Obama Agenda

Obama Agenda and Policy about Middle East

admin — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:18:30 +0000

Category:

News & Politics
Tags:

Obama
Mideast
Diplomacy
Arab World
Arab Spring
Middle East
Israel
Palestine
North Africa
Libya
Syria
Egypt
Cairo
Tahir Square

License:

Standard YouTube License

796 likes, 451 dislikes
As Seen On: As Seen On: The Lede

All Comments
Adding comments has been disabled for this video.
Suggestions

Thumbnail47:03Netanyahu: Borders Must Reflect ‘Dramatic’ Chan…by PBSNewsHour108,163 views
Thumbnail14:01Uncertainty Reigns in Bahrain Amid Mix of Norma…by PBSNewsHour3,253 views
Thumbnail31:16You Talk to Endeavour: Interview With Mark Kell…by PBSNewsHour399,122 views
Thumbnail0:42Patient Lower Body Movement with Epidural Stimu…by PBSNewsHour1,483 views
Thumbnail1:29Message from Barack Obama: “Time to begin again”by BarackObamadotcom78,518 views
Thumbnail9:53US President Barack Obama Middle East speech in…by mads2jensen39,741 views
Thumbnail26:18President Obama at 2011 AIPAC Policy Conferenceby whitehouse44,261 views
Thumbnail9:06President Obama on Bilateral Mideast Peace Meet…by whitehouse9,105 views
Thumbnail18:54President Obama at the 2011 White House Corresp…by CSPAN8,755,112 views
Thumbnail9:58Obama makes major speech on Middle Eastby CBSNewsOnline2,036 views
Thumbnail37:39Obama Speech: ‘A More Perfect Union’by BarackObamadotcom6,801,578 views
Thumbnail0:51Al-Qaeda number two slams Obama visit to Egyptby AFP3,996 views
Thumbnail6:50Lindsay Graham Slams Obama Over Libya On Fox Newsby TheYoungTurks17,619 views
Thumbnail4:48President Obama’s Arab Spring Speech 2011 Part 1by presidentialvote569 views
Thumbnail14:06Iowa Caucus Victory Speechby BarackObamadotcom2,530,803 views
Thumbnail17:46President Obama at White House Correspondents D…by whitehouse277,019 views
Thumbnail15:01Your Interview with Speaker Boehnerby worldview20,474 views
Thumbnail37:10Barack Obama: ‘A More Perfect Union’ (Full Speech)by BarackObamadotcom1,837,791 views
Thumbnail6:52ALEX JONES ENDORSES NEW FILM EXPOSING THE SECRE…by TheAlexJonesChannel59,043 views
Thumbnail9:28President Obama on Death of Osama bin Ladenby whitehouse6,008,073 views

Barack Obama Agenda on Iraq War

admin — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:14:11 +0000

Barack Obama opposed this war before it even began. Watch clips of his opposition before and after the war as well as his plan for moving forward.

President Obama Speaks to Troops in Afghanistan

admin — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:11:38 +0000

President Obama’s Foreign Policy Agenda

admin — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:57:56 +0000

President Obama has committed… to a foreign policy that ensures the safety of the American people. But he also refuses the false division between our values and our security; the United States can be true to our values and ideals while also protecting the American people…

“Finally, while there are instances and individuals who can be met only by force, the United States will be prepared to listen to and talk with our adversaries in order to advance our interests.

Refocusing on the Threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan

“Following an intensive 60-day interagency review, on March 27, 2009, the President announced a new strategy with a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.

“The strategy is comprehensive and flexible and will need to be fully resourced. In addition to the new troops the President has chosen to deploy, the strategy calls for significantly more resources to the civilian effort and frequent evaluations of our progress.”

(For updates, see Afghanistan War News & Views.)

Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq

On February 27, 2009, President Obama announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq.” (For current status of the Iraq War, see Iraq War Facts, Statistics and Results”.)

“By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end and Iraqi Security Forces will have full responsibility for major combat missions. After August 31, 2010, the mission of United States forces in Iraq will fundamentally change.

