American Action Fund For The Blind

Okay, to start with, I am a New Yorker, a caucasion, and of absolutely no arab decent,
nor am I a terrorist in any way, shape or form.

I had to make this point perfectly clear.

Now when our twin towers were struck by hijacked planes, each, and every person involved in the bombings were of Saudi Arabian
ancestry, not to mention the fact that the Saudi Arabian Royal family provided funding to Osama Bin Laden, who is also Saudi.

We as the United States of America have declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq,
neither of which had in the past or in the future
the capability to attack America. Nor were they havens for terrorist groups until after our invasions. All of these facts are openly available through news media and United Nations reports.

With these facts in mind, why do Americans pay blind Patriotism when the country truly responible for the attacks on America has not even seen the least bit of retribution for thier actions?

Yours Truly,
A Concerned American.

Because fear is a powerful control mechanism. If our own government keeps us on a leash and continues to lead the masses into believing there is an ENEMY- A CONSTANT RISK- A MADMAN ON THE LOOSE ... and they THE GOVERNMENT is the big brother that can protect you... well then of course they will follow!

Most Americans still pay blind patriotism because it's easier to have someone else do the thinking for you!
As infuriating as it is- there are some of us out here who Don't follow blindly!

2006-08-23 19:41:33 by

Global finance chiefs are warning that swift action is urgently needed to escape a new wave of economic crisis. When countries run into financial ...

Okay, to start with, I am a New Yorker, a caucasion, and of absolutely no arab decent,
nor am I a terrorist in any way, shape or form.

I had to make this point perfectly clear.

Now when our twin towers were struck by hijacked planes, each, and every person involved in the bombings were of Saudi Arabian
ancestry, not to mention the fact that the Saudi Arabian Royal family provided funding to Osama Bin Laden, who is also Saudi.

We as the United States of America have declared war on both Afghanistan and Iraq,
neither of which had in the past or in the future
the capability to attack America. Nor were they havens for terrorist groups until after our invasions. All of these facts are openly available through news media and United Nations reports.

With these facts in mind, why do Americans pay blind Patriotism when the country truly responible for the attacks on America has not even seen the least bit of retribution for thier actions?

Yours Truly,
A Concerned American.

I'm an american citizen,but I also happen to be a saudi.I agree with everything you said even though it doesn't favor me as a saudi at all.but just cuz these FEW saudies decided to blow up people including themselves,that doesn't make US all terrorists!!....I truly understand any kind of hate you have against saudies and I don't blame you,but I am asking you not to judge a majority of people by something that a minority is guilty of!....And for what it's worth,I'm really sorry about the twin tower tragedy and what thousands of americans had to go through!!....peace!

2006-08-23 19:57:25 by

Charen: Obama’s Friendship with Khalidi

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 By: Mona Charen

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Palestinian Authority Daily: “Twenty-three-year old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp (in the Gaza Strip) trying to call American citizens in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama. . . . ”

Like many Palestinians, Abu Jayyab is excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. (By the way, the Gaza Strip is completely under the control of Hamas. Why then do they persist in speaking of “refugee camps”? But of course, we know why.) If Abu Jayyab and many others in the Palestinian areas are delighted, why are so many American Jewish voters feeling the same way? One side or the other has the wrong man. Which is it?

I’ve heard from some American Jews that they do not believe Obama is sincere in his leftism. They believe/hope that the anti-Israel sentiments and associations of his past were purely opportunistic; that once in the White House he will shed them like yesterday’s fashions. That’s quite a leap of faith.

Many politicians have distanced themselves from positions and associations of their youths. But in Obama’s case, he is distancing himself from positions staked out as recently as 2003. As National Review Online has reported, the Los Angeles Times is apparently sitting on a videotape showing Obama’s remarks at a farewell dinner that year for Rashid Khalidi, the one-time PLO spokesman who now heads the Middle East Studies Department at Columbia. (Columbia University’s shame is a subject for another column.)

Khalidi is not distancing himself from his past. Consistent with what you’d expect from someone who justified PLO attacks on civilians in Israel and Lebanon from 1976 to 1982, Khalidi routinely refers to Israel as a “racist” and “apartheid” state, and professes to believe in a “one-state” solution to the conflict. Guess which country would have to disappear for that “one” state to come into existence?

The Khalidis and Obamas were good friends. In his capacity as a director of the Woods Fund, Obama in 2001 and 2002 steered $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, the brainchild of Rashid and Mona Khalidi. According to an L.A. Times account of the dinner, Obama mentioned that he and Michelle had been frequent dinner guests at the Khalidi home (just another guy in the neighborhood?) and that the Khalidis had even baby-sat for the Obama girls.

Like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama in their living room when he unsuccessfully sought a House seat. At the farewell dinner, according to the L.A. Times, Obama apparently related fondly his “many talks” with the Khalidis. Perhaps that’s where he learned, as he told the Des Moines Register, that “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Obama told the crowd that those talks with the Khalidis had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table” but around “this entire world.”

Even less attention has been paid to the man Obama appointed as his emissary to the Muslim community in the U.S., Mazen Asbahi. Asbahi, it turned out, had ties to the Islamic Society of North America, which in turn was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Holy Land Foundation was accused of being a front group for Hamas. When news of these associations became public, Asbahi resigned from the campaign to “avoid distracting from Barack Obama’s message of change.” And don’t forget hope!

Many American Jews preparing to pull the lever for Obama have never heard of Asbahi. But they surely know about Jeremiah Wright. They know that he gave a “lifetime achievement” award to Louis Farrakhan; that he supported efforts to get U.S. businesses to divest from Israel; that he gave space in the Trinity Church bulletin to Hamas; and that he has accused Israel of “genocide” against the Palestinians. They are preparing to vote for a man who tamely tolerated all of that (and more) for 20 years.

Someone is making a big mistake — and it isn’t Abu Jayyab.

I didn't answer because you are not asking me, although I find it strange not one Jewish person has an opinion on this. I am going to check back for any new responses. I too find it very deceiving and scarry. I don't think a leopard can change his spots so easily and Obama is really so far left and backs the Muslims before Israel everytime I don't understand how the Jewish community can feel comfortable voting for him. I for one (although Catholic) am praying very hard God takes pity on us and doesn't allow this man to become the Head of State. God help us if Obama does become president. God bless America.

Pray the Rosary and receive the Sacraments for the Glory to Christ our Lord.

2008-10-29 13:20:02 by robert

Charen: Obama’s Friendship with Khalidi

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 By: Mona Charen

--------------------------------------...
From the Palestinian Authority Daily: “Twenty-three-year old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp (in the Gaza Strip) trying to call American citizens in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama. . . . ”

Like many Palestinians, Abu Jayyab is excited about the prospect of an Obama presidency. (By the way, the Gaza Strip is completely under the control of Hamas. Why then do they persist in speaking of “refugee camps”? But of course, we know why.) If Abu Jayyab and many others in the Palestinian areas are delighted, why are so many American Jewish voters feeling the same way? One side or the other has the wrong man. Which is it?

I’ve heard from some American Jews that they do not believe Obama is sincere in his leftism. They believe/hope that the anti-Israel sentiments and associations of his past were purely opportunistic; that once in the White House he will shed them like yesterday’s fashions. That’s quite a leap of faith.

Many politicians have distanced themselves from positions and associations of their youths. But in Obama’s case, he is distancing himself from positions staked out as recently as 2003. As National Review Online has reported, the Los Angeles Times is apparently sitting on a videotape showing Obama’s remarks at a farewell dinner that year for Rashid Khalidi, the one-time PLO spokesman who now heads the Middle East Studies Department at Columbia. (Columbia University’s shame is a subject for another column.)

Khalidi is not distancing himself from his past. Consistent with what you’d expect from someone who justified PLO attacks on civilians in Israel and Lebanon from 1976 to 1982, Khalidi routinely refers to Israel as a “racist” and “apartheid” state, and professes to believe in a “one-state” solution to the conflict. Guess which country would have to disappear for that “one” state to come into existence?

The Khalidis and Obamas were good friends. In his capacity as a director of the Woods Fund, Obama in 2001 and 2002 steered $75,000 to the Arab American Action Network, the brainchild of Rashid and Mona Khalidi. According to an L.A. Times account of the dinner, Obama mentioned that he and Michelle had been frequent dinner guests at the Khalidi home (just another guy in the neighborhood?) and that the Khalidis had even baby-sat for the Obama girls.

Like William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama in their living room when he unsuccessfully sought a House seat. At the farewell dinner, according to the L.A. Times, Obama apparently related fondly his “many talks” with the Khalidis. Perhaps that’s where he learned, as he told the Des Moines Register, that “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Obama told the crowd that those talks with the Khalidis had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table” but around “this entire world.”

Even less attention has been paid to the man Obama appointed as his emissary to the Muslim community in the U.S., Mazen Asbahi. Asbahi, it turned out, had ties to the Islamic Society of North America, which in turn was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. The Holy Land Foundation was accused of being a front group for Hamas. When news of these associations became public, Asbahi resigned from the campaign to “avoid distracting from Barack Obama’s message of change.” And don’t forget hope!

Many American Jews preparing to pull the lever for Obama have never heard of Asbahi. But they surely know about Jeremiah Wright. They know that he gave a “lifetime achievement” award to Louis Farrakhan; that he supported efforts to get U.S. businesses to divest from Israel; that he gave space in the Trinity Church bulletin to Hamas; and that he has accused Israel of “genocide” against the Palestinians. They are preparing to vote for a man who tamely tolerated all of that (and more) for 20 years.

