1.The Catholic Worker considered itself a Christian anarchist movement. All authority came from God; and the state, having by choice distanced itself from Christian perfectionism, forfeited its ultimate authority over the citizen...Catholic Worker anarchism followed Christ as a model of nonviolent revolutionary behavior...He respected individual conscience. But he also preached a prophetic message, difficult for many of his contemporaries to embrace. Therefore they will insist on forced conversions like the Catholic movement during the Spanish Inquisition and all 9 Crusades where they boiled Jews in Oil in the name of their Savior.
2 The NNNA which is a major hate organization against Jews in this country . Stating lies so Christians and Muslims will join forces to kill Jews and Obama is behind them. The also raise and give money to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama was a toastmaster at one of their fund raiser for the PLO Picture below of Obama sitting at a PLO dinner
 |
The photo shows Michelle and Barack listening in rapt attention to the keynote speaker, PLO advisor Edward Said [with Obama, at left], who died in 2003. |
Information on AAAN from one of my blogs below:
On Friday, an anti-terrorism task force of the FBI conducted eight raids in Chicago and Minneapolis. Among the targets was Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network Network (AAAN). Agents seized laptop computers and other evidence from Abudayyeh's Chicago home. This much has been reported in the media.
What has received less coverage is the connection between the AAAN and the President of the United States. This photo of Michelle and Barack Obama was taken on May 24, 1998 in Burbank, IL, where state senator Obama was an honored guest at a gala dinner. Hosting the event was -- drumroll, please -- the Arab American Action Network.
The organization hosting the gala dinner, the AAAN, had been funded by Barack Obama, his terrorist friend Bill Ayers [here, standing on the American flag] and other directors of the Woods Fund. The AAAN had been established by another one of Obama's friends, Rashid Khalidi.
As many of you know by now, the LA Times has video of Barack Obama toasting and praising Jew-hating PLO operative (and Yasser Arafat henchman) Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 event. As many of you also know, the LA Times is refusing to release the video.
Ben Smith at The Politico is puzzled by the Times’ decision, saying that Politico would have made it public.
The paper hasn’t explained its unwillingness to release the video, and Peter Wallsten, who found the tape and wrote about it, declined to discuss it with me last night. He forwarded an e-mail that the paper has sent readers who have complained as conservative blogs raise the issue.The Times is now claiming that they can’t release the Khalidi tape because they promised their source they wouldn’t. Which just raises more questions. What’s on that tape that the Times’ source doesn’t want the public at large to see?
“Over six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light,” wrote the readers’ representative, Jamie Gold.
L.A. Times spokeswoman Nancy Sullivan wouldn’t discuss the decision not to release the tape in detail.
“When we reported on the tape six months ago, that was our full report,” she said, and asked, “Does Politico release unpublished information?”
The answer to that question is yes — Politico and most news outlets constantly make available videos and documents, after describing them in part, which is why the Times’ decision not to release the video is puzzling. My instinct, and many reporters’, is to share as much source material as possible.
And on top of all of this, who could imagine the Times sitting on a similarly inconvenient video for John McCain? Can anyone imagine the Times letting the wishes of some source get in the way of releasing a video that could damage John McCain? Or Sarah Palin?
Of course not.
The University has long managed to balance the
often-opposing beliefs of its famously pro-Palestinian Middle Eastern Studies
department and its substantial Jewish population. The department
is currently home to supporters of Palestine such as Rashid Khalidi,
Hamid Dabashi, Nadia abu El-Haj, and George Saliba; Edward Said,
one of the most prominent American scholars in support of Palestine, taught
English and Comparative at Columbia from 1963 until his death in 2003.
The Middle Eastern Studies department thrives in the midst of a student body that Hillel deemed the sixth most Jewish of all those in American private universities. Located a mere four blocks from The Jewish Theological Seminary (where students can complete a double-degree and cross-register for courses), Columbia's Jewish community boasts a thriving Hillel, a Jewish literary journal, and an active chapter of AEPi, the Jewish fraternity. Cafeterias feature extensive kosher options, and it is not uncommon to see throngs of students donning kippahs migrating across campus.
The Jewish community of alumni and current students has previously exercised its will and sheer manpower to prevent anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli opinions from gaining University support. In 2006, Jewish students successfully prevented Ahmadinejad, the famously anti-Semetic Iranian dictator, from speaking, and in 2007, they again protested his visit. Many believe that alumni efforts to prevent the Palestinian anthropology professor Nadia Abu El-Haj at Columbia affiliate Barnard College from receiving tenure caused the University to deny her bid (in her book, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, Abu El-Haj casts doubt on archaeological evidence used to legitimize Israel as the Jewish homeland).
Some believe that Massad previously failed to receive tenure due to his unflattering portrayal in the student film Columbia Unbecoming (2004), which "gives voice to students who have experienced incidents of academic abuse and intimidation at Columbia University" as a consequence of expressing pro-Israeli sentiment. In the film, Massad calls Israel a "Jewish and a racist state," and a student describes how he once demanded of an Israeli student, "How many Palestinians did you kill?" at a public lecture (the film's website notes that although Massad has publicly stated that he never taught or met the student in question, he also has never denied the claim). The film's fervor can only faintly forecast the outrage the Jewish community could exhibit come fall.
There can be little doubt that many at Columbia, Jewish and otherwise, will be incensed at the newest addition to the tenured faculty. The prospect of lending greater support to a professor who some claim bullied students -- although Massad claimed that he has "been the target of a political campaign by actors inside and outside the university" and successfully proved that "The Ad Hoc Grievance Committee Report suffers from major logical flaws, undefended conclusions, inconsistencies, and clear bias in favor of the witch-hunt that has targeted me for over three years" -- is nonetheless unsavory. Regardless of the legitimacy of the complaints lodged against Massad, the insensitivity exhibited in some of his scholarly work could create an irrevocable rift between him and the many Jews, Zionists, Israel supporters, and students who simply believe that Israelis do not deserve to be called anti-Semites, all of whom he is hired, in part, to educate.
Massad does not just critique Israeli policy in Palestine, or even question the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist. Rather, he attempts to redefine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by removing terms like anti-Semitic, Nazi, and Jew from their historical context. In his book, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question, and in various articles for publications like The Electronic Intifada and Al-Ahram Weekly Online, Massad argues that the Zionist movement betrays colonialist underpinnings that draw from anti-Semitic rhetoric. He claims that this influence, coupled with the Zionist urge to "transform European (and later other) Jews into European Christians culturally, while continuing to call them Jews", caused a "historical process by which it was to metamorphose Palestinian Arabs into Jews in a displaced geography of anti-Semitism" and to transform "the Jew into the anti-Semite". Massad similarly likens Israelis to their one-time oppressors by comparing Israeli actions in Gaza in 2009 to those of the Nazis during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, and by claiming that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was similar to Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.
As a student just entering my second year at Columbia, I have no means to evaluate the academic legitimacy of his argument. Clearly, Massad is a distinguished scholar. However, as a student just entering my second year at Columbia, I can evaluate the effect that his inflammatory claims could have on the student body.
By reassigning the term "Jew" to the very people who tirelessly fight to eradicate the world's only Jewish state -- putting aside questions Israel's right to statehood -- Massad flagrantly disregards the ethnic, cultural, and religious sensibilities embedded in that term. It is entirely possible that, in many instances, Palestinians are the victims of Israeli military action, but no amount of theorizing can make them Jews: .2% of the world's population who, despite Western prominence, have experienced inestimable persecution.
Similarly, by calling an Israeli an anti-Semite or a Nazi, Massad shows disrespect for the years of oppression the Jews suffered under the Nazi regime. Hypothetically, the Israelis could be racist or tyrannical, but to deem them anti-Semitic Nazis is to fail to appreciate the Holocaust's lasting impact both on Israel and on the wider Jewish community. These words cannot be simply re-appropriated, no matter what the cause; they connote long-lasting and painful memories.
Undoubtedly, Massad is well aware of his argument's implications both for Israel and the Jewish people. While his novel terminology may win him points in the academic world, he will not deliver his lectures to an empty room. Students will fill those seats, and students do not come tabula rasa. Most have grown up hearing stories of oppression from parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents, be it in Vietnam, Lebanon, or Nazi Germany. For these students, a professor's disregard for historical memory transcends mere difference of opinion. On a simple, human level, I, and many others, may accept or appreciate Massad's point, but cannot respect the means with which he makes it -- outside, and according to some, inside the classroom. Such polarizing methodology creates an irrevocable divide between the professor and the students he educates.
At Columbia in particular, such disregard for a religious minority's past undermines the institution's longstanding commitment to diversity and tolerance. In sharp contrast to peer institutions like Princeton or Yale, Columbia lies in the heart of a gritty, vibrant, sometimes-violent city, and its student body reflects New York's diversity. One of the first universities to abolish quotas for Jewish students, Columbia currently boasts 50% students of color in its most recent incoming class.
By granting tenure to one professor -- admittedly a talented, accomplished professor -- Columbia will not erase that history. Its students, Jewish and otherwise, will simply have to remember that even in Manhattan, even at Columbia, Jews and liberals do not reign supreme. We must fight, just as Joseph Massad did, to retain our voices.
The Middle Eastern Studies department thrives in the midst of a student body that Hillel deemed the sixth most Jewish of all those in American private universities. Located a mere four blocks from The Jewish Theological Seminary (where students can complete a double-degree and cross-register for courses), Columbia's Jewish community boasts a thriving Hillel, a Jewish literary journal, and an active chapter of AEPi, the Jewish fraternity. Cafeterias feature extensive kosher options, and it is not uncommon to see throngs of students donning kippahs migrating across campus.
The Jewish community of alumni and current students has previously exercised its will and sheer manpower to prevent anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli opinions from gaining University support. In 2006, Jewish students successfully prevented Ahmadinejad, the famously anti-Semetic Iranian dictator, from speaking, and in 2007, they again protested his visit. Many believe that alumni efforts to prevent the Palestinian anthropology professor Nadia Abu El-Haj at Columbia affiliate Barnard College from receiving tenure caused the University to deny her bid (in her book, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, Abu El-Haj casts doubt on archaeological evidence used to legitimize Israel as the Jewish homeland).
Some believe that Massad previously failed to receive tenure due to his unflattering portrayal in the student film Columbia Unbecoming (2004), which "gives voice to students who have experienced incidents of academic abuse and intimidation at Columbia University" as a consequence of expressing pro-Israeli sentiment. In the film, Massad calls Israel a "Jewish and a racist state," and a student describes how he once demanded of an Israeli student, "How many Palestinians did you kill?" at a public lecture (the film's website notes that although Massad has publicly stated that he never taught or met the student in question, he also has never denied the claim). The film's fervor can only faintly forecast the outrage the Jewish community could exhibit come fall.
There can be little doubt that many at Columbia, Jewish and otherwise, will be incensed at the newest addition to the tenured faculty. The prospect of lending greater support to a professor who some claim bullied students -- although Massad claimed that he has "been the target of a political campaign by actors inside and outside the university" and successfully proved that "The Ad Hoc Grievance Committee Report suffers from major logical flaws, undefended conclusions, inconsistencies, and clear bias in favor of the witch-hunt that has targeted me for over three years" -- is nonetheless unsavory. Regardless of the legitimacy of the complaints lodged against Massad, the insensitivity exhibited in some of his scholarly work could create an irrevocable rift between him and the many Jews, Zionists, Israel supporters, and students who simply believe that Israelis do not deserve to be called anti-Semites, all of whom he is hired, in part, to educate.
Massad does not just critique Israeli policy in Palestine, or even question the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist. Rather, he attempts to redefine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by removing terms like anti-Semitic, Nazi, and Jew from their historical context. In his book, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question, and in various articles for publications like The Electronic Intifada and Al-Ahram Weekly Online, Massad argues that the Zionist movement betrays colonialist underpinnings that draw from anti-Semitic rhetoric. He claims that this influence, coupled with the Zionist urge to "transform European (and later other) Jews into European Christians culturally, while continuing to call them Jews", caused a "historical process by which it was to metamorphose Palestinian Arabs into Jews in a displaced geography of anti-Semitism" and to transform "the Jew into the anti-Semite". Massad similarly likens Israelis to their one-time oppressors by comparing Israeli actions in Gaza in 2009 to those of the Nazis during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, and by claiming that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was similar to Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels.
As a student just entering my second year at Columbia, I have no means to evaluate the academic legitimacy of his argument. Clearly, Massad is a distinguished scholar. However, as a student just entering my second year at Columbia, I can evaluate the effect that his inflammatory claims could have on the student body.
By reassigning the term "Jew" to the very people who tirelessly fight to eradicate the world's only Jewish state -- putting aside questions Israel's right to statehood -- Massad flagrantly disregards the ethnic, cultural, and religious sensibilities embedded in that term. It is entirely possible that, in many instances, Palestinians are the victims of Israeli military action, but no amount of theorizing can make them Jews: .2% of the world's population who, despite Western prominence, have experienced inestimable persecution.
Similarly, by calling an Israeli an anti-Semite or a Nazi, Massad shows disrespect for the years of oppression the Jews suffered under the Nazi regime. Hypothetically, the Israelis could be racist or tyrannical, but to deem them anti-Semitic Nazis is to fail to appreciate the Holocaust's lasting impact both on Israel and on the wider Jewish community. These words cannot be simply re-appropriated, no matter what the cause; they connote long-lasting and painful memories.
Undoubtedly, Massad is well aware of his argument's implications both for Israel and the Jewish people. While his novel terminology may win him points in the academic world, he will not deliver his lectures to an empty room. Students will fill those seats, and students do not come tabula rasa. Most have grown up hearing stories of oppression from parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents, be it in Vietnam, Lebanon, or Nazi Germany. For these students, a professor's disregard for historical memory transcends mere difference of opinion. On a simple, human level, I, and many others, may accept or appreciate Massad's point, but cannot respect the means with which he makes it -- outside, and according to some, inside the classroom. Such polarizing methodology creates an irrevocable divide between the professor and the students he educates.
At Columbia in particular, such disregard for a religious minority's past undermines the institution's longstanding commitment to diversity and tolerance. In sharp contrast to peer institutions like Princeton or Yale, Columbia lies in the heart of a gritty, vibrant, sometimes-violent city, and its student body reflects New York's diversity. One of the first universities to abolish quotas for Jewish students, Columbia currently boasts 50% students of color in its most recent incoming class.
By granting tenure to one professor -- admittedly a talented, accomplished professor -- Columbia will not erase that history. Its students, Jewish and otherwise, will simply have to remember that even in Manhattan, even at Columbia, Jews and liberals do not reign supreme. We must fight, just as Joseph Massad did, to retain our voices.
May 23, 2008
Obama's Good Friend Rashid Khalidi
This is getting to be a disturbing pattern for Barack Obama.
A radical association from his past comes to light and he minimizes the relationship. Additional information is gathered showing him to have much more extensive contact with the radical than he originally said, thus proving the candidate to be a liar.
End result? Media silence and the story is buried.
Today's revelations come via Rezkowatch where they quote a World Net Daily story that shows Obama had a close, personal relationship with radical professor and Palestinian apologist Rashid Khalidi.
The issue came up at a recent campaign stop in Florida where a voter asked Obama about the nature of his relationship with Khalidi:
But just what is the nature of his association?
When is the media going to get wise to Obama's game? Trying to square what Obama told the crowd in Florida with what was revealed by WND can't be done. The candidate is obviously trying to minimize his problematic friendship with yet another radical. And he is being allowed to do this by a press that can't be oblivious to the shocking extent of Obama's association with extremists.
Note also that Obama called Khaladi a "respected scholar" - just like William Ayers - as if this washed away a litany of other sins. Perhaps Obama believes that teachers are immune from criticism.
Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Meeks, Khaladi - and those are just the radicals we know of. There is something about radical ideology or personalities that attracts Barack Obama. And we better find out what it is before we elect him president.
A radical association from his past comes to light and he minimizes the relationship. Additional information is gathered showing him to have much more extensive contact with the radical than he originally said, thus proving the candidate to be a liar.
End result? Media silence and the story is buried.
Today's revelations come via Rezkowatch where they quote a World Net Daily story that shows Obama had a close, personal relationship with radical professor and Palestinian apologist Rashid Khalidi.
The issue came up at a recent campaign stop in Florida where a voter asked Obama about the nature of his relationship with Khalidi:
"You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who's a professor at Columbia," Obama said. "I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he's not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."
But then Obama pushed back, launching a broader defense of his associations, while acknowledging that some past relationships have caused people in the Jewish community concerns.
"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."
But just what is the nature of his association?
According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful 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.
Sources at the University told WND that Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and that the two families dined together a number of times. The sources said the Obama's even babysat the Khalidi children.
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, who spoke to WND in February.
When is the media going to get wise to Obama's game? Trying to square what Obama told the crowd in Florida with what was revealed by WND can't be done. The candidate is obviously trying to minimize his problematic friendship with yet another radical. And he is being allowed to do this by a press that can't be oblivious to the shocking extent of Obama's association with extremists.
Note also that Obama called Khaladi a "respected scholar" - just like William Ayers - as if this washed away a litany of other sins. Perhaps Obama believes that teachers are immune from criticism.
Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Meeks, Khaladi - and those are just the radicals we know of. There is something about radical ideology or personalities that attracts Barack Obama. And we better find out what it is before we elect him president.
Now read the Article Below.
WND EXCLUSIVE
Commies storm Obama headquarters
President praised radical group founder as 'great reformer'
Obama has ties to several other activists plotting chaos in Chicago this week in the leadup to the NATO summit that starts on Friday.