“Our forces will have three tasks: train, equip, and advise the Iraqi Security Forces; conduct targeted counterterrorism operations; and provide force protection for military and civilian personnel. The President intends to keep our commitment under the Status of Forces Agreement to remove all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Keeping Nuclear Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists

“On April 5, 2009 in Prague, President Obama presented an ambitious strategy to address the international nuclear threat. He proposed measures to: reduce and eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, including negotiations on further nuclear reductions with Russia, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and completion of a verified Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty; halt proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional states, and prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons or materials.

We have pledged to work with our partners to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea through the Six-Party process. And we will present a clear choice to Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, including its right to peaceful nuclear energy, or continue to refuse to meet its international obligations and fail to seize the opportunity of a positive future.

Promoting Peace and Security in Israel and the Middle East

“The President believes that we cannot afford to wait to work for peace in the region, so he appointed a Special Envoy for Middle East peace on his second day in office. In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors.

“The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. The President has committed himself and his Administration to actively pursuing this goal.

Re-energizing America’s Alliances

“The United States seeks to engage in dialogue that is honest and grounded in mutual respect, as the best way to resolve disagreements and work towards shared interests. We are committed to strengthening existing partnerships and building new ones to confront the challenges of the 21st century.

“On his first trip overseas, the President visited Europe to begin this process, with the G-20 Summit, the 60th Anniversary NATO Summit, and the U.S-E.U. Summit.

“The President made clear in his speech to the Turkish Parliament that America’s relationship with the Muslim world will be based on more than our shared opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

“The United States seeks to strengthen our historic alliances in Asia while developing deeper bonds with all nations of the region, so that we might work together to confront the challenges of the 21st Century, including proliferation, climate change, pandemics and economic instability.

Maintaining Core American Values

“Every challenge is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This is why the President ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, prohibited — without exception or equivocation — the use of torture, and set up a Special Task Force to thoroughly review detainee policy.

Sudan

“Ending the crisis in Darfur and ensuring Sudan’s long-term stability through the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement is a top priority for the Obama Administration. The humanitarian crisis there makes our task all the more urgent.

“The President has appointed a Special Envoy for Sudan as a strong signal of his commitment to support the people of Sudan. We are committed to working with the international community to end the suffering, seek a lasting settlement to the violence, and ensure a stable and secure future for the region.

Restoring American Leadership in Latin America

“The future of the United States is inextricably bound to the future of the people of the Americas. We are committed to a new era of partnership with countries throughout the hemisphere, working on key shared challenges of economic growth and equality, our energy and climate futures, and regional and citizen security.

“We are committed to shaping that future through engagement that is strong, sustained, meaningful, and based on mutual respect.”

Can Obama Strategy Destroy Al-Qaeda?

admin — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:54:30 +0000

President Obama’s strategy to fight the Taliban is yet to get unanimous support in all the quarters in the US. US Senate Foreign relations Committee Chairman John Kerry expressed in May that Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal, terrorist safe havens, Taliban sanctuaries and growing insurgency has become the most difficult challenge faced by the US. He added that Pakistan at present has the potential to be crippled by the Taliban or to act as bulwark against everything the Taliban represent. Senator Kerry underscored the Pakistani feeling of being used by the US and then left in the lurch and also the American policy of cooperation with the military while paying scant attention to the wishes of the people.

In May also President Obama’s Af-Pak representative Richard Hallbrooke testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a stable, secure, democratic Pakistan was vital to the US national interest. He said that President Obama’s policy towards Pakistan was to ensure Pakistan’s stability necessary for the security of the US and the rest of the world through increased security, governance and development assistance to Pakistan. Halbrooke spoke of the trilateral engagement among the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in which the three parties shared commitment to combat terrorism and extremism.

South Asian expert Rory Stewart told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the final goal of the Obama administration to disrupt, dismantle and defeat the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent their return to either country in future, ” is trying to do the impossible. It is highly unlikely that the US will be able either to build an effective, legitimate state or to defeat the Taliban insurgency”.

