Uncovered: Obama’s mystery college years Tied to Ayers’ group, extremist groups operating on campus

Uncovered: Obama’s
mystery college years

Tied to Ayers’ group, extremist
groups operating on campus


Posted: June 11, 2010
12:00 am Eastern


WorldNetDaily


William Ayers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A recently released book uncovers untold aspects of President Obama’s mysterious college years, tying the politician to associates of Weather Underground founder William Ayers and to radical groups operating at the time.

The new book, “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s ties to communists, socialists and other anti-American extremists,” charges Obama has deep ties to an anti-American extremist nexus that has been instrumental not only in building his political career but in crafting current White House policy.

The book exposes an extremist coalition of communists, socialists and other radicals working both inside and outside the administration to draft and advance current White House policy goals.

With nearly 900 citations, the New York Times best-selling title from WND senior reporter and WABC Radio host Aaron Klein bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama’s political background and radical ties. Klein’s co-author is historian and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

Read the inside story on the president and his friends, get your autographed copy of “The Manchurian President” at WND’s Superstore

In one of the many strange features of Obama’s presidential candidacy, his 2008 campaign went to great lengths to conceal normally routine information about the candidate’s college years.

The information included his first two undergraduate years at Occidental College in Los Angeles, followed by his final two years and graduation from Columbia University in New York City.

No official or unofficial records were ever made available. No college transcripts, published records, or even contemporary newspaper announcements about his education have been released.

Obama remarkably relates in his autobiography “Dreams from My Father” that, beginning at Occidental, he surrounded himself with an assortment of radicals, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and communists.

Obama, however, provides neither names nor clues.

“The Manchurian President” uncovers a slew of radicals with whom Obama associated during his college years.

SDS founder

It was at Occidental that Obama first engaged in community activism, delivering what has been described as the first political speech of his career. On Feb. 18, 1981, Obama addressed students gathered outside Coons Hall administration building, exhorting Occidental’s trustees to divest from South Africa.

Obama writes in “Dreams” about the rally in which he took part, reportedly led by the Black Student Alliance and Students for Economic Democracy.


Tom Hayden at 2004 Democratic National Convention

Obama agreed to deliver the opening remarks for the rally, for which, he writes, “the agenda had been carefully arranged beforehand.” In the middle of his speech “a couple of white students” were to come onstage, “dressed in their paramilitary uniforms,” to drag him away. “A bit of street theater, a way to dramatize the situation for activists in South Africa,” Obama writes.

Students for Economic Democracy, or SED, was a national student advocacy group established by soon-to-be California State Representative Tom Hayden, now a professor at Occidental, and his former wife, actress Jane Fonda

Hayden authored the 1962 “Port Huron Statement,” the first official political manifesto of the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS – the radical 1960s protest movement from which Ayers’ Weathermen terrorist organization splintered.

An example of Hayden’s brash rhetoric dates to his December 1968 testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities on the Chicago “anti-war protests.”

At the committee, a portion of Hayden’s SDS manifesto was read:

“Disobey your parents: burn your money: you know life is a dream and all of our institutions are man-made illusions effective because YOU take the dream for reality. … Break down the family, church, nation, city, economy; turn life into an art form, a theatre of the soul and a theatre of the future; the revolutionary is the only artist. … What’s needed is a generation of people who are freaky, crazy, irrational, sexy, angry, irreligious, childish and mad: people who burn draft cards, burn high school and college degrees; people who say: “To hell with your goals!”; people who lure the youth with music, pot and acid; people who re-define the normal; people who break with the status-role-title-consumer game; people who have nothing material to lose but their flesh. …”

When asked if this was “the way to have a better America,” Hayden called them “beautiful sentiments.”

The official mission statement for Hayden’s SED, for which Obama delivered a major speech, espouses socialist ideology:

“Economic democracy means that ownership and control will be spread among a wide variety of public bodies: city, state and Federal governments, churches, trade unions, cooperatives and community groups, small business people, workers and consumers.”

Hayden later was a founding member of Progressives for Obama, a matrix of radicals who supported Obama’s presidential candidacy.

Meanwhile, “Manchurian” relates Obama’s involvement with the anti-apartheid movement, which sparked a firestorm of activism at Occidental.

Political mentors

The book rejects as unlikely speculation from various media outlets that two Occidental professors, Roger Boesche and Eric Newhall, served as Obama’s political mentors at the time.

Instead, “Manchurian” finds the most likely candidate to be Occidental professor Gary Chapman, whose background includes “military service, academic research and organizational experience.”

Chapman’s political organization and campaign experience also includes “peace issues” with the New American Movement, or NAM. The lineage of NAM is associated with that of the Democratic Socialists of America. NAM also is identified as a “splinter group” of Hayden’s and Ayers’ SDS.

Appeared with Columbia activist, Ayers

Obama has revealed almost nothing about his last two years as an undergraduate at Columbia University’s Columbia College.


Columbia University

Obama has said he was involved with the Black Students Organization, which emerged in the 1960s in response to a growing black student population at Columbia. Undergraduates formed the Student Afro-American Society, “which was concerned with the affairs of black students and issues of the greater black community.”

The Coalition for a Free South Africa, or CFSA, began as a Black Students’ Organization committee to promote Columbia University’s divestment in stock in companies doing business in South Africa.

CFSA, which split from the Black Students’ Organization in 1981, was a loosely structured group with a predominantly black steering committee of about a dozen individuals who made decisions by consensus, and a less active circle of about fifty students who attended meetings and the group’s protests and educational events.”

Early CFSA leaders were Danny Armstrong, a Columbia College student who played forward for Columbia’s basketball team, and Barbara Ransby, a student from the School of General Studies

As CFSA spokeswoman, Ransby famously convinced Columbia’s student senate “to support full divestment.”

Ransby, now an associate professor of African-American studies and history at the University of Illinois-Chicago, and the executive director of Public Square, was in the class of 1984 at Columbia, only one year behind Obama, who would later publicly appear with both Ransby and Ayers.

In April 2002, Ransby appeared at a University of Illinois-Chicago forum and sat on the same panel – “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis: Experiences and applications of intellectual work in urgent situations” – with both Obama and Ayers.

Obama knew FCC chief from Columbia activism?

Another name that emerges from Obama’s involvement with the Black Students’ Organization and Coalition for a Free South Africa is that of Julius Genachowski.

In October 2008, Genachowski, co-founder of the venture capital firm LaunchBox Digital, was described as “an adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.”

Obama and Genakowski were later Harvard Law School classmates.

In August 2008 it was reported in the New York Times that Genachowski, who led the Obama campaign’s technology working group, was also a big fundraiser. Genachowski raised at least $500,000 as an Obama “bundler.”

In March 2009, Obama nominated Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission, and he was sworn in June 29, 2009.

Book uncovers radical nexus

Along with a chapter on Ayers, “The Manchurian President” includes an extensive investigation into Obama’s own background. The work uncovers, among many other things, Obama’s early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church connected to Ayers’ ideology.

Obama’s associations with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects.

Also detailed are Obama’s deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere. The book crucially describes how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama’s political career and now exerts major influence in the White House.

“The Manchurian President” contains potentially explosive information not only about President Obama but also concerning other officials in the White House, including top czars and senior advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.

“The Manchurian President” also exposes how Obama’s health-care policy, masked by moderate populist rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers.

“I believe this work is crucial to Americans from across the political spectrum,” says Klein, “including mainstream Democrats who should be alarmed that their party has been hijacked by an extreme-left fringe bent on permanently changing the party to fit its radical agenda.

“Indeed, this book will document, with new information, Obama’s own involvement with a socialist party whose explicit goal was to infiltrate and eventually take over the Democratic Party and mold it into a socialist organization,” Klein claims.

Klein began investigating Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign and broke major national stories. He first exposed the politician’s association with Ayers in a widely circulated WND article.

The story prompted the Nation magazine to lament, via the CBS News website, that “mainstream reporters now call the Obama campaign to ask about Klein’s articles.”