Someone is making a big mistake — and it isn’t Abu Jayyab.

Barrack Hussein Obama scares me to death. Lewis Farrakhan recently claimed in ecstasy that Obama is the Islamic Messiah!! His dastardly associations continue to pile up, the Raila Odinga scandal… perhaps the worst of them all. I believe he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I would vote for a one eyed barn cat before I will vote Obama in the Presidential election.

2008-10-31 13:33:27 by robert

Obama’s misnamed “Financial Regulatory Reform Plan” is a brazen attempt by the bankers to consolidate their power.




Obama’s plan will be run out of the Treasury under former New York Fed Grand Poobah Timothy Geithner.


Obama — or rather, the bankers who own Obama — has devised something called a “Financial Services Oversight Council” to be chaired by the bankster dominated Treasury Department. This uber-council would call the shots for every financial firm in the country and supposedly refer “emerging risks to the attention of regulators with the authority to respond,” even as Obama plans to call for the U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision to close under the direction of the Federal Reserve.

Instead of independent bank regulators, Obama proposes a “National Bank Supervisor” who would have “separate status within Treasury and be led by a single executive,” according to Clusterstock. The NBS czar would occupy a centralized post in enemy territory and “take over the prudential responsibilities of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which currently charters and supervises nationally chartered banks and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.”

Next up, Obama tells us he wants to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a laughable proposal if it wasn’t so criminally dishonest. It would be charged with protecting consumers of credit, savings, payment and financial products and services, or so we are expected to believe. It will be another government behemoth beholden to the same financial elite that has so far ransacked the nation to the tune of trillions of dollars.

“The CFPA will be a massive new agency that will impact everyone in the United States in some form,” writes Andrew Busch, a markets strategist at BMO Capital Markets in Chicago. “Providing this much power to one agency is truly frightening as they will get to set the rules and pick the winners/losers for the financial sector.”

You know, the same “winners” now ruling the roost.

Then there is the Office of National Insurance, also to set up camp in the Treasury. It will allegedly improve and broaden the regulation of insurance companies and affiliates on a consolidated basis, including affiliates outside the traditional insurance business, and will offer consistent consumer protection for insurance products and practices.

The excuse for this one is the failure of AIG. On September 16, 2008, AIG suffered a liquidity crisis following the downgrade of its credit rating. It needed a $85 billion credit infusion from the money out of thin air folks over at the Federal Reserve. The Fed basically ended up owning AIG and its boatload of toxic debt.

If you check the Federal Reserve Act, you will see there is nothing in there about the ability to buy up insurance companies. But then, since the Fed is not actually a part of the U.S. government and is a private banking corporation owned by a consortium of private banks, it is not beholden to no stinking act passed in the dead of night during a Christmas recess way back in 1913.

•It wasn’t insurance losses that nearly toppled AIG — it was the actions of secretive unit that caused more than $18 billion in losses for the world’s largest insurance company. AIG Financial Products was run like a hedge fund out of London and Wilton, Connecticut, and specialized in derivatives masquerading as “financial products.”

Do you think the Treasury, run by little Timmy Geithner — who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, worked for the master criminals Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, spent time at the CFR and learned a trick or two under the direction of Herr Kissinger and Associates — will “regulate” derivatives pretending to be “financial products” for insurance customers?

Please.

Wall Street and its international offshore banker overlords are addicted to derivatives. “These derivatives now amount to a total worldwide notional value that can be estimated between 1 quadrillion and two quadrillion US dollars. This sum is so large that it dwarfs the total value of the entire planet earth and all those who live here,” notes Webster G. Tarpley.

If you think Obama and crew plan to do something about this massive black hole, I have a bridge to sell you on Krypton.

Obama’s “Financial Regulatory Reform Plan” is but another bankster scam. It is an obvious plan to grab up more industries and goodies under the guise of “regulation” and (ack) “consumer protection.” So contemptuous of you and your family are the bankers they don’t even attempt to make this threadbare nonsense plausible. It is thievery right out in the open.

Our only hope at this point is the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207, now up to 232 co-sponsors. It needs a two-thirds vote with 290 members on board so the bankster tool Obama will not veto it.

On that day of its passage there will be a short cry of hosanna — and then we will open the Fed’s books and begin

Is our president obama relying on americans disinterest in politics to rob the united states blind?

No. President Obama is hiding nothing. He and his administration has been quite transparent about their agenda. His and his administration's agenda has a serious social component which requires a bit of tyranny to be achieved. The agenda is oriented to draw away individual liberty towards central government authority. Their team will use and has used terminology like "personal mandate" or "community focused".

The problem is not public disinterest. The problem is that a large outspoken part of the public favors this agenda. Culturally, the public has grown used to the lowered level of liberty that previous politicians have left them. Giving up a little more freedom in exchange for some government entitlements has huge precedent. LG

2009-06-17 23:21:16 by Slappy~Soundzzz