In the same vein Pulitzer Prize winner journalist Steve Coll( New Yorker October 19, 2009)writes that since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 attempts by foreign powers to shape events there have repeatedly been thwarted by what intelligence analysts call “mirror imaging” which is the tendency of the decision makers in one country to judge counterparts in another country through the prism of their own language and politics . Coll cautioned that safeguarding American interests in AfPak region to free it from the Taliban should not be confused with the quest for an honest President in Kabul where rulers often have not been trustworthy

This converges to some extent with Samuel Huntington’s proposition made in his book POLITICAL ORDER IN CHANGING SOCIETIES(1968) that authority, even of a brutal kind, is preferable to none at all and that the degree to which a state is governed is more important than how it is governed. Huntington felt that despite ideological differences the US had more in common with the USSR than it did with any weakly ruled states. Unsurprisingly neo-con Michael Ledeen (rediscovering American character-September 11, 2009) quoting Alexis de Tocqeville’s description of the Americans as “a restless, reasoning and adventurous race” has called for dismissal of claims that “all people are the same, all cultures are of equal worth, all values are relative, and all judgments are to be avoided”. He calls the al-Qaeda terrorism as the “latest incarnation of servitude – this time wrapped in a religious mantle” that must be defeated.

While one cannot contest that terrorism in all forms must be defeated his praise of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who openly said that it was Islam and not al-Qaeda that posed danger to the world is worrying. The skepticism relating to practice of democracy in many developing countries is in agreement with those of Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama, Bernard Lewis, Joseph Stiglitz and others that as the practice of democracy requires a degree of prosperity of a nation the Western countries should not expect a faultless administration in countries where they are engaged in fighting the Taliban menace.

Robert Blackwill of Rand Corporation ( The geopolitical consequences of the world economic recession) thinks that over time G-20 will become more influential than G-8. In the next decade or so G -20 will exert more influence on IMF but is unlikely to shape the UN Security Council. Blackwill’s prediction is based on reading the transcending events in history like the French Revolution bringing in Napoleon, Bolshevik Revolution producing the Soviet empire, the Great Depression reinforcing the demise of the Weimar Republic, the advent of Adolph Hitler and such other historical events.

The point is that though unipolar moment may have pased but the US, as Leslie Gelb writes in his book POWER RULES, ” the global power is decidedly pyramidical- with the US alone at the top, a second tier of major countries( China, India, the UK, France , Germany and Brazil and several tiers) descending below” will be the key determinants of security in the 21^st century. But if power is the capacity to make people do what they do not want to do, then the US after the Bush administration may not want to force the doctrine of preemption as the way to solve global issues and instead as Nobel Committee has said in its citation while awarding Barak Obama the Peace Prize the US may opt for a global reconciliation among different groups pledging allegiance to different faiths and opposing further dissipation of national sovereignty.

Equally China has not in recent past, except in the case of Tibet, displayed any intention of using coercive diplomacy in settling bilateral issues and has played a responsible role in the UNSC. The problem with other G-20 countries is poverty and/or lack of good governance that are likely to divert their attention from international issues to more pressing ones at home. US therefore with its global reach and its surplus wealth (discounting the current recession that may be on the mend) will remain the determining power in the world for the foreseeable future.

One may be treading the fault lines in global politics if one were to assume that peace and tranquility would rule the world. China’s resurgence in Asia would worry Japan and to an extent India given Chinese objection to Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh for election campaign, China’s ire at the refuge given by India to Dalai Lama since he fled Chinese occupation of Tibet, and India’s objection to the building of a dam in Tibet by China that may affect water flow in the rivers flowing into India and Bangladesh.

Europe in this matrix, free of neo-cons like Robert Kagan who suggested the Americans making the dinner and the Europeans doing the dishes and his “co-religionists” like Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle and others, may opt for a more internationally acceptable legal framework for a new global construct. The opposing views are not exceptional in most countries. In Australia, for example, the differences between the Conservatives and Labor was based on “realism” and “idealism”.

In this evolution of a new global architecture it has become difficult to discern the religious factor in the al-Qaeda and Taliban sponsored terrorism. Pakistan is now virtually fighting for its life though in the eyes of Bruce Riedel and some others Pakistan is now the epicenter of terrorism. Hillary Clinton during her visit to Pakistan in October virtually accused the country of complicity with al-Qaeda. She found it difficult to believe that no one among Pakistani authorities knew whereabouts of the al-Qaeda leadership though al-Qaeda has had safe-havens in Pakistan since 2002. She also implicitly crotocised Pakistani military security establishment. It is believed that Pak-Afghan border region had been the base of 9/11 hijackers and many other terrorists and that most terrorist attacks from World Trade Center in 1993 have been traced to Pakistan and not to Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq.

The terrorism at Bali testifies that the largest Muslim country in the world was not spared. The argument proferred that terrorism in Muslim countries is to establish the pristine spirit and practice of Islam does not hold water as the victims of terrorism are often innocent and pious men, women and children who by no stretch of imagination can be termed as “degenerates” and many are not even Westernized. What then do the Taliban expect to achieve? Already they reportedly have become unpopular in Swat and Malakand in Pakistan where they ruled for sometime because of their harsh and brutal treatment of the people, especially of the women.

The world should not stand by and see Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan and risk the falling of nuclear materials into the hands of the fanatics.

Some of the US leaders have questioned the logic of greater support to Pakistan than to Afghanistan at a time when al-Qaeda is gaining ground in Afghanistan and the billions of dollars of assistance given to Pakistan is being misused either through diversion to bolster Pak military along Indian border or through outright corruption. Unknown to the US taxpayers successive US administrations have tolerated misuse of military and financial aid to Pakistan during the period of ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan and to other military dictators during the cold war. One should not forget that the Taliban were created by Pak President Ziaul Huq with American money and materials. The task was easy because the Taliban given their tribal background and being brought up in Islamist tradition took up arms against the communist Soviets who did not believe in God. As the terrorist attacks of 9/11 demonstrated the West had in effect created a Frankenstein capable of destabilizing a world order that was emerging after the end of bipolarity of the cold war period.

The Western concern about extremist Islamic terrorism has effectively put on the global stage Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory, dismissed by many Western scholars and political leaders, due to lack of solution of the Middle East crisis and general underdevelopment in Muslim countries the world may be divided along religious lines. Despite Bruce Riedels prescription for a democratic dispensation in Pakistan doubts has always remained whether Pakistani society being largely ruled by oligarchs where the individual still has to free himself from tradition, where primordial tribal loyalty predominates decision making process, where religious edicts by village Maulanas have quasi-judicial force, and gender inequality is accepted as normative social order, institution of Western liberal democracy would not remain a far cry. Benazir Bhutto was, perhaps, the most secular and determined among Pakistani leaders to face up to the increasing Islamic extremism in the country and was decidedly most favored by the Western powers among the political leaders in Pakistan. Her death, says Stephen Cohen, dealt a death blow to the idea of a liberal and moderate Pakistan. In Pakistan separatism did increase as did violent extremist Islamism.

Given the odds stacked against them it is not clearly understandable what is the end game of the Taliban. Eminent Muslim scholars by and large have condemned the Taliban claim to purge Islam of so-called western degenerative elements and to establish Caliphate of the 6^th century Saudi Arabia. Indeed the Taliban consider the Muslim countries of abandoning the true faith as they understand Islam and have threatened to unseat the present regimes in Muslim countries.

It is undeniable that most of the members of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) would not fulfill the criteria of democracy practiced by the West. Yet to expect that these countries, all being developing or least developed countries would be adorned with the socio-political sophistication of the developed countries acquired over centuries is not practical. In making this statement the debate of what is democracy or its different forms has been deliberately avoided. In tribal societies it is difficult for the people in power not to help ones kith and kin, a sin and nepotism surely to be accused of in Western societies. Equally the preponderance of the values of common welfare over individual welfare in the Eastern societies cannot be wished away.

Luckily for the world George W Bush’s wrecking ball diplomacy and his determination to spread democracy everywhere is now a matter of the past. But the responsibility of the global players to keep the world safe for the present and future generations has to remain a constant in the agenda of the leaders of the world.

Barack Obama’s 10 best moments from the first 100 days

admin — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:50:15 +0000

Some moves in Barack Obama’s first 100 days (like stimulus packages and long-term budgets) will take years to gauge whether or not they are effective. Nonetheless, here is a sampling of his best and worst moments from the past 4 months:

Ten Best Moments:

Keeping Robert Gates:
Despite aiming to reverse his predecessor’s every policy, one of Barack Obama’s shrewdest moves was keeping George W Bush’s experienced Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.

Photo taken from Whitehouse on Flickr.

Reversing Ban on stem cell research:
The reversal of the Bush administration’s ban on federally funded stem cell research could conceivably lead to treatments and cures for a wide range of diseases and ailments.