It was in a WABC Radio interview with Klein that Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to Hamas, “endorsed” Obama for president, generating world headlines and sparking controversy. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and Obama repeatedly traded public barbs over Hamas’ positive comments.

Klein was among the first reporters to expose that Obama’s “green jobs” czar, Van Jones, founded a communist organization and called for “resistance” against the U.S. government. The theme was picked up and expanded upon by the Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck, leading to Jones’ resignation last September.

Co-author Brenda J. Elliott is a historian, author and investigative researcher known for her blogging during the 2008 presidential election about Ayers, Tony Rezko and other controversial figures linked to Obama. Since 1988, Elliott has been responsible for a number of historical projects, has won an award by Project Censored for her work and has been named “One of the Intriguing People” by Central Florida magazine.

The introduction to “The Manchurian President” relates: “Barack Obama is backed by and deeply tied to an anti-American fringe nexus that, as this book will show, was instrumental not only in mentoring Obama and helping him to build his political career, but essentially in overthrowing the moderate wing of the Democratic Party and in securing and powerfully influencing Obama’s presidency.

“As will be seen, these radical associates not only continue to influence Obama and White House strategy, but some are directly involved in creating the very policies intended to undermine or radically transform the United States of America.”

Why is Obama Handing out Millions of Dollars to Terrorists?

Why is Obama Handing out Millions of Dollars to Terrorists?

June 11th, 2010

By Patrick Brown

Obama Abbas

President Obama and Palestinian President Abbas

On Wednesday, Obama announced that the U.S. will be sending Palestine 400 million dollars of aid after a lengthy meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. According to Obama, the money is for “assistance for housing, school construction, [and] business development.” Ten million dollars of this amount is funding for school construction in the Gaza strip.

School construction? There can’t be anything wrong with that, right? Besides the glaring problem that the U.S. is 13 trillion dollars in debt and can ill afford to fund Palestinian construction projects, the main problem is that Israel has spent the last few years (highlighted by the recent incident with the activist flotilla) trying to keep construction materials out of Gaza because of the high likelihood that such materials will be used by Hamas to construct bunkers and rocket launching sites used to attack Israeli cities. Sure, there will be promises that no money will go to Hamas. But how often is aid to countries intercepted by the rulers while the people are left to rot? And why would it be any different with Hamas, a terrorist organization and ally of Iran?

How naive can Obama be? Or does this announcement actually reveal his contempt for Israel and its right to survive? I’m sure 10 million dollars would feel nice in the pockets of terrorists who call America the “Great Satan” and want to wipe Israel off the map.

Obama’s naivety/contempt is also shown by his discussion with President Abbas about Palestinian incitement. Prior to the meeting, White House officials hosted a leadership meeting of the Jewish advocacy group, the Orthodox Union, and promised that Obama would confront Abbas about Palestinian incitement of violence.

Abbas’ response to this was simple: “I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we’re not doing that.”

Obama evidently took this at face value and proceeded to promise Abbas 400 million dollars rather than call out this bald-faced lie. The fact that Obama earlier promised Jewish leaders to confront the encouragement of violence shows that he had at least some knowledge of Palestinian incitement, which he obviously chose to ignore.
A recent report by the Palestinian Media Watch shows the truth about Abbas and the Palestinian Authority’s incitement of its people to hate Israel. According to the report, “Official PA TV continues to teach children to envision a world in which Israel does not exist and all of Israel is instead part of the “State of Palestine.” One official statement on PA TV a few weeks ago said that all the cities that are now within Israel should be part of Palestine and told all Jews to get out and go back to their homeland in Poland. Hmm, didn’t now-former White House correspondent Helen Thomas say something very similar recently? Maybe she got her ideas from watching a little late-night Palestinian TV.

It seems Obama would rather provide material aid to enemies of the U.S and her allies than call out the Palestinian president’s lie. Why are we giving Palestine 400 million dollars of U.S money at a time when we have 13 trillion dollars of national debt and when much of the aid may land in the hands of Hamas? Obama will to have to answer some tough questions in the days ahead.

