White House ‘gatecrashers’ tied to terror sympathizer Salahi served in same anti-Israel group as Obama’s Palestinian professor pal

White House ‘gatecrashers’ tied to terror sympathizer

Salahi served in same anti-Israel group as Obama’s Palestinian professor pal

 


 

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Rashid Khalidi

The Virginia couple who allegedly crashed a White House state dinner is tied to Rashid Khalidi, a pro-Palestinian professor who excuses terrorism and has been a close associate to President Obama.

Michaele and Tareq Salahi met Obama in a receiving line at last week’s event, with a “deeply concerned and embarrassed” Secret Service stating it never checked whether the two were on the White House guest list.

Tareq Salahi served on the board of the American Task Force for Palestine, where Columbia University Professor Khalidi served as vice president. The American Power blog noticed both Salahi’s and Khalidi’s names have been scrubbed from the Task Force website, although Salahi’s bio still comes up on a Google cache search of the site.

The Task Force lobbies for a Palestinian state and demands the so-called right of return for Palestinian “refugees” – a formula Israeli officials across the political spectrum have warned could destroy Israel by population genocide, with the Jewish state forced to accept millions of Arabs, thus diluting its Jewish majority.

Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel. He has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.  

       

During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an “apartheid system in creation” and a destructive “racist” state. He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings a response to “Israeli aggression.”

He dedicated his 1986 book, “Under Siege,” to “those who gave their lives … in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon.” Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.

Obama, Khalidi closely tied

According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, Obama first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003, while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.

Speaking in a joint interview with WND and the John Batchelor radio show, Khalidi was asked about his 2000 fundraiser for Obama.

“I was just doing my duties as a Chicago resident to help my local politician,” Khalidi stated.

Khalidi said he supported Obama for president “because he is the only candidate who has expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.”

Khalidi also lauded Obama for “saying he supports talks with Iran. If the U.S. can talk with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there is no reason it can’t talk with the Iranians.”

Obama also sat on the board of the Woods Fund, which in 2001 provided a $40,000 grant to Mona Khalidi’s Arab American Action Network. The fund provided a second grant to the network for $35,000 in 2002.

Speakers at network dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit titled “The Subject of Palestine” that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the “Nakba,” or “catastrophe” of Israel’s founding in 1948.

In 2003, Obama delivered an in-person testimonial for Khalidi, who at the time was departing the University of Chicago for a new teaching position at Columbia University in New York. At the 2003 event, poetry reportedly was read comparing Israelis to Osama bin Laden and accusing the Jewish state of terrorism.

In May 2008, WND noted, Obama termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a “constant sore” in an interview just five days after Khalidi wrote an opinion piece in the Nation magazine in which he called the “Palestinian question” a “running sore.”

In his piece, “Palestine: Liberation Deferred,” Khalidi suggested Israel carried out “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians and Western powers backed Israel’s establishment due to guilt of the Holocaust. He lamented the Palestinian Authority’s stated acceptance of a Palestinian state “only” in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern sections of Jerusalem, and he argued Israel should be dissolved and instead a binational, cantonal system should be set up in which Jews and Arabs reside.

White House ‘gatecrashers’ posed with Obama in 2005

Salahis and Obama at state dinner
The Salahis and President Obama at state dinner

Meanwhile, a statement issued by Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the agency was “deeply concerned and embarrassed by the circumstances surrounding the State Dinner” and added that “the preliminary findings of our internal investigation have determined established protocols were not followed at an initial checkpoint, verifying that two individuals were on the guest list.”

Sullivan suggested that the couple had been screened for weapons, but should not have gained entry. “That failing is ours,” he said.

Reached by telephone Friday evening, the couple’s attorney, Paul W. Gardner, declined to comment. In an e-mail to Bloomberg News, Gardner added, “My clients were cleared by the White House to be there.”

Yet, a June 2005 photo from Polo Contacts Worldwide shows the Salahis with Obama at a pre-event to America’s Polo Cup. Others in the photo include American Idol’s Randy Jackson and members of the rock group Black Eyed Peas.

Salahi & Obama
Obama with Salahis and Black Eyed Peas rock band

Global Warming Scandal: Obama’s Reaction

Global Warming Scandal: Obama’s Reaction

November 30th, 2009

By Michael Barone, Real Clear Politics

 

 

Scientist discusses global warming Scientist discusses global warming

 

As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should.

 

The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on manmade global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.

 

The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:

 

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

 

“Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?”

 

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

 

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”

 

“I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

 

You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle. “The CRU’s main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish.