Victory over the pirates:
Barack Obama’s first national security test was handled with aplomb as the Navy SEALs successfully rescued Captain Richard Phillips from his pirate captors.

Setting a withdrawal date in Iraq:
President Obama’s plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by August 31st, 2010 is the first step in getting out of a seemingly endless war.

World Tour:
President Obama’s week-long, four country tour through Europe confirmed his popularity and proved he can be an influential and effective leader outside of the States.

Calling for complete nuclear disarmament:
While acknowledging it may not happen in his lifetime, any step, no matter how small, away from self-annihilation via nuclear weaponry is a watershed moment.

Focus on clean energy:
One hundred days into his presidency, Barack Obama has allowed states to enforce tougher automobile emissions standards, signed into law a series of environmentally-minded tax credits, established plans for a high-speed rail network, and more than doubled the budget for renewable energy technology.

Outlawing torture:
While the president’s handling of the torture memos wasn’t successful (see 10 worst moments), his decision to ban controversial advanced interrogation techniques was a moral victory.

Signing of the national service bill:
This bill will expand America’s volunteer corps by $6billion over the next five years and will have a positive impact on education, health care, clean energy projects, and infrastructure.

Ledbetter’s Law:
This equal pay legislation inexplicably vetoed by George W Bush was the first bill President Obama signed into law.

Barack Obama and the Future of Our World

admin — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:43:26 +0000

Millions world over has gone buoyant over the first black president in the White House – Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. His swearing-in as the forty-fourth American President on January 20, 2009 has skyrocketed enormous expectations and hope to move ahead from an awful economic condition, to necessitate the end of an unwinnable and unpopular war and to get rid of the policies of a vindictive, ignorant and stupid regime. These are customary expectations. By superbly oscillating the politics of high frequency emotion, Barack Obama has won the minds of a sizable section of his country folks and the world’s populace. Armed with a powerful and effective rhetoric of masterfully employed words, Obama’s orations were capable to create “a belief that there are better days ahead” and have instigated his country to “reclaim the American dream” and raise the demand for ‘a change’. Though critics like the journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens has derided this rhetoric as a stockpile of ten cliché keywords “Dream, Fear, Hope, New, People, We, Change, America, Future and Together” (See Slate Magazine, March 03, 2008) it is hard to be impassive about the fervor Obama has generated. But still the vital question remains unanswered: how much can this ‘prophet of hope’ ultimately deliver?

There is no doubt that Barack Obama’s presidency made a significant impact on the collective consciousness of African-American community. It will be a grave mistake to ignore this overt optimism, uncontrollable passion and pride among the black people concerning Obama. Though American society has walked a long way from the dreadful days of racial discrimination, the evils of institutional racism, discrimination in education, housing, employment, policing and criminal justice continue to exist in today’s America. Poverty and social abuse is still a poignant issue. A major section of the deprived African-Americans therefore cannot get rid of their lifelong perception that a black person has to work harder than a white person to reach the same success, that black people are incessantly used and valued in the American society for their muscles, not for their brains. The media still depicts an awesomely negative image of the black men as “…a bunch of hapless layabouts who spend their days ticking off reparations demands and shaking their fist at the white man.” (See Obama and the Myth of the Black Messiah by Ta-Nehisi Coates) The ascending of an African-American to warm the highest chair of the country is therefore perceived as a dream come true, a historic event. Obama is being elevated in the minds of African-Americans as a messiah who can convincingly speak about juxtaposing freedom-hope-change and motivates them to shout ‘Yes, We Can!’

Obama’s mixed-ethnic identity (he is the son of a Kansas-born white mother and a Kenyan-born black father) has also played a vital role. Throughout American history, lighter-skinned blacks have been viewed as less intimidating and have generally received better treatment from white society than darker-skinned blacks. This good black-bad black dynamic based on the darkness of skin tone was definitely an advantage for Obama – the advantage of not being ‘black enough’. He has meticulously built up a multicultural image that crosses ethnic boundaries and has spoken about issues concerning all Americans irrespective of race, culture and religion. Hence the implication of his victory goes beyond any racial symbolism. Whether Obama can particularly address key African-American issues therefore remains doubtful. The popular singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte has warned American people to be ‘careful’ about Barack Obama because “We don’t know what he’s truly about.” According to the Calypso King, Obama is “Obviously very bright, speaks very well, cuts a handsome figure. But all of that is just the king’s clothes. Who’s the king?” Obama has appeared with the alluring cloths contrived with profound care by the American enterprise of manipulative media barons, corporate oligarchs, special-interest groups, Wall Street firms and the American political establishment – those who firmly believe in acting as the masters of the world, propels the American hegemony, proudly carries the criminal legacy of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush and continue to support Israel and its atrocious act of brutality. Barack Obama, according to John Pilger, “…will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy.”

Barack Obama’s devious face was uncovered in March 2008 when the ‘patriotic’ American media maliciously exposed a December 2007 speech of his longtime pastor and spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The speech titled ‘The day of Jerusalem’s fall’ created a huge disconcert to the Obama campaign. In this now infamous speech, Rev. Wright spoke about an extremely repulsive truth. Admitting that 9/11 attacks was a crime of America’s own making, Rev. Wright said that, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America’s chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism.” The media and the American system musclemen immediately sparked off an outcry and insisted Obama to denounce the ‘inflammatory rhetoric’. Obama dutifully obliged them by resigning his membership in the church and said that he was ‘outraged’ and ‘saddened’ by the behavior of his former pastor.

Obama had also left no ambiguity about his stand on the Israel-Palestine issue. In July 2008 he expressed himself to the media by saying that “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” What did Obama mean by ‘everything’? Slaughtering Palestinian children in retaliation? Clearly enough, the prospective President of United States was approving Israel’s act of ‘self defense’ and never felt a similar concern to utter a word of disapproval about the thousands of Palestinian children killed by the Israeli attacks. Sajy Elmaghinni of the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has described the traumatic condition of Palestinian children during the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza that, “Many kids have stopped eating. They are inactive, they barely talk, they cling to their parents all the time.” Palestinian children were ‘unworthy’ victims of Barack Obama’s worthy ‘expectation’!

Figures made available by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group has shown that from September 2000 until November 2008, Israeli security forces have killed 2,990 Palestinians in Gaza. During this same seven years, Hamas rockets from Gaza have killed a total of 22 Israeli civilians. (See Question and Answer on Gaza by Stephen Shalom) Does Mr. Obama agree with the official US definition that depicts terrorism as a “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets”? If the homemade Quassam rockets fired by Hamas is a felonious act and therefore condemnable then why the official Israeli butchery cannot be condemned by the same yardstick? While the recent 22-days of Israeli genocidal assault on defenseless Palestinian populations of Gaza were going on, Obama ‘strategically’ preferred to remain silent by saying that “there is only one president at a time”. This unquestioning support for the habitually racist and neurotically extremist Israel is a very common posture for all American presidents. In other word, it is almost impossible to occupy the highest chair of the country which houses the headquarters of international Zionism and where the Zionist lobby has a ubiquitous influence on the political system and media.

Whatever the inexorable propaganda of the international media might pound on our heads, Barack Obama’s reflection on the Palestinian crisis is one apparent indication of the type of ‘change’ the world is actually going to witness in the coming days. Let all the optimists be assured that the vicious legacy of America’s ‘divine right’ to control everything and playing God everywhere in the pretext of spreading democracy all over the world will continue. Moreover, to impale the existing and newer preys, new midnight agents might get recruited. The possibility of Iran to become the next possible prey is not distant. Israel will then play the prominent role of a strategic military partner because the weakening of Iran will significantly serve Israel’s regional interests.

Apparently, Obama looks more intelligent and smarter than his predecessor George Bush who has finished his term as a shoe-ducking president. Knowing very well that the international community has long become spineless and insignificant, the bigot Bush tried to win support for a superfluous ‘war on terror’ in selective Islamic countries by exploiting the general anger of the American people over terrorism. Accordingly, Afghanistan was bombed into heaps of rubble, Iraq was surgically destroyed. Responding to the question on why there is hatred for America in some Islamic countries, Bush famously delivered a stupid answer, “I’m amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate us. I am, I am – like most Americans, I just can’t believe it. Because I know how good we are…” Similarly stupid was his charge against the Indian and Chinese middle class for eating out all the available food and creating the world food crisis. Barack Obama is no George Bush. Under his costume he is armed with a much stylish and sophisticated rhetoric. But there are his critics who have gone so far to predict that in the coming days Obama might turn into a master of delusion.

In his Presidential Inaugural Address, Obama lectured American citizens to “Prepare the nation for a new age” and extended his cautioned words to “those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West” that the people will “judge you by what you build, not what you destroy.” It will be interesting to watch how much significant change Mr. Obama can bring to America’s imperialist and violent foreign policy. Initially, Barack Obama will be let free to do rightful things that will justify his choice and assure the world about his positiveness. By signing the executive order to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year and banning coercive interrogation methods are signals of these proposed acts. The avid Obama supporters will argue that this act itself is enough to put to rest all speculations of cynics who “fail to understand … that the ground has shifted beneath them”. Only time can tell whether he has actually inherited the legacy of blatant hypocrisy, immoral double-standards and shameful contradictions of former American presidents or not. The world will eagerly wait to watch how much he builds or destroys in the coming days.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1919086

President Barack Obama Went to Harvard Law School After Undergrad at Columbia University

admin — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:44:16 +0000

President Barack Obama is viewed by his opponents as a divisive polarizing figure while his supporters prefer to characterize him as a man that unites both people and nations. Regardless of how any individual feels personally about the politics of the 44th President of the United States there is no arguing that he has attended and graduated from a couple of the top institutions of higher learning in America. President Barack Obama got his undergraduate degree from Columbia University before going on to get his Juris Doctorate (JD), which is commonly referred to as a law degree, at Harvard Law School.

After graduating from Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1979 a teenage Barack Obama moved to Los Angeles, California where he began his college career at Occidental College. After spending two years studying at the southern California campus Barack moved further from his home in Hawaii as he ventured over to the east coast to complete his undergraduate education at Columbia University in New York City. The 1981 transfer to Columbia proved to be a pivotal point in the life of the future leader as he delved into political science, a subject that along with international relations would become one of the double majors for his Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree.

Upon graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama took his political science degree from an Ivy League school with him into the workforce where he found employment at Business International Corp., a company that published research reports for large companies in the United States and abroad. As a recent graduate Obama held the title of research associate, a job that counted amongst its duties writing and editing a money report and weekly newsletter that dealt primarily with financial services issues.

Four years in New York City (two for school and two for work) were concluded when Barack Obama moved to Chicago and began working as a director for a group called Developing Communities Project. The faith based organization that Barack now worked for as a director focused on providing services for area residents. These services ranged from job training to tenants’ rights consultations. The time spent in Chicago where he was essentially as a public servant inspired Obama to continue his education as an avenue to open more doors to do even greater good.

In the fall of 1988 Barack Obama began classes at Harvard Law School (HLS). During his three years in Cambridge, Massachusetts Obama served as an editor for the Harvard Law Review during his first year and was president of the publication during his second year. Obama completed law school in the spring of 1991 and graduated magna cum laude which is Latin for with great honor.

Barack Obama’s Website is Web 2.0 at Its Best

admin — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:38:31 +0000

Regardless of your political affiliation or belief, model your website after Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s website and I bet you’ll see a significant increase in visitors to your website which cannot help but lead to an increase in clients and sales. Before I share why information to support my claim, let’s examine Web 2.0.

What is Web 2.0?

Unless you have been living in a cave for the last year, you have heard of Web 2.0. For those cave dwellers, simply put, Web 2.0 is communication and interactivity between people on the Internet.

How Barack Obama Is Using Web 2.0

Obama’s website and his campaign is Web 2.0 personified. Here’s why:

Once you skip the contribution page, the first thing you see is an invitation to send his Vice President pick, Joe Biden, a welcome note!
Then there was the text message sent to millions of people at 3:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time announcing his Vice-President pick.
The website is rich with video on just about every page.
There is a “Barack TV” section with channels including “Issues,” “Your Story,” “Barack’s Story,” “Michelle’s Story.”
The site is designed to interact with those who are deaf and visitors who speak Spanish.
My favorite: The invitation to send a campaign contribution for as little as $5.00 and be entered into a contest to be 1 of 10 people picked to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver, at the campaign’s expense!
Barack has a blog that is updated on a regular basis.

Other Web 2.0 Components on Barack Obama’s Website:

There is a section where Hillary Clinton supporters are asked to join and are welcomed to Obama’s campaign! When you click through to the page, a warm notice is posted about Hillary’s accomplishments. Visitors are asked to sign up and “share your story.” An attractive picture of Hillary Clinton is strategically placed on the page with a video stream of Obama speaking, placed in a noticeable but unobtrusive place on the page.
There is a section where visitors are asked to help fight the smear campaigns that serve to divide people and cast suspicion about who Barack Obama is. To dispel untruths, Barack has even posted a copy of his birth certificate along with pictures of the American flag on his plane and him visiting and interacting with American troops.

Barack Obama’s web design integrates every single Web 2.0 component into the website:

Social Networking: The ability to create your very own “my BarackObama” mini-website.

Blogging: Barack Obama has a blog on his website and visitors and supporters can create a blog too.

User-generated content: visitors have the ability to express themselves in many ways. In addition to the ability to congratulatory message for the newly selected Vice Presidential candidate, you can share your own Barack story by uploading a video, etc.

Video: There are videos running concurrently all over this website.

Widgets & Gadgets: These include a resource library, the ability to get involved in a phone bank, the ability to get “action center updates,” etc.

Yes, this indeed is one cutting edge, fully Web 2.0 integrated website. My to-do list for today has just changed. I am going to integrate as many Web 2.0 components into my own website. I strongly urge you to do the same!

Barak Obama – Five Lessons to English As a Foreign Language Teachers

admin — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:35:37 +0000

Five Lessons from Barack Obama

Here are five lessons English as a foreign language teachers can learn from American President-elect Barack Obama. This was adapted from “Six Marketing Lessons From Barack Obama” by Steve Harrison which originally appeared as part one of a two-part series in his Book Marketing Update print newsletter.

1. Get feedback from your EFL learners – and USE it

Obama sent several dozen drafts of his second book “The Audacity of Hope” to friends, media, legislators and followed up with them and asked them for feedback.

More importantly, he listened to what they had to say, and made changes based on their feedback. Be a good listener, and adapt to the feedback you receive like President-elect Barack Obama does.

2. Be determined and Pleasantly Persistent in Your EFL Teaching

In 20 years of helping authors sell more books, marketer Steve Harrison discovered that 95% of all authors give up way too quickly and easily. They’re not determined and persistent.

Back in 1995, Barack Obama was relatively unknown and trying to get whatever publicity he could. So even though he wanted to meet the N’Digo book reviewer, he ultimately failed to persuade her to review his book. But here’s the key. He didn’t give up. He persisted.

“He would call me every week and say, ‘Did you read my book?’” the publisher told the New York Times.

Successful people like Barack Obama are not considered pests because they’re always friendly, always patiently staying in touch and continually dispersing some new information or slant worth considering.

Let me ask you, do you have that kind of persistence?

3. Don’t let any perceived lack of EFL qualifications permanently stop you.

Many teachers and other professionals are held back by a belief they’re not “qualified” simply because they’re not the world’s leading authority in their field. You need to be competent at what you do, of course, but the fact is you don’t need to be the MOST accomplished, MOST knowledgeable, MOST credentialed “expert” in your field to be successful.

You do however, need to be very good at presenting yourself and your ideas. Rightly or wrongly, presentation and rapport are often more important than “qualifications”.

Obama hasn’t let any apparent lack of qualifications stand in the way of making himself a wealthy, best-selling author (3 million copies in print to date) and finally being elected to the highest political office in the land. You shouldn’t let any hole or flaw in your resume stop you from getting where you want to go either.

4. Work at becoming a master at Developing rapport with your EFL learners

Your EFL learners don’t care nearly as much about your credibility as they do about your rapport with them and how you can help them. Are you telling your own personal story about why you do what you do in a way that connects with your learners? Are you telling stories which agitate EFL learner’s motivations and shows them how much they need the English language communicative skills which you help to provide for them? Do you work at creating a dynamic, communicative lesson that connects with your learners emotions?

5. Your Success in Teaching EFL is Up to YOU

Resist the temptation to dismiss other successful teachers and professionals as simply being “great teaqchers or speakers” or think that they are successful simply because they may be “well-educated.” Instead, watch them and learn if you’re really serious about
making a difference.

President elect Barack Obama knows and practices these things as they relate to HIS field … do you?