Update: If there was any question of Obama’s attitude toward Israel, William Kristol reported today that Obama will be supporting an anti-Israel resolution in the UN next week. It seems Obama’s true feelings are starting to come out

McCAIN – TWISTING AND CONTORTING THE FACTS

McCAIN – TWISTING AND CONTORTING
THE FACTS

John McCain’s big-spending ways are bankrupting this Nation and you don’t have to look any further than the $850 billion big-bank bailout he supported. That bill also included $150 billion in earmarks for wooden arrow makers, rum distillers and wool producers. Citizens Against Government Waste gave Hayworth a rating of 89 and American Conservative Union gave Hayworth a lifetime rating of 98, both higher than the rating they gave McCain.

McCain likes to twist and contort the facts about J.D. Hayworth’s record, but below you will find the truth.

WHAT McCAIN SAYS

WHAT THE REALITY IS

J.D. spent “$70 billion earmarks and wasteful spending” throughout his 12 years in Congress. McCain spent $150 billion in earmarks and wasteful spending in one bill.
J.D. voted for $223 Million for the “Bridge to Nowhere” When given the opportunity to reallocate funds for the “Bridge to Nowhere” to Hurricane Katrina disaster aid, MCCAIN CHOSE NOT TO ACT and the amendment was defeated.
J.D. voted for $5.8 Million for a Snowmobile Trail in Vermont JD voted FOR a Transportation appropriations bill that recovered $41 million of Arizona taxpayer money from the feds to improve Arizona highways, that McCain voted AGAINST.
J.D. voted for $250k to Control Seaweed Accumulation in Maui J.D. voted FOR a Veterans Affairs appropriations bill providing over $2 Billion to Veterans for readjustment and rehabilitation benefits, that McCain voted AGAINST.
J.D. voted for $3 Million for a Planetarium in Chicago J.D. voted FOR a Veterans Affairs appropriations bill providing over $19 Billion in Veterans’ medical benefits, that McCain voted AGAINST.

 

Morning Bell: Prolonging Education’s Race to the Bottom

Morning Bell: Prolonging Education’s Race to the Bottom

Posted By Israel Ortega On June 11, 2010 @ 9:11 am In Education |

[1]

In perhaps President Obama’s most stealth campaign to date, the federal government has been slowly tightening its grip on the education sector to little fanfare. Rather than working through the democratic legislative process, this Administration has circumvented Congress to enact an ill-conceived education agenda that will weaken accountability, reduce transparency and minimize choice while only adding to the national deficit.

For close to four decades, the federal government has operated under the seemingly simple premise that increased spending on education will translate into academic achievement. This line of thinking has resulted in inflation-adjusted federal expenditures on education increasing 138 percent since 1985 [2]. Per-pupil expenditures have ballooned to over $11,000 per student [3], and are even higher in most urban areas including the District of Columbia where the government spends $14,500 on each child [4]. Billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into our public school system because the federal government, backed by powerful teachers unions, is convinced that it is best suited to administer our country’s education system. Unfortunately, this approach has been a miserable failure. [2]

The high school drop out rate continues to skyrocket and academic achievement continues to be stagnant despite decades of increased federal spending and involvement in education. Of course, the consequences for our failures threaten our future as we hopelessly watch other countries outpace us in math and the sciences.

Unfortunately, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan remain impervious to the education crisis and are committed to strengthening the federal stranglehold over our country’s education system. Just months after taking office, President Obama signed into a law the gargantuan “stimulus bill” stuffed with wasteful spending adding to the federal government’s girth. The Department of Education received an unprecedented $100 billion in additional money through the stimulus [5]. But months after the bill’s passage, two things are clear: the stimulus bill is not growing our economy and more federal money towards education is not improving our schools.

Undaunted by the obvious, liberal lawmakers in the House are planning on making yet another push this week to include an additional $23 billion dollars for emergency education spending to prevent “catastrophic” public education layoffs [3]. But for decades, states have continued to bloat their staff rolls, particularly non-teaching staff positions. Since 1970 for instance, student enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while public elementary and secondary staff hires have increased 83 percent. Another bailout from Washington could exacerbate states’ fiscal problems by creating disincentives for states to tackle out-of-control spending and make the difficult budgetary decisions necessary to produce long-term education reforms.