 

Read More:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama’s Brilliant First Year’ — Nationalize health care, expand government, undermine Reagan

‘Obama’s Brilliant First Year’ — Nationalize health care, expand government, undermine Reagan

November 30th, 2009

By Byron York, Washington Examiner

The Democratic National Committee is sending around links to a new article, “Obama’s Brilliant First Year,” by Jacob Weisberg, of Slate and Newsweek. Weisberg argues that if Barack Obama manages to pass a national health care bill by January 20, 2010, the first anniversary of his inauguration, he will have “accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency.”

While Weisberg — who last made a splash by amplifying White House attacks on Fox News — gives Obama credit for other accomplishments, like the stimulus and putting America “on a new footing with the rest of the world,” he suggests that the success of Obama’s first year depends greatly on the passage of health care legislation. And while some advocates of the Democratic bills currently under consideration have tried to downplay the enormity of the changes the legislation would bring, Weisberg is entirely open about Obama’s goal of nationalizing health care, expanding government, and undermining the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

“We are so submerged in the details of this debate…that it’s easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change,” Weisberg writes. “For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government’s role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism.”

Given those stakes, and given that the Pollster.com average of polls shows Americans oppose the current health care bills by a 48 percent to 39 percent margin, you can see why Democrats are pushing harder and harder, racing against time to pass national health care legislation before public support collapses completely. What sort of article could Weisberg and other Obama admirers write on January 20 if health care were to fail?

Read More:

Obama’s union pals demanding more federal spending

Obama’s union pals demanding more federal spending

November 30th, 2009

Kevin Hall, Examiner.com

 

Richard Trumpka and other Union Leaders are close to Obama Richard Trumpka and other Union Leaders are close to Obama

 

Unions spent a fortune helping Barack Obama get elected.  He owes them.  Now, they want their payoff.  Union leaders remind Obama of his debt to them on weekly basis.  The most frequent visitor to the Obama White House is Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union.  Stern visited the White House 22 different times during his first nine months in office.   Richard Trumka, the new president of the AFL-CIO, has already visited at least eight times.

 

These men wield great power over the U.S. President.  They tell him what they need, and he delivers.  “We’re going to make sure that in every policy, every decision, we don’t lose sight of the folks that brought us to the dance,” Vice President Joe Biden told the AFL-CIO Executive Committee in March.  That promise has held true.

 

The $787 billion stimulus bill, which has failed miserably at stimulating the economy, was a union payoff. Obama issued an executive order tied to the bill that “strongly encourages” hiring union labor for all government contracts.  The bill also demands all construction contracts pay union wages.  Obama told us Porkulus would create jobs and keep unemployment below 8%.  It did not.  It rewarded unions, which make up only 12.5% of the workforce.

 

Other union payoffs include the auto company bailouts and cutting the D.C. school voucher program.  The United Steelworkers union demanded he impose a tariff of Chinese tire imports.  He complied.  The result?  Higher prices for U.S. consumers during terrible economic times.  The rest of the country be damned, as long as the unions are happy.

 

Read More:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terrorist Criminal Trials and the Coming Jihad

Terrorist Criminal Trials and the Coming Jihad

By Abraham H. Miller

After the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi, the police found amid the belongings of one of the perpetrators the list of the unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York.  The list had been submitted to the lawyers for the defendant, Sheik Abdel Rahman,  and signed by Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney.  Under the rules of discovery in a criminal trial, the defendant had every right to the list.  If you read through the names of the unindicted co-conspirators, one name will jump off the page and grab your attention.  It is Number 95:  Osama bin Ladin.

