Cops had talked to the man just after the shooting, but he had lied and said he hadn't seen anything, a source said. He told cops yesterday that his Christian conscience nagged him to come forward and tell the truth, sources said...
There also was no evidence that Guzman, 31, Trent Benefield, 23, or Bell, 23, had a gun.
Additionally, all ballistics found at the scene have been traced to police weapons, a source said.
Police were heavily criticized for arresting numerous "suspects" who may have been outside Club Kalua and had information about a fourth man leaving the car.
So this man of Christian Conscience(tm) lied to the police about this 4th man and is not facing obstruction charges? And even if this went to court does ANY prosecutor out there on Queens Blvd. think that this witness will be taken seriously by a jury? Aside from this witness being an admitted liar, his story is completely contradicted by the available evidence. If this 4th man let off two shots then where are those bullets? Are we to believe that the NYPD, in addition to being reckless are also incapable of canvassing an area for bullets? Perhaps they are since they failed to create a dragnet to catch this so called 4th man.
The alternative would be that this 4th man was firing a police weapon. Now that would raise some other questions wouldn't it?
My position as of now, is that this person was produced to taint the grand jury by raising doubt since by my estimates at least two of the officers are in jeopardy, the one who fired the first shot and the officer that shot two clips worth. I hope the grand jury is not fooled and does not think that their job is to determine guilt. They are only to determine whether the charges should go to trial and there is enough evidence to do so.
Technorati Tags: Jamaica Queens Shooting
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Over the weekend I saw this article entitled: Between Black and Immigrant Muslims, an Uneasy Alliance Which had some very out there inaccuracies which appear to have been the fault of those interviewed rather than that of the NY Times. I'm using the phrase "Back of the Camel", which is normally a phrase I wouldn't use in reference to African-American Muslims, because I generally think it to be insensitive, but it is exactly what came to mind when I read the full article.
In brief, the Harlem Imam, Al-Hajj Talib ‘Abdur-Rashid, has been out ingratiating himself to Muslims of other nationalities in order to grow his Mosque, among other things. In the process of trying to get funds for his Mosque, and in the background of this article a number of rank inaccurate statements went completely unchallenged by the NY Times which I feel really needs to be set straight.
Let me start with this near opening statement:
For many African-American converts, Islam is an experience both spiritual and political, an expression of empowerment in a country they feel is dominated by a white elite. For many immigrant Muslims, Islam is an inherited identity, and America a place of assimilation and prosperity.
This italicized portion is one of my issues with many African-Americans who convert to Islam, the perception that it is a black thing to do and is THE credible act of resistance to White Supremacy. Much of this is due to the work of the Nation Of Islam and more importantly Malcolm X. There are many African-Americans who are Muslims today on the strength of Malcolm X's Auto-Biography, including Al-Hajj Talib ‘Abdur-Rashid. He says of his converstion:
Raised a Christian, he spent the first part of his youth in segregated North Carolina. As a teenager, he read “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” twice. He began educating himself about the faith at age 19, when as an aspiring actor he was cast in a play about a man who had left the Nation of Islam.
But his conversion was more spiritual than political, he said.
“I’d like to think that even if I was a white man, I’d still be a Muslim because that’s the orientation of my soul,” the imam said.
He has learned some Arabic, and traveled once to the Middle East, for hajj. Yet he feels more comfortable with the Senegalese and Guinean Muslims who have settled in Harlem than with many Arabs and South Asians.
This background is familiar ground for many African-American converts. You'll have to recall that because segregation in the US was done by Christians, to have Islam appear to be in opposition to such a practice is a powerful incentive to joining the faith. You'll note that Brother Talib claims that his change of faith was driven by a quest for spirituality. I reject this claim, given that black folks, specifically those in the Bible Belt are VERY spiritual and it would be particularly insulting to them to claim that they are less spiritual than any given Muslim. No, it is clear that the blackness of Malcolm X and his fortitude in the face of White Supremacy is what actually affected brother Talib. In terms of spirituality he could have easily studied Quakers, Buddhism, etc. but he did not. Nor did brother Talib study any of the traditional religions of Africa. Why not? Maybe it wasn't mentioned, but I don't believe that he did. Here's the reason for my statement:
“And we can’t let other people, from other cultures, come and try to make us clones of them. We came here as Muslims.”
We what? Excuse me? Exactly how did this individual come to such a conclusion? What historical facts back that up? None whatsoever.
Anyone who is familiar with the Atlantic Slave Trade would know that Ibos, Mandinkas, Yorubas Housas, Igbos, Kubans, Ngolans, Twi, Assante, Fante's of all manner of faiths were sold to white men and shipped to the Americas. How then can anyone Muslim or not, even make such an untenable claim? Well actually I've covered this phenomenon of "yellow-washing" African history by certain Muslim scholars, who much like their Christian counterparts feel the need to clean up the Arab and Muslim history in Africa. You can find detailed discussions of this phenomenon here:
Now I'm not one to tell people what religions they should follow, but I think it isn't unfair to expect that people would at least be accurate in their statements about African people. As a Pan-Africanist, I would wonder why brother Talib would not be more concerned with his other African Muslims and "do for self" as taught by Malcolm X. I would also ask why he isn't on record as trying to form bonds with African and African-Americans of other non-Christian faiths. But then this is why the post is entitled the way it is.
Many of the mosque’s members embraced Islam in search of black empowerment, not black separatism. They describe racial equality as a central tenet of their faith. Yet for some, the promise of Islam has been at odds with the reality of Muslims.
One member, Aqilah Mu’Min, lives in the Parkchester section of the Bronx, a heavily Bangladeshi neighborhood. Whenever she passes women in head scarves, she offers the requisite Muslim greeting. Rarely is it returned. “We have a theory that says Islam is perfect, human beings are not,” said Ms. Mu’Min, a city fraud investigator.
If non-Black Muslims are acting as foul as white Christians then you've essentially put oneself into the same position as before. And besides, the historical question still stands, how is converting (reverting as some say) to Islam synonymous with "black empowerment"? Let's look at it like this 'Aqilah' and Mohammed are not African names. They are definite not West African in origin, where most African-American ancestors came from. Thus why is taking an Arabic name "black empowerment"? It is Islamic empowerment, but definitely not "black empowerment." I believe that such disrespect that many African-American Muslims experience will be solved in one of two ways:
1) They will subsume their own history and practices in order to be accepted by those with "unshattered Islamic heritage" or
2) They will wise up and do for self within' the faith. They will do as other African Muslims have done before them and adopt the faith to their own realities and do so in an unapologetic manner.
If individuals such as brother Talib want the respect of those of us who are outside the "big three", then they will have to cease with the pseudo history. In fact let me say this to all of us, since I've witnessed pseudo-history propagated on all sides. All of us really need to stop with the pseudo-history both between and within our respective groups.
Friday, March 09, 2007
If one goes to dictionary.com you will find the definition of great as:
1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions: A great fire destroyed nearly half the city.
2. large in number; numerous: Great hordes of tourists descend on Europe each summer.
3. unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.: great pain.
4. wonderful; first-rate; very good: We had a great time. That's great!
5. being such in an extreme or notable degree: great friends; a great talker.
6. notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding: a great occasion.
7. important; highly significant or consequential: the great issues in American history.
8. distinguished; famous: a great inventor.
9. of noble or lofty character: great thoughts.
10. chief or principal: the great hall; his greatest novel.
11. of high rank, official position, or social standing: a great noble.
12. much in use or favor: “Humor” was a great word with the old physiologists.
13. of extraordinary powers; having unusual merit; very admirable: a great statesman.
14. of considerable duration or length: We waited a great while for the train.
definitions 3,6,7 and 11 are of relevance to our discussion. Anyone who is familiar with Hitler would have to conseed that Hitler was:
Unusual or considerable in degree.
notable, remarkable and exceptionally outstanding.
important, highly significant or consequential.
and of high rank, official position or social standing (in the Nazi Party at least).
Thus to desribe Hitler as a "great" man does not mean that one agrees with his ideology. Rather as commentary on hist historical role, he is a great individual. There is no questioning this. But Mr. Bashir, all brit-accented and all, apparently doesn't have the same range of vocabulary as Farrakhan and I and therefore said, on record, that he did not think Hitler was a great man(We'll interject here to point out that one weekend, the HIstory channel spent it's entire daytime broadcast time on WWII. So anybody who says with a straight face that Hitler was not great was either born yesterday, has amnesia or os a bald faced liar.). Of course Mr. Bashir confuses great in it's common vernacular usage as a compliment, with it's other equally valid, and in the case of the specific statement, more relevant meanings.
moving along we find that "wicked" means:
1.evil or morally bad in principle or practice; sinful; iniquitous: wicked people; wicked habits.
2. mischievous or playfully malicious: These wicked kittens upset everything.
3. distressingly severe, as a storm, wound, or cold: a wicked winter.
4. unjustifiable; dreadful; beastly: wicked prices; a wicked exam.
5. having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean: a wicked horse.
6. spiteful; malevolent; vicious: a wicked tongue.
7. extremely troublesome or dangerous: wicked roads.
8. unpleasant; foul: a wicked odor.
9. Slang. wonderful; great; masterful; deeply satisfying: He blows a wicked trumpet.
10. Slang. very; really; totally: That shirt is wicked cool.
It is clear from the speech that contained the phrase "wickedly great" that Farrakhan was not using wicked in it's common slang usage, which eliminates definitions 9 and 10 and leaves us with definitions 1 through 8, none of which are "positive"
Thus when we put "wickedly" with "great" we get:
evil(ly) unusual or considerable in degree.
evil(ly) notable, remarkable and exceptionally outstanding.
evil(ly) important. Highly significant or consequential in an evil manner.
clearly there is no way, except in the fanciful imaginations of those of the employ of the ADL, AIPAC and others trained in the art of Farrakhan hating, that the statement "Hitler was wickedly great." can be taken for positive admiration for Hitler.
So exactly what was the reason for putting Farrakhan on air last night? Well it actually was an attack on Obama. That was revealed when the question was asked about whether Obama was afraid of "controversial" black figures such as Farrakhan and Al Sharpton. Farrakhan wisely dodged the question, but the real answer is yes he is. That was shown in my oft cited refusal to comment on the Sean Bell murder. I have covered this ground extensively already so I won't go through it here, but needless to say such a position underscores the point that Obama's "lack of blackness" is very much in play and not entirely about genetics either.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
WASHINGTON, March 6 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted today of lying to F.B.I. agents and grand jurors investigating the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative amid a burning dispute over the war in Iraq.
The jury rejected Mr. Libby’s claims of memory lapses as it convicted him of obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the F.B.I. and perjuring himself, charges embodied in four of the five counts of the indictment.
Too bad Conyers doesn't have the balls to put impeachment on the table.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Obama, who we busted making "racist" statements about Iran back in 2004, has continues with his "warrior" commentary:
Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President
Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his
country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as
the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to
Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the
pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington
and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60
years, it is time to deny the deniers.
While we here at Garvey's Ghost mistakenly condemned Mr Ahmedinejad's statements because we mistakenly relied on faulty reporting. We now know that this statement is patently false. We know that Mr. Ahmedinejad statements regarding the Holocaust was in reference to "reparations" for that event and not on whether the event actually happened. Furthermore we know that if the Iranian government was against Jewish people then there would not be a Jewish population in Iran. So we see that Obama, doing his ass kissing duty is repeating false information in order to get the seal of approval from this group. Do not expect anyone outside of "progressive" circles to call him out on this.
At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to
our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense
programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and
repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And
when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right
to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using
Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields,
Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict,
and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s why
we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701,
which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution
which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of
weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in
the region, must end.
This is also completely out of line. The use of cluster bombs by Israel (as supplied by the US) was in fact illegal both in terms of international law as well as US law which strictly prohibits the use of US sold arms in civilian areas. Of course Obama has nothing to say about this.
Secondly on the issue of Israel being attacks last summer we should be aware that specific information regarding the IDF has been kept from regular public consumption. Namely this particular item from Counterpunch:
Newsweek's Michael Hirsh of MSNBC.com, on July 12, said: "As a result, things are blowing up so quickly it's difficult to know where to focus any longer. After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war."
AP also ran changed versions. On July 12, at 5:41AM Joseph Panossian wrote: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."
Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."
Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."
Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."
And I would suggest Mr. Obama read the following:
I live in northern Israel in the Arab city of Nazareth. A week into the war we were hit by Hizbullah rockets that killed two young brothers. The attack, it was widely claimed, was proof either that Hizbullah was indiscriminately targeting civilians (so indiscriminately, the argument went, that it was hitting fellow Arabs) or that the Shiite militia was so committed to a fanatical war against the Judeo-Christian world that it was happy to kill Nazareth's Christian Arabs too...
But to anyone living in Nazareth, it was clear the rocket attack on the city was not indiscriminate either. It was a mistake -- something Nasrallah quickly confirmed in one of his televised speeches. The real target of the strike was known to Nazarenes: close by the city are a military weapons factory and a large military camp. Hizbullah knows the locations of these military targets because this year, as was widely reported in the Israeli media at the time, it managed to fly an unmanned drone over the Galilee photographing the area in detail -- employing the same spying techniques used for many years by Israel against Lebanon.
Of course these pieces of information are not out in the public and in terms of what started the hostilities, the discourse was soon changed to make Lebanon and Hezbollah to be the aggressors and therefore the excuse, long planned to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon. So Obama is fooling no one. And again, he won't be challenged by "the media" since most of them are also in AIPAC's pocket scared to death of being labeled "anti-semetic".
Of course though. Obama is showing his qualifications to be president, one of which is to kiss AIPAC ass and then go to Selma and talk to black folk in church, most of whom, unfortunately have no clue as to what has been detailed above and are two blinded by the Audacity of Obama(tm), to heed Dr. King's warning about the content of his character. Any black person who needs to kiss AIPAC ass has serious character content issues. In fact I'll say the same for any other US citizen.
Of course no speech to AIPAC would not be complete without the requisite sympathy for Israeli victims of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.
Just six months after I visited,
Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one that
destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service
members. And we pray for all of the service members who have been
kidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met with
his family this week. I offered to help in any way I can.
Oh yes Obama, has sympathy for some Israeli citizens and wants to do anything he can to help, but when he was in NYC, right after Sean Belle was murdered by the NYPD in a branzen act of wrecklessness, Obama couldn't even muster up the guts to call the shooting what it was. Nor did he even offer "help" to Sean Bell's family. But i understand, Sean Bell and his family are not wealthy white (and Jewish) donors, so they don't matter. I expect that kind of stuff from Hilary but Obama should know better, especially if he's going to tout the "different kind of politics". But the only thing different right now is the color of the face, and the texture of the hair.