But unlike the federal takeover of the banking and health care industry, this time around Obama and his liberal allies are shrewdly avoiding another public fight by moving their education agenda forward without even going through Congress. The administration is supporting a move to implement national education standards, using the $4.35 billion Race to the Top grant program to secure those ends. National standards will give the federal government – not parents – more power over education. Now, instead of petitioning their local schools boards for curriculum changes, parents will have to trek to Washington to lobby D.C. bureaucrats for input in the content taught at their children’s school [6].

Progressives dream of making us more and more dependent on big government, and that has never looked so promising after Obama victories in widening government’s hold in health care, banking and now education. If this past year and a half is any indication of what’s to come, two things are clear: (a) we will see more and more of our freedoms diminish and (b) the girth of our federal government’s waist-line will surely grow.

Quick Hits:

Losing Turkey

Losing Turkey

Posted By Ryan Mauro On June 11, 2010 @ 12:30 am In FrontPage | 24 Comments

The most significant outcome of the Mavi Marmara incident is that there can no longer be any doubt that Turkey has joined the anti-Western bloc that includes Hamas, Iran and Syria. The Muslim country was once devotedly secular, an ally of Israel, and remains a member of NATO, but under the direction of Prime Minister Erdogan and the Justice and Development Party (often referred to as the AKP), Turkey has gone in the completely opposite direction with enormous strategic consequences.

“Unfortunately, the AKP government of Mr. Erdogan and the oil-rich regime of Qatar joined the regional bloc opposing the more traditional governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco,” Dr. Walid Phares told FrontPage.

Erdogan’s turn to the other side is not the result of a single incident such as Operation Cast Lead or the Israeli raid on the flotilla, but is the culmination of an agenda long held by Erdogan and the AKP.

“In fact, it is not secular Turkey that we see moving against the U.S., West, Israel and Arab moderates. It is the AKP Islamist cabinet which is uncovering its long-term ideological agenda. The West should have projected this since 2002,” Dr. Phares said, referring to the year in which Erdogan’s party won a majority in the Turkish parliament.

Erdogan was imprisoned in 1998 for his involvement with the banned Welfare Party, which the Turkish government considered Islamist. Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy describes [1] the Welfare Party as the “motherboard of Turkish Islamists since the 1980s,” saying it was inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. Erdogan was specifically punished for reading [2] a poem at one speech with the lines, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, and the faithful our soldiers.”

In 2001, he founded the AKP, which took a more moderate line, portraying itself as committed to separation of mosque and state but “faithful governance,” as Dr. Essam El-Erian, the chief of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political bureau, described [3] the AKP’s “moderate Islamist” ideology. There was no anti-Western rhetoric and the party strongly supported membership in the European Union. The group won a large victory in the 2002 elections, resulting in Erdogan taking the post of Prime Minister.

Dr. El-Erian praised Erdogan’s victory, saying that it was the result of the “exposing of the failure of the secular trend.” El-Erian confirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood had close ties to the AKP, but the West treated Turkey as if nothing had changed. It wasn’t until Turkey steadfastly refused to allow U.S. soldiers to transit their territory to overthrow Saddam Hussein that the West began questioning the allegiance of Erdogan’s government.

The Erdogan government soon began a concerted effort to fuel anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment, knowing that such feelings help the AKP politically and hurt its opponents in the secular military that have long ties to the West. The Turkish media consistently reported [4] alleged U.S. atrocities, fanning the already massive anti-war sentiment. The outrageous claims can only be compared to the anti-Israeli propaganda seen in the Arab world and Iran, echoing similar themes such as the use of chemical weapons against civilians and the harvesting of organs from killed Iraqis.

The AKP won an even larger share of the vote in the July 2007 election and had even more dominance over the government. Since then, the ideology of Erdogan has become more apparent as Turkish opinion has become less hostile to anti-Western Islamism.  Shortly after the victory, Turkey’s moves towards Iran and other enemies of the West became more visible and aggressive.