If ever you had to have a reason why terrorists had to be dealt with as foreign combatants, and not as criminals, it would have stared you in the face from the discovery process of Sheik Rahman’s trial.  But there was more.  Rahman’s activist attorney, Lynne Stewart, used her position to pass information from the cleric to his terrorist followers in Egypt.  Stewart was later disbarred and sentenced to twenty-eight months in prison.
Stewart, however, is not an anomaly.  Radical lawyers, bent on using the legal system for furthering a political agenda, will be falling all over themselves to represent the five alleged terrorists who will now stand trial in New York City.  These lawyers will put American foreign policy on trial for the events of September 11, 2001.  Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama — in putting September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators into the criminal justice system — have given the Jihadists an incomparable stage for their propaganda. 
What then possessed the Obama administration to ignore the obvious and to try these defendants in civil and not military proceedings?  It most certainly is not to showcase the American justice system for the world.  Both the president and the attorney general, in a consummate act of legal stupidity, have announced to the world that the defendants are not only guilty, but they are also going to be sentenced to death. If ever a national jury pool was tainted, this one was.  In the Islamic world, no one remotely sympathetic to the defendants could ignore the hypocrisy of this conduct. 
Obama is willing to compromise intelligence and provide the Jihadists with a propaganda platform because he needs to placate the extremist elements of his political base. By taking these terrorists out of the hands of the military and putting them in the criminal justice system, Obama is redefining terrorism as a criminal justice issue and not as irregular warfare. In this, Obama is beginning a process that will reshape the meaning of terrorism in consonance with the sympathetic and minimalist notions of leftist ideology.
Terrorist trials in the media capital of the world will be a magnet for the inspired publicity of Jihadism.  All terrorism finds its inspiration in violence as theater.  The theater in the courtroom will be overshadowed by the inevitable carnage in the streets. 
Terrorists have always wanted a lot of people watching, a lot of people asking, “Why?”  From Abane Ramdane, who moved the Algerian insurrection against the French out of the anonymous Sahara and into the media-saturated streets of Algiers, to George Habash, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who blew up air planes, terrorist leaders have thrived on the oxygen of publicity.     
It is inconceivable that the Jihadists will not find New York, during the terrorist criminal trials, a place for statements to be written in blood and punctuated by explosions.
Innocent blood will flow in the streets of New York because Obama chose to make a political statement rather than confront the reality of what terrorism is and how it works.
Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and former chairman of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association 

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/terrorist_criminal_trials_and_1.html at November 30, 2009 – 10:09:53 AM EST

The Mathematics of Global Warming

The Mathematics of Global Warming

By Peter Landesman

The forecasts of global warming are based on the mathematical solutions of equations in models of the weather.  But all of these solutions are inaccurate. Therefore no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming. The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud. Why is the math important? And why don’t the climatologists use it correctly?
Mathematics has a fundamental role in the development of all physical sciences. First the researchers strive to understand the laws of nature determining the behavior of what they are studying. Then they build a model and express these laws in the mathematics of differential and difference equations. Next the mathematicians analyze the solutions to these equations to improve the understanding of the scientist. Often the mathematicians can describe the evolution through time of the scientist’s model.
The most famous successful use of mathematics in this way was Isaac Newton’s demonstration that the planets travel in elliptical paths around the sun.  He formulated the law of gravity (that the rate of change of the velocity between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them) and then developed the mathematics of differential calculus to demonstrate his result.
Every college physics student studies many of the simple models and their successful solutions that have been found over the 300 years after Newton.  Engineers constantly use models and mathematics to gain insight into the physics of their field. 
However, for many situations of interest, the mathematics may become too difficult. The mathematicians are unable to answer the scientist’s important questions because a complete understanding of the differential equations is beyond human knowledge.  A famous longstanding such unsolved problem is the n-body problem:  if more than two planets are revolving around one another, according to the law of gravity, will the planets ram each other or will they drift out to infinity?
Fortunately, in the last fifty years computers have been able to help mathematicians solve complex models over short time periods. Numerical analysts have developed techniques to graph solutions to differential equations and thus to yield new information about the model under consideration.  All college calculus students use calculators to find solutions to simple differential equations called integrals.  Space-travel is possible because computers can solve the n-body problem for short times and small n.  The design of the stealth jet fighter could not have been accomplished without the computing speed of parallel processors.  These successes have unrealistically raised the expectations for the application of mathematics to scientific problems.
Unfortunately, even assuming the model of the physics is correct, computers and mathematicians cannot solve more difficult problems such as the weather equations for several reasons.  First, the solution may require more computations than computers can make.  Faster and faster computers push back the speed barrier every year.  Second, it may be too difficult to collect enough data to accurately determine the initial conditions of the model. Third, the equations of the model may be non-linear. This means that no simplification of the equations can accurately predict the properties of the solutions of the differential equations. The solutions are often unstable. That is a small variation in initial conditions lead to large variations some time later. This property makes it impossible to compute solutions over long time periods.
As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in the models of the weather are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately.  No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming.  Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing.  Each of the more than 30 models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations.  (Of course this is only an issue if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)
Therefore, logically one cannot conclude that any of the predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view. The leaders of the mathematical community, ensconced in universities flush with global warming dollars, have not adequately explained to the public the above facts.
President Obama should appoint a Mathematics Czar to consult before he goes to Copenhagen.
Peter Landesman mathmaze@yahoo.com is the author of the 3D-maze book Spacemazes for children to have fun while learning mathematics.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html at November 30, 2009 – 10:04:26 AM EST

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers