Obama green-lights land grab in Israel

ne, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=116154


Sunday, November 15, 2009
TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama green-lights
land grab in Israel
But Jerusalem threatens retaliation
if U.N. approves Palestinian state
Posted: November 15, 2009
8:00 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein

WorldNetDaily
TEL AVIV – A top Palestinian Authority negotiator told WND that the Obama administration won't stand in the way of a Palestinian threat to unilaterally ask the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state outside of negotiations with Israel.

Despite widespread assumptions the U.S. would veto any such U.N. Security Council resolution, the PA negotiator said that in initial discussions, the Obama administration did not threaten to veto their conceptual unilateral resolution.

"The U.S. told us that they prefer a negotiated settlement with Israel, but if we (Palestinians) insist on a resolution, the Americans will not necessarily reject it," the PA negotiator said.

"The U.S. has a history of never before vetoing any UN move to create a new state," the negotiator pointed out.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said yesterday the Palestinians had decided to turn to the U.N. Security Council to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

Separately, the negotiator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Obama administration is "totally on board" with a plan by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to create a state on the pre-1967 borders within two years.

(Story continues below)

WND first reported in September that according to a top PA official, the Obama administration has largely adopted the positions of the Palestinian West Bank leadership to create a Palestinian state within two years based on the pre-1967 borders, meaning Israel would retreat from most of the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

The PA negotiator WND spoke with yesterday said that his authority's primary goal now is to secure a letter of support from the Obama administration affirming the U.S. commitment to a pre-1967 Palestinian state within two years.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday hit back at the PA plan to unilaterally declare a state, warning such a move will be met by "one-sided Israeli measures." He did not elaborate.

"There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel," Netanyahu told a high-level gathering of Israeli and American policy makers at the Saban Forum in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu stressed that in order to achieve peace, "negotiations must resume immediately." He affirmed Israel was prepared to begin talks "with a generous spirit."

"I want to stress that we are willing to take steps that will help in advancing the peace process, but it must begin, there is no reason to waste time," said the Israeli leader.

While negotiations were not easy, Netanyahu said, "there is no other way to bring about change."

In September, a senior PA official told WND that aside from supporting a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders, the Obama administration also had accepted the PA position that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations begin where they left off under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who went further than previous Israeli leaders in his concessions to the Palestinians.

Olmert reportedly offered the PA not only 95 percent of the West Bank and peripheral eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods but also other territories never before offered by any Israeli leader, including parts of the Israeli Negev desert bordering Gaza as well as sections of the Jordan Valley.

"We understand from the U.S. that the Netanyahu government is not in a position to go against creating a state within two years," the PA official said.

The official claimed the Obama administration was ready to ultimately consider "sanctions" against Israel if the Netanyahu government rejected negotiations leading to a Palestinian state. The official refused to clarify which sanctions he was referring to or whether he was specifically told by the U.S. government it would consider sanctions.

The PA official claimed Obama can make a "headache" for Netanyahu if the Israeli leader does not conduct negotiations leading within two years to a Palestinian state.

Gore's presentation on climate change draws 800 as 200 protestors gather outside

Print this pageClose
Gore's presentation on climate change draws 800 as 200 protestors gather outside
By GEORGE BENNETT
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 9:27 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009
Confused Palm Beach County voters helped thwart Al Gore's 2000 bid to become president of the United States, but he was introduced as "president of the planet" when he returned here Saturday night to deliver an environmental lecture.

The former vice president spoke on climate change at the Mizner Park Amphitheater to a crowd of about 800. More than 200 protesters gathered across the street from the event, and their boos and chants could be heard inside the amphitheater as Gore began his presentation.

Gore lost Florida, and the White House, by 537 votes to George W. Bush in a 2000 as many Palm Beach County Democrats said they mistakenly voted for conservative Pat Buchanan because they were confused by the county's "butterfly ballot" design.

After losing the presidential race, Gore became arguably the world's most famous advocate for curbing carbon emissions, gaining eco-celebrity status with the film An Inconvenient Truth and winning a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

"It's an interesting twist of fate here in our own backyard that former Vice President Al Gore has taken on a new platform and is now a catalyst for world change," said Marci Zaroff, an "eco-entrepeneur" who introduced Gore.

"So, in essence, he's president of the people. He's president of the planet. And the work that he's doing is more important than any other work that could possibly be done."

Tickets for the event sold for $44 to $339, with proceeds going to the nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection that Gore chairs.

Gore began his remarks by calling climate change "the most dangerous problem we've ever faced. But it is also a tremendous opportunity for us to solve problems that have been neglected for a long time."

Organizers allowed the media to cover only the first few minutes of Gore's presentation.

In addition to his nonprofit advocacy, Gore is a partner in a venture capital firm that finances "sustainable" and alternative energy businesses, prompting some critics to accuse Gore of promoting environmental policies that will fatten his bank account.

"Cap & Tax — Don't Be Fooled: Al Gore Will Make billions," read a sign carried by Alan Tudor, who drove from Tampa to attend Saturday's protest.

"Gore's Favorite Green Product? Your money in his pocket," said another sign.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said Gore's investments are consistent with positions he has held for decades.

"Former Vice President Gore has made long-term investments in 'sustainable' companies, the vast majority of which are not directly involved with efforts to solve the climate crisis. He has also invested in some companies that have attempted and will continue to help solve the climate crisis. These are a reflection of his values," Kreider said in an e-mail.

"If he did not invest in technologies that he supported, these very same people would accuse him of being a hypocrite," Kreider said.

george_bennett@pbpost.com

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

Obama revives talk of U.N. gun control

Is there a Constitutional Basis for Mandatory Health Insurance? » The Foundry

Is there a Constitutional Basis for Mandatory Health Insurance? » The Foundry

	Online Journal E-Mail Center
	November 13, 2009 -- 4:53 p.m. EST See all of today's editorials and op-eds, video interviews and commentary on Opinion Journal. FORMAT TODAY'S COLUMN FOR PRINTING Obama's Show Trials If military commissions are unjust, why is he still using them? If not, why aren't they good enough for KSM? By JAMES TARANTO Attorney General Eric Holder announced this morning that he's going to import five unlawful enemy combatants, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, to New York--our town. The plan, as theWashington Post reports, is to put them on trial in a civilian court. Prosecutors are "likely to seek the death penalty," the Post notes. But not all the terrorists at Guantanamo are coming to New York: Administration officials say they expect that up to 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo Bay will ultimately be tried in either federal court or military commissions--possibly including federal courts in the District [of Columbia] or Alexandria [Va.]. Approximately 90 others have been cleared for repatriation or resettlement in a third country, according to an administration official. That leaves up to 75 individuals remaining at Guantanamo who could continue to be held under the laws of war because they are deemed too dangerous to release, but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material. Holder also said Friday that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of orchestrating the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 when it was docked in a port in Yemen, and four other detainees will be tried by a military commission. Officials have said military commissions for detainees will be located within the United States, not at Guantanamo, although no location has yet been officially designated. So here's a question: What happens if KSM is acquitted? An administration cheerleader called Steve Benensuggests that this is a silly question, because prosecuting him will be a cakewalk: From what I gather, the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be pretty easy to make in court, and securing a conviction is likely to be pretty easy. By giving this suspected monster a fair trial, we can prove to the world the strength of American values and the integrity of the American system. We suppose that arguing with someone dull-witted enough to use a phrase like "suspected monster" wouldn't be a fair fight, so instead we'll concede Benen's point, at least to the extent that an acquittal of KSM seems highly unlikely. Let's stipulate further that the Justice Department has full confidence in its ability to convict the other four detainees it has designated for civilian trial, and that this confidence is justified. As Morris Davis, a retired military prosecutor, argued the other day in The Wall Street Journal, under the administration's plan, "the standard of justice for each detainee will depend in large part upon the government's assessment of how high the prosecution's evidence can jump and which evidentiary bar it can clear." Detainees will get a "fair trial" in civilian court only if their conviction is assured. By implication, that suggests that detainees who go before military commissions will get an unfair trial. Presumably the administration would deny this and say the commission trials will be fair too. But if so, why is such a trial not good enough for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad? The answer seems to be that the administration is conducting a limited number of civilian trials of high-profile terrorists for show, so as to win "credibility" with the international left. These trials will differ from an ordinary show trial in that the process will be fair even though the verdict is predetermined. But people who wrongly think that either military commissions or detention without trial are unjust will not be satisfied with somedetainees getting civilian trials--unless, of course, they are simply eager to be impressed by Barack Obama. Accountability Journalism "[President] Obama has been accused by some Republicans of 'dithering"'about whether to send more troops and deepen U.S. involvement in an increasingly unpopular war," the Associated Press reports. Nonsense, "report" the AP's Robert Burns and Ben Feller: Obama's drawn-out decision-making on Afghanistan is sending messages. To the Afghan government: Clean up your act. To the Pentagon: I'm no rubber stamp. To the American public: More troops can't be the sole answer. To our allies: You can't trust American resolve. To our enemies: How do you spell "surrender"? To America's brave soldiers: You are but pawns in my political calculations. Those last three are ours, of course, not the AP's; and they are equally biased in the opposite direction. But only equally biased. Here's another eyebrow-raising example of the AP's injecting opinion into news coverage, this one by Adam Goldman: In what could be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, federal prosecutors sought to take over four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a Muslim organization suspected of being controlled by the Iranian government. . . . The action against the Shiite Muslim mosques is sure to inflame relations between the U.S. government and American Muslims, many of whom fear a backlash after last week's Fort Hood shooting rampage, blamed on a Muslim American major. How in the world does Goldman know it is "sure to inflame relations" between the government and Muslims? The only support he offers is this quote: "Whatever the details of the government's case against the owners of the mosques, as a civil rights organization we are concerned that the seizure of American houses of worship could have a chilling effect on the religious freedom of citizens of all faiths and may send a negative message to Muslims worldwide," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Ah, so it'll be one of those inflammatory chilling effects! In reporting on populist host Lou Dobbs's departure from CNN, the AP's David Bauder gives plenty of space to Dobbs's critics: His resignation was hailed by activists who were seeking his ouster. "Our contention all along was that Lou Dobbs--who has a long history of spreading lies and conspiracy theories about immigrants and Latinos--does not belong on the most trusted name in news," said Roberto Lovato, co-founder of Presente.org. "We are thrilled that Dobbs no longer has the legitimate platform from which to incite fear and hate." Tom Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the leading Latino legal organization, said, "The Latino community can and should celebrate that Lou Dobbs is no longer on CNN." U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from Dobbs' home state of New Jersey and the Senate's only Hispanic member, called it "addition by subtraction" for CNN. But in reporting on Anita Dunn's departure from the White House, the AP's Philip Elliott gives plenty of space to her criticisms: Since moving to the West Wing, she has been a fierce defender for the administration, a top target of conservative commentators and led a fight with Fox News. "The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," Dunn said last month. "And it is not ideological . . . what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party." Elliott quotes no one from Fox, or any other Dunn critic. "Accountability journalism," which the AP proudly introduced when George W. Bush was president, seems to have morphed into "amiability journalism," defending the administration in power--except when it is criticized from the left. They Ain't Got No Body "The number of US veterans who died in 2008 because they lacked health insurance was 14 times higher than the US military death toll in Afghanistan that year, according to a new study," Agence France-Presse reports, in a dispatch titled "Lack of Health Care Killed 2,266 US Veterans Last Year: Study." Now, you can get a list of names of soldiers who died in Afghanistan last year. There is no such list here, because this is where the number comes from: The analysis uses census data to isolate the number of US veterans who lack both private health coverage and care offered by the VA. "That's a group that's about 1.5 million people," said David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program who co-authored the study. Himmelstein and co-author Stephanie Woolhandler, also a Harvard medical professor, overlaid that figure with another study examining the mortality rate associated with lack of health insurance. "The uninsured have about a 40 percent higher risk of dying each year than otherwise comparable insured individuals," Himmelstein told AFP. Garbage in, garbage out. Even a reporter should be smart enough to realize that you can't derive a precise number like 2,266 from hazy ones like "about 1.5 million people" and "about a 40% higher risk." This is junk science with an obvious political agenda.

Global Warming Peer Reviewed

Global Warming Peer Reviewed

OneNewsNow.com - Your News Right Now

OneNewsNow.com - Your News Right Now