Turkey began entertaining the prospect of Iran’s natural gas being delivered to European markets through its territory, and the two countries launched joint military attacks against Kurdish militants in northern Iraq. The Party of Free Life for Kurdistan, or PJAK, claimed it actually saw Turkish officers working alongside the Iranian military. Newsmax.com reported [5] that eight Turkish officers were in Iran coordinating the attacks with the Revolutionary Guards.

In the spring of 2009, Moqtada al-Sadr, the Iranian-backed militia leader whose followers killed dozens of American soldiers in Iraq, met [6] with Erdogan and Turkish President Abdullah Gul for “political consultations.” Most recently, Turkey has opposed sanctions on Iran and helped put together a deal with Brazil meant to delay any United Nations measures despite Iran’s lack of cooperation on the nuclear issue.

Erdogan’s government simultaneously became more anti-Israeli, particularly once the Israeli military offensive into Gaza began in response to the rocket attacks of Hamas. Erdogan went so far as to predict [7] that Israel’s actions “would bring it to self-destruction,” saying “Allah will sooner or later punish those who transgress the rights of innocents.” He accused [8] Jewish-controlled media outlets of “finding unfounded excuses to justify targeting of schools, mosques and hospitals.”

On January 29, 2009, Erdogan publicly confronted [9] Israeli President Peres at the World Economic Forum over the Israeli offensive. When he was denied extra time to continue his criticism of Israel, he stormed out. Erdogan was a hero overnight in the Muslim world.

Soon after, an exhibit opened [10] in a major state-controlled metro in Istanbul that included many viciously anti-Israeli and anti-American cartoons, portraying Israeli soldiers as massacring innocent people with American weapons. The AKP won the March 29 local elections, further cementing their hold and convincing Erdogan that he was politically safe to follow the agenda he held from the beginning. Later that year, Israel had to confront [11] Turkey over anti-Israeli propaganda on prime-time state-controlled television.

In October, Turkey refused to allow Israel to participate in annual military exercises also involving Italy and the U.S. Instead, Turkey and Syria announced [12] that they would hold their own joint exercises. The Turkish-Syrian alliance began shortly after Erdogan came to power, with Syrian President Bashar Assad visiting Turkey and a free trade agreement being signed.

Turkey has also moved closer to Sudan, refusing [13] to describe the situation in Darfur as a genocide. Erdogan’s government also opposes the International Criminal Court’s indictment of President Omar al-Bashir for human rights violations. His defense of Bashir is that “no Muslim could perpetrate a genocide.”

Now, Turkey is taking center stage in the wake of the Mavi Marmara incident. Turkey is openly considering cutting off all diplomatic ties with Israel and is saying that its warships will escort future convoys to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. There are reports that Erdogan himself may actually join a convoy. Erdogan now openly says [14], “I do not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization…They are Palestinians in resistance, fighting for their own land.”

He was among the first to accept Hamas after it was elected in Gaza, and he is calling [15] their rule a “democracy” based on elections alone. Democracy is much more than elections, but Erdogan, like the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists, want to equate democracy with elections so as to give themselves legitimacy as they move against the other pillars of democracy. Professor Barry Rubin says [16] that as the AKP won election victories, the Erdogan government “repressed opposition and arrested hundreds of critics, bought up 40 percent of the media, and installed its people in the bureaucracy.”

Today, the government has begun the country’s “largest-ever crackdown” on the military, prosecuting [17] 33 current and former military officers for allegedly planning a coup to overthrow the AKP government in 2003 including the former head of the special forces. Those arrested have been accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism including the bombing of mosques, which they deny. Given the military’s pride in acting as the guardian of Turkey’s secularism, it isn’t surprising that elements of the military would desire to see the AKP overthrown. However, this could be an Islamist attempt to weaken the military and paint them as dangerous and anti-Muslim.