Dozens of protesters slipped past security guards today and ran up escalators at the Obama Chicago campaign headquarters to kick off what they called a “Week Without Capitalism,” reported the Chicago Tribune.
Eight protesters, cheered by other demonstrators, reportedly were led out in handcuffs after they refused to clear the lobby.
The protest reportedly was organized by the Catholic Worker Movement, or CWM, founded by the late radical Dorothy Day, a journalist who wrote for Marxist newspapers.
CWM protests capitalism as an economic system that is “far from God’s justice” and calls for “a withdrawal from the capitalist system so far as each one is able to do so.”
CWM calls for the nonviolent destruction of capitalist society to rebuild a socialist utopia.
Discover The Networks notes that CWM recommends “a complete rejection of the present social order;” “a withdrawal from the capitalist system so far as each one is able to do so;” and “a non-violent revolution to establish an order more in accord with Christian values.”
Such measures are to be used, according to CWM, to create a “new society within the shell of the old” – “a cooperative social order” of “communitarianism” without “extremes of wealth and poverty.”
This February, Obama used the annual National Prayer Breakfast to uphold Day as a “great” reformer.
Declared Obama: “Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel – the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action – sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.”
Day is known for her motto: “The greatest challenge of the day is: how to bring about a revolution of the heart, a revolution which has to start with each one of us?”
Homes to be abandoned in lead up to NATO summit?
In a sign of what may be coming this week, residents of a Chicago condo building located near the site of the NATO summit have been asked to leave for the event or risk being caught in a storm of rioters.
WND first reported in August 2011 that radicals, some with ties to President Obama, were planning to riot during the NATO summit.
FOX Chicago News reported the people living in the 17-floor Library Tower building at 520 South State Street were warned in a letter from condo management that “we are STRONGLY recommending that all residents find places to stay during the conference from May 18 through May 21.”
The letter specifically warned of riots:
“In the event of a riot or the potential of one near the building, all access doors will be locked including the garage door,” the letter continues. “For everyone’s safety, we will be instructing anyone in the building to stay in his or her unit.”
While NATO summits often attract crowds of thousands of protesters, the national Occupy movement may add even more chaos to the expected mass protests.
Chicago will be the first American city other than Washington to host a NATO gathering.
Such meetings have previously drawn mass protests that turned violent.
The 1999 WTO event in Seattle devolved into widespread rioting in which more than 40,000 protesters, some using violent tactics, descended on the city, prompting police to use tear gas and rubber bullets. The clash became known as “The Battle of Seattle.”
Preparing for outbreaks, the Chicago Sun-Times in July 2011 quoted Superintendent of Police Garry McCarthy as saying he was prepping 13,000 officers under his command for mass arrests of protesters.
“We have to train for mass arrests,” McCarthy said. “We have to train 13,000 police officers in arrest procedures and containment procedures. At the same time, we will not stop patrolling the city.”
Obama linked to NATO protest leaders
In response to the police call up in July 2011, radical groups held a press conference that month in downtown Chicago demanding permits to march during the world summit in May.
Joe Iosbaker of the United National Antiwar Committee, one of the groups planning protests, warned, “The wars and economic policies of the NATO and G8 nations are not just and will be met by protest.”
Iosbaker is a University of Illinois-Chicago office worker and a union steward for his SEIU local. His home was raided by the FBI last September reportedly as part of a terror probe investigating material support for jihadist groups.
Obama has ties to many of the activists groups being investigated in that FBI probe.
WND reported Iosbaker and his wife, Stephanie Weiner, worked as leaders of the Chicago New Party, a controversial 1990s political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward. The ultimate goal was to form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
WND previously reported on evidence from the New Party’s own newsletters showing Obama was a member of the New Party.
Another group at that press conference planning to protest at the May summits is Code Pink.
Code Pink’s co-founder, Jodie Evans, was a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign.
Also planning protests is Tom Burke of the so-called Committee to Stop FBI Repression, which has been leading activism against the FBI’s reported ongoing terror probes of Chicago and Minnesota anti-war groups.
Burke, a former school custodian who is now a stay-at-home father, belongs to the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, a group mentioned in subpoenas and search warrants issued in the same FBI terror probe.
WND reported on Obama’s other ties to the activist groups at the heart of the FBI terror probe, including Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.
WND was first to report that Obama, while serving as a paid director of the far-left nonprofit Chicago Woods Fund, provided two grants to the AAAN.
Obama served at the Woods Fund alongside Weather Underground terrorist-group founder Bill Ayers.
AAAN was founded by a longtime Obama associate, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, is president of the Arab American Action Network.
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.