Erdogan’s defense of the vessel owned by the IHH, [18] a Turkish Islamist group tied to Hamas and other terrorist activity, is particularly insightful. Any true opponent of terrorism and radical Islamism would ban the group or at least officially investigate them. In 1997, the Turkish authorities raided the IHH’s office in Istanbul and made numerous arrests. IHH operatives were found with weapons-related materials and the French counterterrorism magistrate said that they were planning on supporting jihadists in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya.

“The essential goal of this Association was to illegally arm its membership for overthrowing democratic, secular, and constitutional order present in Turkey and replacing it with an Islamic state founded on the Shariah,” the French magistrate’s report said. [19]

If the goal of the IHH is to establish Sharia Law in Turkey, and Erdogan’s government is describing them as a “charity,” what does that say about Erdogan’s plans? The Washington Post has raised alarm [20] over this connection, noting the IHH leadership’s praise for Erdogan.

The West’s loss of Turkey has frightening strategic consequences. They are so frightening that the West refused to acknowledge the trend until it became undeniable in recent weeks. Professor Juan Cole, who already was a strident critic of Israel, bluntly states, [21] “Strategically, if the U.S. had to choose between Turkey and Israel, it would have to choose Turkey.” The pressure on the U.S. to restrain Israel so as to court the stronger bloc has now become greater than ever.

The situation is even more precarious for other countries in the region previously bonding together to oppose Iran. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa that are hostile to Iran’s ambitions now face an even more threatening bloc that has been enlarged by the defection of Turkey. The temptation for them to surrender the mantle of leadership to the Iranian-Syrian-Turkish bloc in order to save themselves will now reach unprecedented levels, regardless of whether Iran obtains nuclear weapons or not.

To make matters worse, Erdogan’s prestige as the preeminent challenger of Israel will lead to competition with Iran, sparking an escalation where each side tries to establish superior anti-Israeli and anti-Western credentials. Israel is now in its most isolated and dangerous situation since its birth in 1948.

President party boy

President party boy

June 11th, 2010

By JOHN GIBSON, NY Post

 Obama is partying it up

Last week’s jobs report tanked the stock market; the president took weeks to assert control of the oil spill that threatens doom on the Gulf Coast — but at the White House the Gatsby-like parties roll on as if happy days were here again.

Just yesterday, President Obama held another fun-filled White House event, a picnic for Congress members, complete with hot dogs, cold beverages and a fire pit.

All told, during the last seven weeks of spewing oil and rampant unemployment, he has frolicked and danced through three major White House music parties:

* The black-tie tent bash on the White House South Lawn after the state dinner for Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón, which featured singer Beyoncé.

* The Paul McCartney hootenanny — a night of tributes to the former Beatle, which featured the president himself scooting onto the dance floor to join the Jonas Brothers in the long “la-la-la” closing refrain of “Hey Jude.” (Plus, of course, McCartney serenading the first lady with “Michelle.”)

* The Ford Theater event — in which the president, taking a break from “kicking ass” on the oil spill, kicked back and relaxed to the song stylings of one-time “American Idol” winner Kelly Clarkson, among other B-listers.

Read More:

Cited: ‘Prima facie’ evidence of White House violations

Cited: ‘Prima facie’ evidence of White House violations

June 11th, 2010

By Bob Unruh, WND

 Rahm and Obama most likely broke some law

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and one of his top aides, Jim Messina, have been referred to the government’s Office of Special Counsel for an investigation into whether they violated the Hatch Act by offering administration jobs to two political candidates in exchange for dropping out of their races.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, wrote in letters to William Reukauf, the acting U.S. special counsel, that the statements by the White House and the two candidates involved – Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., and former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff – are “prima facie” evidence of violations.

The act prohibits “the use of official authority or influence by federal employees for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election,” Issa’s letters dated yesterday – one referring Emanuel and one referring Messina – explained.

“In the White House’s June 3, 2010, public statement, Mr. [Robert] Gibbs claimed that clearing the field for a candidate preferred by the White House was not problematic because ‘there was no offer of a job.’ There is evidence to the contrary,” wrote Issa.

Read More:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers