'MCA go home' vs 'Where was DAP 13 years ago?' at Jonker Walk
What?! Gan qualified his being there as a survey, not to protest? Let alone to lead the protest? Did Mr. Gan Tian Loo realize that the MCA protest carries more weight than DAP protest many times
over. The state government, being UMNO-led government, considers the DAP as the opposition working hand-in-hand with PAS and PKR to oust UMNO from power, rescinding the directive on the request
from DAP leaders will make the party even more popular. I thought, at first, here come the MCA, finally to do what it's supposed to do. Then the expected happened. He got cold feet. The
reporter who covered the protest reported Gan was suddenly cautious . He was like ..."I'm here to lend my support to..the .. no, wait! I am not here to support the traders - but just to do a quick
survey! But I am glad to be standing here with the protesters but reporters, please put it down in black and white I am not, I repeat, am not here as part of the protest. This is the reason the MCA
was shunned, I mean has been shunned by the Chinese. They do not represent the Chinese anymore. They cannot get things done anymore unlike in the old days. Gan admitted his meeting with the chief
minister was fruitless, but would keep trying. Keep trying for what? He should stop embarrassing the MCA and reducing its credibility further by continuing to beg despite being rebuffed earlier.
Again, this proved that the Malaysian Chinese Association has really completely lost its usefulness. If a small matter like Jonker Walk closure was beyond its power then, that 's it.
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women
THE DRL BLOG
Links You May Like
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Links You May Like
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He was Prime Minister?>More Here
How To Stop Drinking Without Stopping!>Read More Here
Opportunist Writers From Indian Community> Read More
Judge Roy Moore Like Candidate Trump Fell Victim To Women>More here
Israel Can Stop Palestinians' Roket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >More
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins A No-No>More
Clinton Or Trump>More
How You Intend To Vote in November?>More
Obama Took The Crown>More Here
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf>More..
Abdullah Rebuffed Them>More
Lim's Horrendous Success>More Here
Lim Guan Eng A Phenomenon>More
Even The Once Mighty British Seem To Have Thrown In The Towel>Read More
Clash Of Titans> More Here
Not Easy Being DAP>Read More
Pak Lah Was Too Kind To Do What Was Expected Of Him>More Here
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired>More
Not Easy Being MCA Leaders>More
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One>More..
Nobel Prize Winners>More..
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise>More
Warning For The Rich And Powerful>Read More
Ananda Khrishnan Earned Bumiputra Status For For
Indians In Malaysia>More?
MCA Must Demand Return Of All Its Traditional
Seats>Read More
A British Adventurer Who Became King By His Own
Hand>Read More
Where's The MAS Flight MH370 Now>More..
The Greatest Medicine
Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His
Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All)
>Read More...
The Greatest Medicine Man Ever Lived>Read More
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win>More here
Israel Can Stop Rocket Firings From Gaza (Once And For All) >Read More...
By David Lang
The following stories may fire your imagination, pique your interest. Some say 1MDB is Malaysia's Sovereign Wealth fund; to others they asked what wealth fund when its total capitalization is just One million ringgit? But, then again, if you think you can look down on the pet idea of the Malaysian prime minister, think again. His idea has the potential of turning the now world famous - or shall we say, infamous - 1Malaysia Development Berhad into a giant corporation you can ever imagine - even bigger than Bill Gate's Microsoft! At least, it could be, if the original course is stayed. It was supposed to inspire Malaysians to think big besides advance growth, according to its slogans screaming out of giant bill boards throughout the country. 'Backed' by the finance ministry who owns it - which means money will never be the problem - it can only succeed. But..it didn't. It failed! That's why it may have piqued many people's curiosity. How can a company flush with cash and can borrow any amount (billions) anytime could fail? Well, this may be in line with your thinking. People have seen since its inception - I mean after its name was changed in 1999 from Trengganu Investment Authority (TIA) to the present - it hasn't done any business! I have used present tense deliberately. It hasn't done any business yet. I mean if you are in business you need to make profit or find ways to make profit. Or close shop. Oh, I had heard about their filings of tax returns and hiring of a couple of internationally known auditors to sign off on their balance sheets; but these concerned only the company's borrowings and interests to be paid. Two massive bonds were issued to the tune of $7 billions. To buy up power plants. Again I want to say if you are in business to make money even investing in independent Power Plants, it should be done with the view to making a profit. The decision may be long term or short term, it doesn't matter, it has to make money, or no deal. May be they have done the right thing. Maybe luck was not on their side. Still, the amount is staggering. I didn't know having or managing so much money can be a problem! But many - especially the Malays - have not given up hope yet. Yes, may be the durians are just ripening; may be they need time and may fall soon!
This is a automatic time
Malaysia's Woes
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Why 1MDB Sovereign Wealth Fund Failed?
Local politics
Opportunit Writers From Indian Community
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Alcohol Effect: (PAS' Muslim Now Concerned About Non- Muslims' Health?
Hannah Yeoh Won't Apologize For Wearing Headscarf
A Commander-in-chief Who Doesn't Act Like One
Israel Has No Choice But To Deter
Contaminated Blood Coursing Through Muslim Veins
Can President Trump Single-handedly Take On His Enemies And Win
Chinese The Real Kingmaker In Malaysian Politics
Trump Had Better Keep His Promise
President Trump: James Comey, You Are Fired
About Dr Mahathir
Why Tun Dr Mahathir Was So Powerful When He Was Prime Minister?
If You Wish To Settle Down In Great Britain You Are Welcome But Please Apply For Visa First
Recent Articles
This video is presented courtesy of Sally Page:
Malaysia's Vision 2020
By:David Lang
Malaysia is supposed to be on its way to becoming a developed nation, by the year 2020. Will she make it (in less than five years -tick-tuck, tick-tuck)? There is no doubt the year 2020 is coming whether the country is ready or not, and if that will be the only requirement then Malaysia will attain that developed nation status on schedule. There is a question, though, Will Malaysia, or Malaysians, for that matter, be ready for that status as far as their affluence, quality of life's concern? Currently Malaysia's GNI per capita stood at US$10060. According to the World Bank high income economies are those with GNI per capita of US$12,745. And until Malaysians earn much more to be there, the developed nation status may not be achieved even by the year 2020. The futility of declaring a country a high income country when it's not, achieves nothing. May be even counter-productive; it lulls the country into false sense of success and premature celebration. Don't forget China reportedly overtook Japan as the world's second largest economy, but in actual fact China's citizens' ca pita income is a fraction of the incomes of the Japanese who earn $37,000. Chinese incomes range from $13,000. China's gross domestic product, taken as a whole, may beat Japan's, but in term of quality of life, and GNI per capita income, the criteria for a developed nation status, China still has a lot of catching up to do. That's why China still qualifies as recipient of Japan's economic aid meant for developing countries. Comparing with the Chinese per capita domestic product, Malaysia is even worse off. Unless the government bucks up and rushes to create more wealth for its citizens, the Vision 2020 dream may remain just that ..a dream.
Jun 29, 2013
Jun 22, 2013
Apr 20, 2013
Apr 6, 2013
Apr 1, 2013
Feb 15, 2013
How To Repair Your Own Refrigerator And Save A Bundle
when I received a call the other day (night) from a Miss Lee complaining about her fridge not working (she noticed the temperature inside the fridge was warm comparable to room temperature), I asked her to check if the fridge's power switch was at on or off?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Apr 7, 2018
Content From hardblall.newsvine.com
By:David Lang
May 28, 2017 Updated Today:May 28, 2017
However..if you are interested (for a reason) in reading the content from DavidRubinLang again you are in luck. Following are the content retrieved from the Newsvine.com
Content From My MSNBC Newsvine column:
Content From DavidRubinLang
David Rubin Lang (DONE AND DUSTED)
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
NATO's Dilemma
By David Rubin Lang
Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:14 AM
pakistantalibannatoworld-newsmujahideensafghanistan-no-libyaeventual-defeat
DISCUSS: 0 1 !
But like everything or everyone else, it
has its underbelly.Its weakness spot is when fighting terrorism; it can be
bombarded or shot at from all sides but cannot fight back effectively.It cannot
employ air superiority; it cannot carpet bomb its enemies who mostly lurk among
the local population without hitting innocent civilians.
Should NATO be
disbanded?
NATO was founded
in 1949 - with the aim to forestall the Warsaw Pact rival
organization.
After the demise of the USSR and, by extension the Warsaw
Pact, it was presumed NATO had lost the reason to continue to exist and therefor should disband.
But it didn't.
It's not hard to see why? Though the cold war was history,
the resurgent Russia under Putin had found an appetite to to relive its former
glory.
With much of its nuclear arsenal and intercontinental ballistic
missile systems, not mention its research and development for advanced weapons,
largely intact, NATO planners and its members decided NATO was still needed.
When its rival Warsaw Pact closed shop, NATO didn't follow suit; so that's how
or why it continues to function, regardless.
It has since broadened its
roles from containment of Warsaw Pact forces to being used as the US tool to
project American power far and wide.
With spending of more than 70% of
the world's total arms and defense spending, NATO is a formidable defense
pact.
It has the most modern devastating nuclear weapons; it's led by the
US, the world's sole super power, which ironically alone can take on any enemy,
big or small, nuclear-armed or not, and wins; it has and can manufacture
state-of-the-art fighters and bombers (which it deployed with devastating
effect in Libyan air campaign; in short, NATO, in a conventional wars, is
unstoppable.
It has in fact become so powerful that it has commanded to
the happy people of internet protocol that its name be treated with case
sensitiveness; you have to write NATO (all capital letters) or the browsers
will correct it for you, see!
If NATO makes a
mistake which is inevitable, like mistakenly killing the 24 Pakistani soldiers,
there are prices to pay.
It's still early to speculate what will happen as
a result of loss of lives suffered by Pakistan, but if past events are any
indications, NATO and the US, especially the US, will have to pay a heavy
price.
When a CIA agent shot dead three Pakistanis a few months ago,
apparently in self-defense as he's being robbed (or felt being robbed), the
whole country took to the streets to protest. The Pakistan government lost no
time in closing its borders with Afghanistan, barring hundreds, if not
thousands, of trucks transporting supplies to the war fronts in Afghanistan from
passing through them.
No amount of apologies could move the Pakistani
leaders to reconsider, and that was after only two deaths, not 24!
And
just when it has just wound down its air campaign against Libya and celebrated,
after successfully disposing of Col. Qaddafi - thereby stamping its mark as the
military organization that could subdue any leader or country that dares to
challenge it, this had to happen! It forgot one thing, though. Afghanistan or
Pakistan is no Libya. The terrain are different. In the desert with sparse
population bombing or strafing could be effective; in the porous borders
between Afghanistan and Pakistan region, with forest cover, it's different. You
can hit with airstrikes but you don't know whom you're hitting.
Despite
the advancement in guidance systems, accidents can still happen resulting in
loss of lives.C
The war against the Taliban must go on; but we still need
the Pakistanis to be on our side.
This is the dilemma for NATO.
It
had unfortunately brought them down to earth after heady days of easy victory
over Libya. It dawned on them that they are not the master of the universe
after all.
While they are not yet staring at defeat at the hands of the
Talibans, they should face heavens in silent prayer in celestial thanks that
they are not, yet. But this fight will zap them, weaken them until they accept
defeat. For none, none, has ever won in a fight with the Mujahideens. In fact
this is the only place where the British got routed. The only blot on the
proud name of the colonial GB which ruled most of the world. The Soviet Union -
though at its height - was dealt with the same way: routed!
Despite its
might and led by the world's only super power with unique capibilities
(according to President Obama), NATO could be next - if not by the sheer
ferociousness of the Mujahideens, then perhaps by their own weariness.
Do you wish to know more?
[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/27/9045633-natos-dilemma]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
The Muslim Brotherhood will rule in Libya, Egypt, everywhere including possibily in America, eventually.
By David Rubin Lang
Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:32 PM
politicsmuslim-brotherhoodrulesisraeli-embassy-breached-effortlesslyunseen-hands
DISCUSS: !
Libya will end up a Muslim fundamentalist state ruled through sharia law, as widely feared.
At best, it becomes another Egypt.
Much earlier when the battles were even between both sides, many people were concerned we didn't know much about whom we decided to throw our lot behind. We wondered what form of government would rule the country when the rebels achieved total victory? But we didn't have to wait that final victory; some rebel leaders or commanders have often voiced out their aspiration to rule and be ruled through sharia law, no less no more, even though they have yet to defeat Qaddafi and his loyalist forces.
Even in this report we are discussing, some important former rebel leaders, including the #1 man himself (Abdul Jalil) said Libya's new laws will be souced from sharia.
I am not one bit surprised by this turn of event. I had often in the past months read about reports of people questioning the wisdom in supporting a group who were AlQaeda fighters who previously fought against our soldiers in Iraq, but many analysts who supported President Obama's election, including Pentagon officials vigorously downplayed that danger, only saying there was no sign of wide-scale infiltration by AlQaeda./div>
It snuffed out whatever a likelihood of Hamas agreeing to eventually compromise on its rigid position. In a way it destroyed any chance of peace between the Palestinians and the Jews. There's no more reasons for them to be flexible -- which is the key to any negotiation. Now the Palestinians want far more than they originally demanded, and which in turn hardens the Israeli position. Now the gap between the two sides have become too wide to be narrowed.
Although these liberal people have been proven wrong, they should not be blamed squarely alone as they apparently couldn't do anything they had to follow orders.
Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who at first balked at the Us intervening Libya, had to toe the line.
As everyone knows, when he went to give his speech in Cairo, he saw ot it that the Muslim Brotherhood was invited to be among the audience! And Mubarak had to eat humble pie! Not only that, he orchestrated the removal of the Egyptian president who ironically was the only one to stand in their way. Can you believe it, at the height of the uprising by the Tahrir square demonstrators to topple Mubarak, Obama began pushing openly for the Muslim Brotherhood to be included in every consultation, deliberations to forge a new Egypt. That was all the MB needed from President Obama.
The only thing that stands in their way now is the military council that rules Egypt after Mubarak. It will be a matter of time, at least that's what they believe, before they rule Egypt through Sharia.
Meanwhile they behave cautously, trying to avoid creating the scenarios when people would say, "I told you so." (That won't help their cause).
When the Israeli embassy was stormed, our pathetic western press (through a reporter) claimed to hear from a man who was involved in overunning the embassy to say the Muslim Brotherhood didn't want to get involved and didn't. "Come on! Did you think this was not their work?! The reporter must be a moron or a liberal! Of course, they must be the ones organizing it as they stand to benefit from it, but used a neat way to do it. Have you heard what they have been saying about Egypt vis-a-vis Israel lately? We call people like them: unseen hands.
I know many liberal people or Obama supporters will slam me; Iam sorry, but it has to be done.
But I don't want people to simply take my words for it; do your own checking. For a start simply type: "Is Obama a Muslim or MUslim sympathizer?"
Do you wish to know more?[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/13/7736825-the-muslim-brotherhood-will-rule-in-libya-egypt-everywhere-including-possibily-in-america-eventually]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Obama Israel's Friend?
By David Rubin Lang
Fri May 20, 2011 1:38 AM
politicsisraelpresident-obamahamaspalestiniansunfair1967-warright-to-exist
DISCUSS: 67 16 !
During his campaign against Hillary Clinton in the primaries for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barrack Obama had to do the right thing (standby and guarantee the safety of Israel) or he wouldn't get to become president. A good analogy is to compare the ubiquitous pledge by all US presidents to defend Israel to the political correctness of American politics today.
No right thinking American president will go against the Jewish state or be seen as doing anything against the interests of Israel. That's central to American foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel, being closest American ally living on the ground among Arabs, proved to be a valuable partner (providing eyes and ears for uncle Sam). By defending Israel -- the only successful democracy in the Middle East -- the US dampens the Palestinians' appetite for aggression against the Jews and nudges them towards peace. Although Hamas still insists in pursuing the destruction of the Jewish state, it's constrained by the disunity among the Palestinians to really be a force to be reckoned with.
The status quo will be welcome by Israel, even though it's a nation that yearns for peace; so that it can have enough time to develop its economy and defense industry to the point that it can single-handedly deter the Muslims. And so far so good, as far as defense is concerned; big emerging powers like India and China found to their advantage to make a beeline for Israel, attracted to its honey of state-of-the-art weapon systems that only the country of God's favorite children can come up with.
Israel's success -- in turning the non-arable desert into profusely productive farmlands; invented guns that can shoot around corners without being seen, and perfected a system, called the Steel Dome that was designed to stop or deter the cross-border shelling from the Palestinian side -- was not achieved due to divine intervention alone; the US was there as a protective umbrella , like it had been to the then defeated Japan and Germany, providing the peace and stability for the Israelis to succeed.. Israel is so much bigger thanks to the return of Diaspora from around the world, namely Russia. To the Jews, size matters. When it went to wars against the Arabs in the 60s, 70s, 80s, up to 90s, it took a big risks. It didn't have the math vis-a-vis the Arabs Muslims. It was alone against the entire army of 13 Arab countries. The world held its breath for the duration of the 1967 war; Israel had only to lose this fight in order to lose everything. Literally. The Arabs was so confident they almost tasted victory already, and they had reason to be. Egypt alone, speaking of army and air force, was stronger than Israel. And Syria, Jordan and Lebanon -- other main fronts, not to mention other nine countries -- also had a combined army and air force that dwarfed the Israeli total armed forces.
But God was great. He saw to it that not only the Jewish people didn't lose but also went on to capture territories from all fronts which it later annexed to be used as buffers against future attacks from the Muslims.
If the latest outrageous message put out by the Whitehouse (President Obama reversed US policy of supporting Israel to have sustainable borders and endorse the Palestinian proposal for Israel to give territories it captured during the 1967 back to the Palestinians and go back to its pre-1967 borders), was to be the harbinger of things to come, the Israelis can expect trouble. Big trouble. It will be a suicide for Israel to give up its water, farmlands and land mass to accommodate its increased population. It's impossible to uproot millions, economically, physically and politically. It's irreversible, whatever the reasons. And, if I am not mistaken, this scenario was never part of their plans for the future of the Jewish state.
What Obama did was not, if you will, out of the blue or unexpected. He had been acting unfairly towards Israel for sometime now, and he knew it and Israeli leaders knew it; however, for President Obama to blatantly endorse a Palestinian state bounded the pre-1967 borders he could be said to be attempt to throw the Jewish state under the bus.
Sadly all has been lost, due to just one statement. One poorly thought-out statement, perhaps.
And with President Obama trying to reach out to the Muslims, again, and his seemingly morphing into a knight in shining armor for the Palestinians, it would be unrealistic to expect them to treat the Israelis as equal negotiation partner anymore, or to approach the negotiation as it used to when its position was weaker.
Now the Palestinians have united, which inevitably makes them stronger, and the weapons could very soon flow from Egypt into Gaza unrestrained, courtesy of Obama, again. All this would not have happened if Mubarak's still around. And all this would never have happened if Barrack Hussein Obama was not elected the 44th president of the United States. Due to affirmative action and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt, if you will. They're taken in by his oratory prowess (and bought his snake oil wholesale.
Either the American people are oblivious to what President Obama have been up to, or just couldn't care less, nobody knows. However, make no mistake, if Obama sticks to the course, America and Americans will suffer (much more than under President George W. Bush's watch).[https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/20/6680682-obama-israels-friend]
67 comments in 1 conversation
CODE OF HONOR
To begin a conversation on this article, please join a Nation first.
To start a nation discussion, either:
Find and join a Nation via the NATION DIRECTORY
or START YOUR OWN NATION
Nation Discussions are above
This is where the action is. It’s where you want to be.
Newsvine Nations are self-organized groups of people having thoughtful discussions. Join up to 15 Nations or start your own.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
67 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Jason BurnhamMay 20, 2011
#1
comment author avatar
Totally agree. My wife has stated she won't vote for Obama and has been on the phone to numerous Jewish leaders today. I was on the fence about voting for Obama till he said this and now my vote is going to a Republican Candidate and it doesn't matter who he is. He's made clear his policy towards Israel and the Jewish people who live there. The question is why?
9SHAREREPORT
CCArmMay 21, 2011
#1.1
comment author avatar
Due to affirmative and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt, if you will; they're taken in by his oratory..still are to this day.
This statement is total bull @!$%#ing shit. You can take PC and affirmative action and stick it where the sun don't shine. I voted for Obama because he is an intelligent, caring, pragmatic human being that is more qualified than dozens of our past presidents ever were.
Bush set back talks in the ME, he didn't do jack shit.
I am taken by President Obama's ACTIONS, all of which you with ODS ignore or falsely represent. lie about.
I was on the fence about voting for Obama till he said this and now my vote is going to a Republican Candidate
Seriously Jason? I think not.
7SHAREREPORT
Ptolemy-kMay 21, 2011
#1.2
comment author avatar
@ the author of this piece
Due to affirmative and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt, if you will; they're taken in by his oratory..still are to this day.
This is a patently offensive (&, I believe, intentionally) inflammatory statement. Furthermore, this & most of the assertions you make in this article are precisely the type of attitude that facilitated the creation of groups like Hamas & the PLO. Your position that negotiations (from the perspective of the Palestinians) should begin from a position of weakness is absurd & is not a viable starting point for real negotiations at all. (I will likely be authoring a direct rebuttal of this article to be posted later. You are welcome to read it if you wish.)
(FYI…my grandmother was a Jewish immigrant from the Ukraine; I, a few years ago, buried my mother in accordance with full Jewish custom. I - like this President - am a friend of Israel’s. However, friends speak to friends candidly & honestly or they are not friends at all.)
5SHAREREPORT
SH-2000May 21, 2011
#1.3
comment author avatar
Totally agree. My wife has stated she won't vote for Obama and has been on the phone to numerous Jewish leaders today. I was on the fence about voting for Obama till he said this and now my vote is going to a Republican Candidate and it doesn't matter who he is.
He's made clear his policy towards Israel and the Jewish people who live there. The question is why?
Jason why indeed! WHY to you! President Obama is the AMERICAN president not the Israeli one. He speaks for the best interests of the United States not any other nation. When is a better question. When is Israel going to get serious about making peace with Palestine? Good faith shown, Palestine will follow...the world is weary of the nonsense between these two nations. The US should get tough and withhold all aid until BOTH Israel & Palestine become peaceful. One is NOT better than the other.
6SHAREREPORT
SH-2000May 21, 2011
#1.4
comment author avatar
Sorry stuck on quotes.
3SHAREREPORT
gatoralumMay 21, 2011
#1.5
comment author avatar
But God was great. He saw to it that not only the Jewish people didn't lose but also went on to capture territories from all fronts which it later annexed to be used as buffers against future attacks from the Muslims.
Not true. Israel has not annexed these territories. They are not considered, by Israel, to be part of Israel.
If the latest outrageous message put out by the White House (President Obama reversed US policy of supporting Israel to have sustainable borders and endorse the Palestinian proposal for Israel to give territories it captured during the 1967 back to the Palestinians and go back to its pre-1967 borders), was to be the harbinger of things to come, the Israelis can expect trouble.
Not true. The U.S. Policy has always been that Israel should withdraw from the west bank and Gaza in exchange for acceptance of its right to exist in its 1967 borders. Obama did not change any policy and he certainly did not endorse a Palestinian proposal. He stated the longstanding policy of the United States.
Due to affirmative and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt,
Great, the "affirmative action president" This is where I decry this clearly racist remark. Next we will get the whining about playing the race card, ignoring the obvious racism of referring to the President as a product of affirmative action, a ridiculously silly thing to say about a man who received more votes than any candidate before him.
2SHAREREPORT
Luther28May 20, 2011
#2
comment author avatar
I have been pro Israel for some time and certainly believe in a Jewish state, having said that I feel too much is being read into Mr Obama's recent comments. It is nothing more than a one notion thrown out there to perhaps nudge one or the other parties to the negotiating table and nothing more, but if rolling back to the 67 boundaries is what it will take to bring peace to the region then why not. The answer does not lay in digging in and both sides taking pot shots at one another but acceptance of one another, the present way of life is not sustainable for either party. And this may be a little payback for the stunt that Israel pulled on Biden hours prior to his visit.
Luther28May 20, 2011
#2.2
comment author avatar
Perhaps it is time to stop talking and sit down and do something. But I do agree it has been gone over and over.
2SHAREREPORT
usa1May 20, 2011
#3
comment author avatar
C
pre 1967 boundaries will not bring peace to that region. Perhaps maybe for a few months but inevitably there will always be war and violence there
Very sad situation and really no quick fix
5SHAREREPORT
SH-2000May 21, 2011
#3.1
comment author avatar
No fix because neither side is serious enough.
5SHAREREPORT
DarkdonnieMay 21, 2011
#3.2
comment author avatar
If the Arabs put down their guns there would be peace, If Israel did the same they would cease to exist!
6SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2May 23, 2011
#3.3
comment author avatar
Darkdonnie,
No, if the Arabs put down their guns Israel would say, "We have no credible partners to achieve peace with", crank up their remote control house crushing bulldozers, and flatten the rest of Arab held East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Fatah has tried negotiation for the past several years. And what did it earn them? More of East Jerusalem being turn over to Jewish citizens, increase settlement building in the West Bank, and a beautiful "Separation Wall" running thru the West Bank to create a defacto border.
Israel has nothing to gain from the Palestinians from negotiation. They are not willing to offer land swaps, right of return for refugees, or anything else (Palestine in control of it's own borders, ports, air space, or water rights.) So they are grabbing as much land as they can, and are defying the rest of the world to do anything about it. When they feel they have all of the best land, and have force the Palestinian population out from their side of the Wall, including Jerusalem, they will unilaterally declare their borders set. Leaving 2 small, separated, open air prisons for the Palestinians to live in.
C
3SHAREREPORT
Better CarefulMay 20, 2011
#4
comment author avatar
Let's be clear that there's a lot more to Israel and Israeli politics than its right-wing. Like here in the USA, or in Iran, or in the Egypt of old, Israel has a right-wing problem. The right-wing there likes their militarism, fascism, economic oppression, authoritarianism, and power just as much as the right-wing here, in Iran, or anywhere. That's who they are, that's what they do.
Just as here in the USA or Egypt or Iran or Pakistan, the nation and people will all benefit from moving away from fascism towards democracy and liberalism. President Obama offers a solution for stability and sustainability in the ME. In the end the only lasting authority is a moral authority. The right-wing in Israel, or anywhere else, exist in denial of
6SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 20, 2011
#5
comment author avatar
The negative reaction to the President's speech is obtuse but not surprising. Any explicit statement perceived to be admonishment toward Israel will be met with reflexive angst, even though nothing that the President said represented a radical departure from American policy, from the historic back and forth between Israel and it's enemies, or from what Israel itself proposed doing (yes, they offered to give back captured land).
Further, those spewing vitriol at the President also ignore the explicit support he gave to Israel's negotiation position. Netanyahu can walk away from negotiations if the Palestinian's do not explicitly recognize Israel's right to exist.
In reality, the President merely articulated that which is general American policy. The concept of 1967 borders is not as provocative as it sounds.
7SHAREREPORT
TheNavyChiefMay 20, 2011
#5.1
comment author avatar
dwillie - very true and it has been around for a long time. The European stance has long been to go back to the 67 boundries. Obama is just the first US President with the guts to say it!
8SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2May 20, 2011
#6
comment author avatar
dwillie
While I agree with most of your post, but you have to understand there are still those that call Jordan Palestine, and will never consider the 1967 borders even a starting point. The Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, and the West Bank are steps to establishing facts on the ground to preclude any negotiations.
Also, the EU has publicly stated the the Palestinians in the West Bank have met all of the needed criteria to establish statehood and declare it in the UN- which I believe is planned sometime in September if negotiations break down. Obama is moving his stance to match the EU.
As for the Palestinians recognizing Israel.... There needs to be simultaneous mutual recognition between both sides. The Israeli's only refer to Palestine as the occupied territories at best. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
But, this all might be mute if the UN votes to recognize Palestine and make them a member based on the 1967 borders. Then it will be left up to the UN Security Council to decide what efforts will be needed to make Israel comply. That is if the US is strong enough not to use it's veto power for a change in matters concerning Israel.
2SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 20, 2011
#6.1
comment author avatar
I do understand, Ronin, that the Palestinian side does not have clean hands and the President's speech reflected that. As for settlements, the President's proposal included land swaps and the overall structure mimics what Israel and the Palestinians were negotiating decades ago. I don't doubt that there are those on the Palestinian side with no intention of negotiating in good faith, but that shouldn't be an impediment to the President clearly expressing what has generally been long-standing American policy, particularly when it hasn't in any way compromised Israel's position.
If I remember correctly, the President in his speech also rejected the concept of UN recognition of Palestine as a state.
I think that your expressed concerns are reasonable, Ronin. But the President's detractors are merely reflexive in their blind criticism, with no consideration of the actual facts of long-standing American policy and history.
5SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2May 21, 2011
#6.2
comment author avatarC
dwillie
Unless the UN takes real action to fix the situation nothing will be resolved. Israel wants all of the large settlement blocks in the West Bank, and all of East Jerusalem. They are unwilling to negotiate on those points. Also, their "seperation wall" running thru the West Bank to encompass all of the larger settlement blocks will set a defacto border.
Land swaps are great in theory- just don't expect the Israeli's to give anything from their end without some major arm twisting.
I am not against the President on his stance with Israel. Something needs to be done. Israel is content to let things run as they are forever. Setting a real deadline might get something done, so long as we are willing to back it up (or at least abstain) in the UN Security Council.
3SHAREREPORT
TheNavyChiefMay 20, 2011
#7
comment author avatar
You know the question in the seed is Obama Israel's Friend? I say yes! A true friend will tell you when you are screwing up or acting badly and will feel secure enough in that friendship to be honest. Others will just try and placate you (every other American President before) so they can use that friendship just to get the Jewish vote.
7SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 20, 2011
#7.1
comment author avatar
Spot on right NavyChief.
5SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 20, 2011
#11
comment author avatar
I watched the speech yesterday with a group of guys, about half of the dozen present were Jewish, and the reaction to the "1967 borders" comment and other parts of the speech was profound.
These guys were suporters of Obama in 2008 and were pretty clear that they would not be in 2012.
The Jewish vote is only 2% of the electorate (using 2008 as a reference) but a significant shift in that block of votes could be a factor in some states in a close election.
I wonder if the desire to be an international figure of renown could have been a political misstep for Obama.
It will be interesting to hear what my Jewish friends and neighbors have to say about politics in the coming days.
Thanks for the article
7SHAREREPORT
TheNavyChiefMay 20, 2011
#11.1
comment author avatar
Robert - the problem is and perhaps your friends aren't aware is that this has been policy all along, Obama is just the first American President to actually say it out loud. He also gave Israel a clear out for further negotiations with Palestinians if Hamas doesn't clearly accept Israel as a State with the right to exist. What is wrong with that?
5SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 21, 2011
#11.2
comment author avatar
Chief
At least the Jewish members of the crew are well aware of what's what in Israel, Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. All have family of some type there and all have visited the region. They all support the reaction of Israel (Netanyahu) that the 67 borders are unacceptable.
If Japan and Russia decided that we should revert to our 1950 borders and give Alaska to Canada and Hawaii to Japan, would we readily agree?
You say it has been the policy all along. Whose policy? Certainly not the Israeli's policy I would guess.
6SHAREREPORT
usa1May 22, 2011
#11.3
comment author avatar
Actually what the president said of Israel, should not matter as with the Kural Islands in Russia that Japan is claiming. It is time for the US to butt out of affairs that do not directly concern the country. right now smoke screens and diversions from real domestic problems must be extinguished.
We can all get on the band wagon for the president or we can denounce and ridicule every thing the president does. Either extreme will only hurt the USA in the long run, only a realistic view of what is best for the USA without biased opinion will bring the USA back to a first rate country..
There are many problems right here in the USA and between the party of no, and those who can not see errors with current policies due to personal views and convictions either for or against Obama, are just as much the problem as any terrorist group.
Get over the thin skinned politics and bring the United back to the states.
2SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 20, 2011
#12
comment author avatar
What happens if he moves our borders back to pre War of 1812?????????????????
4SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 21, 2011
#12.2
comment author avatar
What no one has not a single one liner yet???
1SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 21, 2011
#12.4
comment author avatar
and if obama gets antoer 4 years we might as well say goodbye to our freedoms and our country. Remember his wife said she was FINALLY PROUD to be an american. Really after 50 years cuz who really cares how old the tv wife is. SAD!!!!!!!
2SHAREREPORT
DocPhilMay 20, 2011
#14
comment author avatar
Did anyone listen to the speech? The President restated American foreign policy that has been in place since 1967. He said that the USA wants Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders with SWAPS. The concept of swaps was one that was part of the original road map. The rest of the speech reiterated the American commitment to Israel and Israeli security. There was NO change in American policy. We are allowing the spin doctors on the right to control and change what the President said. Go back and listen to the speech. It was a reiteration of American foreign policy.
5SHAREREPORT
2 PREVIOUS REPLIES
KavikaMay 20, 2011
#14.3
comment author avatar
dwillie, agreed
3SHAREREPOR
4SHAREREPORT
CCArmMay 21, 2011
#14.5
comment author avatar
what's new eh Dwillie? The never miss a step, those ODS sufferers.
3SHAREREPORT
WILDWONDERFULMay 21, 2011
#14.6
comment author avatar
dwillie
So why is Israel upset
1SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 22, 2011
#14.7
comment author avatar
dwillie
I would expand on Wild's question, if I could...
If this is such an obvious decision why are the Israelis so adamantly opposed to it?
And a second question if I might, are U.S. interests in the Middle East in better shape with Israel as an ally or Palestine?
2SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 22, 2011
#14.8
comment author avatar
I didn't say it was an obvious decision, RIO, I said that the construct wasn't new. Israel's opposition lies in the details of what land gets swapped. Besides, there is no point at all in Israel agreeing to anything as long as there are no active negotiations and the other side has presented nothing they find compelling. No need to tip their hand toward anything different. There are plenty of reasons that Netanyahu would say no right now, many of them tactical.
The answer to your second question is obvious - Israel of course for a great many reasons. But this isn't just Israel vs. the Palestinians and I can't remember a time when allies completely agreed on everything. President Obama was clear in his speech that the United States was squarely in Israel's camp. But perpetual war isn't in anyone's interest (except the people who sell the weapons) and given the vast complexities of interrelationships throughout the reason, not to mention our continued dependence on fossil fuel, suggesting ways to get to the negotiation table is at the very least the responsible thing to do, even if such an overture is rejected.
There are also negotiating and other tactics at work here, relative to Netanyahu's upcoming speech before Congress. The Obama Administration, whether you agree with it or not, felt the need to be in front of that speech so that Netanyahu would not be able to insert something into any possible negotiation vacuum.
What President Obama put forth broke no significant new ground and It is disingenuous to attempt to claim otherwise. That goes for Netanyahu as well.
3SHAREREPORT
gatoralumMay 22, 2011
#14.9
comment author avatar
If it so obviously a wrong decision, why is it supported by the rest of the world?
1SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 22, 2011
#14.10
comment author avatar
gatoralum
I didn't say it was a wrong decision.
dwillie
Thanks for the feedback, you make good points.
I think that Netanyahu will reiterate before Congress that the 67 borders is not going to happen for a variety of reasons that he will elaborate on. I also agree with you that peace is a desirable situation in the Middle East, but since there hasn't been true peace there in many many years I do not think we should expect tranquility anytime soon.
2SHAREREPORT
gatoralumMay 22, 2011
#14.11
comment author avatar
Sorry. When you figure out what you think about the President's restatement of U.S. policy regarding the starting point for settlement in the region, post it and we can talk.
1SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 23, 2011
#14.12
comment author avatar
gatoralum
I am not an expert on middle east relations, let us establish that up front.
IMHO Israel is the most important ally that we have in the region and probably 2nd only to England as our most important ally overall.
I think that it is up to Israel to determine what they are willing to negotiate about with whom and that the U.S. should let them do it without presuming to establish the ground rules.
I know that other presidents/administrations have expressed this idea, but I still think it should be left up to the parties involved and the U.S. should worry about the U.S.
I also think the position taken of late will hurt the President in the 2012 election, but the number of Jewish voters is small so it is not a game changer.
2SHAREREPORT
DBE928May 21, 2011
#15
comment author avatar
Good post. I think Obama has been harmful to the U.S on domestic and foreign policy., to the allies of the US in Europe and Asia, and especially to Israel.
Experience counts and he didn't have any. It's now coming home to roost.
5SHAREREPORT
Jim-789449May 21, 2011
#16
comment author avatar
While obama may not be Muslim today, his sympathies lie there, that has been obvious from the start.
I have never understood why so many in America seem to hate the Jews; no one has ever given a concise and exacting reason.
Israel is a small nation that has struggled for centuries to be left alone and allowed to be a state, but the Arab countries only want to dismantle them and some want to kill all Jews.
No matter what a person believes about the Bible, God said that when Israel became a nation, they would never be under the rule of another again.
A study of Israel’s history and their fight to be independent will show that they must have some divine protection, that protection is not the U S; we have never been involved in their wars with the Arabs.
Israel has indeed taken a desert and turned it into a garden; they are second to none in cotton production and one of the three top countries for food exportation.
Israel’s history is nothing short of a miracle, they are outnumbered and surrounded on three sides by Muslim’s, have been in numerous wars with them and won every time.
In 1948 the Jewish Yishuv population was 650,000. Today, at the 60th anniversary it is 7,282.000.
Of them 75% are Jews, (5.5 million), 16.5 % are Muslims, 3.3 % are Druze and 2.1 % Christians.
5SHAREREPORT
Jim-789449May 21, 2011
#17
comment author avatar
Leaders of 14 Palestinian political parties including Fatah and Hamas announced a unity agreement in Cairo on Wednesday. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the Fatah party, joined Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh for the announcement.
Also present were Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi and United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Sperry.
“The pact provides for a transitional unity government of nonpartisan “technocrats” that will prepare for presidential and parliamentary elections next year. The new government will administer the Palestinian territories, while the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will continue to be in charge of international relations including peace talks with Israel.
The signing of the agreement on Tuesday and the ceremonial announcement Wednesday saw “all the Palestinian factions come together for the first time in four years,” al-Jazeera correspondent Nicole Johnston noted.
The agreement would end the split between the West Bank and Gaza which dates back to 2007. It is seen as a key step for the Palestinians in building international pressure on the Israeli government to come to terms with a Palestinian state. A next step is a request for full United Nations recognition of Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders. That request is expected to be taken up by the UN in September.”
With Obama calling for Israel to reset their boarders, he has put a wall between himself and them, Israel is now preparing for a possible war with Palestinians over the above meeting.
If the UN tries to enforce the pre-1967 boarders, there will be a war, based on his comments, we know where Obama stands, he has made comments about Israel’s bombing Palestine but said nothing about them bombing Israel.
Things are about to get very interesting, and if you believe the Bible or not, it says “God will curse all those who curse Israel”.
The Bible warns the destiny of the World is inseparable from Israel and Jerusalem.
God said;
"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of staggering to all the peoples round about, and it shall also be for Judah during the siege against Jerusalem. And on that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples: all that burden themselves with it shall be grievously hurt: and all the peoples of the earth shall be gathered together against it. On that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem?.And it shall come to pass on that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. Then shall the Lord go out, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle." Zechariah 12:2, 3, 8, 9; 14:3
“I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:2-3
3SHAREREPORT
DBE928May 21, 2011
#18
comment author avatar
Obama is not Israel's friend.
I don't know if it's due to his upbringing in Jeremiah Wright's church, or some other factors, but it is clear he does not understand or respect global geopolitics or the concepts of allies and enemies.
He also must not read Palestinian media translations from Arabic, in which they continue to spew hate of Jews and Israel and vow to destroy Israel no matter what agreements are put on paper
5SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 21, 2011
#19
comment author avatar
is it this easy to rattle the cages???????
1SHAREREPORT
chloe.May 22, 2011
#20
comment author avatar
go back to its pre-1967 borders), was to be the harbinger of things to come, the Israelis can expect trouble. Big trouble. It will be a suicide for Israel to give up its water, farmlands and land mass to accommodate its increased population. It's impossible to uproot millions, economically, physically and politically. It's irreversible, whatever the reasons. And, if I am not mistaken, this scenario was never part of their plans for the future of the Jewish state.
I've come to see that as a very true and logical statement. Admittedly, I originally wanted to see Israel relinquish the land, but now I see it would be a literal suicide to do so. ..Very nice article.
4SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilApr 8, 2013
#21
comment author avatar
Thanks for your comments o my less-than-perfect article . I also like to point out, I was not a born hater of President Obama. In fact this was an old article; when I looked at my article again today with the intention to only correcting any misspellings that I may find, but when I saw so many comments, I felt like I needed to say something. If you must know, I might have changed my view of the president. I even supported his reelection in November.
0SHARE
SyriaInTurmoilDec 8, 2013
#22
comment author avatar
But the fact remains, President Obama's not the Jewish people's friend. Never been. In a way what President Obama did was nothing secret or bewildering. He just continued with his efforts to reach out to the Muslim world he promised when starting his first term as president. He wanted to atone for cruety and injustice perpetrated by previous administrations on innocent Muslims, he said, because of the World Trade Center bombing. What he meant probably was that just because of one bombing, America punished the whole world. He wanted to correct that. Hence, all the president actions throughout his being president of the U.S. were guided by this desire to do good for the Muslims or Islam. Helping the Palestinians to force the Israelis back to the pre-1967 border was exactly part of that. While many posts on this discussion put forward their arguments that what Obama wanted was what the U.S. wanted all along - to shield the president, what Obama did was still uncalled for. Even if there was this policy (for a reason), there 's no harm (to the Israel) unless and until it's enforced. Before this it's effectively frozen deep in Alaska and that's where it will be it seemed, until ...Obama came along. I doubt, very much doubt, that President Obama was guided by this back-burnered-and-forgotten so-called existing policy - but his desire to help help his ancestors' religion. There were recent reports of moves to ban the covering of faces in England. It's still at committee's stage. But the fact that the British government, itself quite dhimmitude in my view, came up with the idea meant that they are waking up to the danger of being too nice to the Muslims (until they climb all over your heads, so to speak). But this scenario, if it led to anything or put on back burner, again, it would never see daylight here in Uncle Sam's place as long as Obama and his subordinates are in charge. Heard tell, Eric Holder has been warning Americans - white Americans - to stay away from criticizing the Muslims.
Before anyone jumps up to flay me, listen to this. Israel should not depend on Obama's decency to keep his promise to help defend the Jewish state. So far Obama's promise was not kept in Libya and Egypt. He callously left Mubarak to contend with prosecution and humiliation although he stepped down (at the request of Obama) peacefully. When Col. Gaddafi was chased into rat-filled concrete drains he was not arrested and brought to justice for his crime against humanity in International court as President Obama promised. Instead Qaddafi was killed extra judicially by the rebels who won because of NATO extensive bombing, courtesy of president Obama. While Obama didn't jump with joy on hearing the news that Qaddafi was executed extrajudicial style, he didn't criticize the guilty rebels. His cahoot in England at Number 10, however, jumped with joy on hearing the news of the leader's death. So...Israel beware!
0SHARE
[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/20/6680682-obama-israels-friend]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
And the loser is...James Durbin!
By David Rubin Lang
Fri May 13, 2011 11:31 PM
entertainmentjennifer-lopezrandy-jacksonsteven-tyleramerican-idolsshocking-last-three
DISCUSS: 2 1 !
Why James Durbin was eliminated from the American Idol competition? While it's up to the American voters to choose who continues to get a shot at fame and fortune, I know why and, like the American pop-star-in-the-making James, I am ready to assign blame. And, correct me if I'm wrong, I think Jennifer Lopez deserves much of the credit for being the cause of the ouster of Durbin, who ironically was all but..earmarked by her to be the next American idol.
Both she and Jackson seem to be in cahoots to ensure that James Durbin marches towards the American Idol crown not only through his own efforts and talents (which actually are not lacking at all), but also judges' comments. You see, most times, if not every time, after Haley finished her singing and turned to the judges for kindness and help which would go a long in helping her, especially at this critical stage, the two judges seemed to prime her for the guillotine. While they may be innocent of the blame I assign squarely on them (they might just innocently wanted to help their favorite contestant), but their actions spoke loud and clear -- it will not be a big loss (to them) if Haley was eliminated. But Haley was not only not eliminated, she was the safest of all after the nation-wide vote. The apt word for what transpired was: backfire.
The judges should not forget that, at this later stage in the competition, they have no say in determining the winner; so the less they comment (especially the words by Jackson that he considered what Haley sang her heart as shouting at the top of her voice..and Lopez proudly announced that James had just created a bar that's just too high for her...judging by the song that she had just delivered) the better for all contestant, favorite or not. They should know better. In fact, helpful and kind words (the trademarks of Steven Tyler) never hurt anybody. This is not to say that James' misfortune became Haley's gain. Definitely no! Haley deserved what she got so far. Her beauty, especially her innocent bubbly smile, no doubt gave her an edge, but actually it's her singing prowess that had propelled her this far. It's still premature to speculate if she's good enough to be the winner of the American Idols crown.
Who knows, if James Durbin would still be in the show if not for the two judges' open rooting for him which could have put off some viewers.
However, to be fair, to both Randy Jackson or Jennifer Lopez, I admit that I've no hard evidence about the whole conspiracy thing. I just speculate based on what I heard and observed. I stand corrected.
But one thing is certain, one of the remaining three contestants will make it and laugh all the way to the bank.For the rest of the idol aspirants, especially those among the top twenty, I am sure they will think of something. Losing the competition doesn't mean the end of anything, least of all their singing careers. In the end, there will be only one winner. Not everyone can win. They lost not because they lacked talents. It was mainly a matter of song choices. Not singing.
And who knows, at the end of the day, they could also make it (in their chosen industry)?
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
2 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
bratcat-1305218May 16, 2011
#1
comment author avatar
heres an idea, what if the people voted for who they think that should leave the show instead of voting for their favorites. i am sure the outcome would turn out totally different.
[[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/14/6641360-and-the-loser-isjames-durbin]]
0SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilSep 12, 2013
#2
comment author avatar
I reserve my comment at this stage. May be next time.
0SHARE
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
A tit for tat
By David Rubin Lang
Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:12 PM
politicsghadaffian-eye-for-an-eyeuss-aircraft-carrier-george-washingtonbig-ben-eiffel-tower-of-paris
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here ..
.It seems when Col. Gadaffi promised President George
Bush he'd give up WMD and terrorism, he meant
literally.
After having endured blows after blows from those he
thought were friends until the Obama doctrine started to
destabilize the whole of the Middle East, people could
forgive him if he wanted to send agents to sink the US
ultimate aircraft carrier USS George Washington;
or (how about?) bringing down the Eiffel Tower of
Paris and sending tourists running helter-skelter to put
paid to France's tourism industry, as well as sending
President Sarkozy a clear message that his scheme to
reverse his political fortune will be futile, ill-
advised by Zionist the "rock-star" philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, known to the French
media simply as BHL; or remove both hands of the
Big Ben so that the adhan call to pray fails to ring
out over London leading Muslims to miss their
religious duties, and in turn drive them out to the
streets in anger to chant "The People want Her Majesty's
government to fall;" or dynamite the Rome's Coliseum preferably
when there are gladiators fighting for their lives
inside (to goad the remaining gladiators to demand that
the wicked government leaders, especially the Italian
foreign minister Fernando Frattini, face them in the
fight to the death); or call on Qatar and UAE rulers to
not forget they are next, and last but not least, send a
few Algerian students to remove the wheels of the
Air force One boeing 747, to give a last warning to
Obama to show his real birth
certificate or else....Even though Ghadaffi called
him a son and wished him luck for his reelection comes 2012,
imploring him to use is power to order the NATO planes
to stop bombing his troops on the ground, Obama didn't
or couldn't oblige as he was not very much himself
then.
[]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Ghadaffi's troubles started after he's perceived as a spent force; not dangerous!
By David Rubin Lang
Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:08 AM
bushnewoverpoliticspresidentsuccessorabyturnmiraclesbushsleafbetrayedghaddafiadvised
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here
The words or phrases that the West have been relying on to pull wool over people's eyes have become
..cliches. Cliches are stereotyped expressions that have lost originality and impact by long overuse, as "Our mission is to protect civilians... the no-fly zone and all necessary measures are to protect civilians... Qaddafi must go.. Qaddafi had to go...he has lost legitimacy to lead... he turned on his people, remember?.. we had to act, if not thousands of innocent civilians will be slaughtered.. thirty civilians killed by Qaddafi forces today, according a rebel fighter...forty..fifty civilians killed by Pro-Qaddafi forces, reported by Stephanie Gosk according to the rebel fighters... according to rebel spokesman.. according to rebel fighters..Qaddafi's inner circle is deserting him... Qaddafi forces moving toward east. Pro-Qaddafi forces... racing toward Benghazi...the rebel fighters on the run...we will not talk unless Qaddafi steps down...all options on the table --by Obama... I won't rule out or rule in giving arms to the rebels..."
Most, if not all, have been uttered or written not more than 10 times per day; so you can imagine how overused they have become. They have not only become hackneyed,they have started to reflect badly on the credibility and righteousness of the three western powers' (the US, Britain and France) leaders'--warped sense of morality ("We can't just sit on our hands and watch by while a tyrant turned his guns on his own people. What
if he were to actually carry out his threat to show no mercy? The world's conscience would be stained and the U.S. government would blamed for turning a blind eye").. While on the subject of morality, or moral high ground, how about calling a spade a spade, for a change?
The word rebels doesn't mean civilians, nor civilians equal rebels. These are two different, separate things. Nothing ambiguous or unambiguous about them. Until they come out and call a spade a spade, they have no moral right to do what they are doing, even with the UN resolution (which was called flawed and medieval by many world leaders who refused to take part in it).
If the purpose in having the no-fly zone was to protect civilians, they should immediately stop bombing Qaddafi forces as there are no reports of him targeting or killing innocent civilians. Qaddafi has said innocent civilians (those who aren't armed to the teeth or rebellious) are free to leave or stay. I believe him because as things stand, it would not be in his interest to even be seen as going against his own people -- whether by words or perception -- let alone deliberately killing civilians. According to Stephanie Gosk, the civilians of Benghazi are becoming nervous that pro-Qaddafi forces may again try to overrun the second largest city of Libya again; they apparently are nervous because of perception -- everyone knows Benghazi was always a thorn in the flesh for Qaddafi for a long time. (But if he really wanted to punish them for exporting Islamic fighters to Iraq and other places without his permission, he could have done it earlier when there was no state-of-art- fighters and bombers bombing the hell out of his ground forces.
At the end of the day, this much touted moral cause to do good was flawed, medieval and unacceptable. The sooner the leaders of NATO undo this injustice the better for the world and their own conscience.
What right do they have to impose democracy on other countries, failing which they rained down hundreds of bombs and missiles on a tiny country, which was no match for even one of the three nuclear powers.This was a clear case of abuse of power; a clear case of disproportionate use of force; a clear case of double stand, and blatant case of crime against humanity.
Although the British and the French leaders may look like they are spoiling for the fight, they were not
solely to blame for the carnage in Libya. The whole thing was planned, funded and implemented by the Obama administration. It all started when Barrack Hussein Obama got elected as president of the United States. The world not have to witness so many lives lost if not for Obama's Cairo speech. The Middle East would be peaceful, albeit far from perfect. President Mubarak would continue to helm Egypt, and act as a moderating force and leadership to the Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood could not do as they please (and that's to pursue, permeate and pulverize, to prevail over western societies).There was absolutely no pressing reason or rational for the Libyan people, even young Libyans, to topple their government, and probably wouldn't have happened if not for what happened earlier at Tahrir Square. It was said by fair-minded analysts that Libyans enjoyed the best education in the Middle East and North Africa. One sore point for other Arab leaders, who were viewed in less favorable light in comparison. And his so-called plan to unite all Arab states and some African countries into a loose federation with him
as its first head which didn't go down well with other proud leaders, was another. Since then King Abdullah, especially, became his nemesis. One thing led to another, and Qhaddaffi ended up ostracized by fellow Arab leaders, but remained popular among Africans because he generously used oil money to help develop Africa. But by far, the worst mistake he ever was, to turn over a new leaf and renounced violence. He became not dangerous or less dangerous. He probably wishes now he didn't listen to Bush. It might be good for America without having to deal with another Iran or second Iran, if you will.But for Qaddafi, he definitely had Bush to thank for his present predicament.If only he could turn the clock
back, he would never listen to President Bush again. If only he didn't allow his once 400-aircraft Air Force to deteriorate to less than a hundred aging fighters and bombers. If only he remained dangerous -- he wouldn't be in this corner. If only he realized back then that George W. Bush would not be president for life. When a new man occupied the White-house, you can bet your last dollar, he would do something different. He could bomb you in your "tent!" But the good news (for Qaddafi) is: if he really keeps his word to President Bush, he has nothing to worry. Miracles will protect
him. Trust me. I know. People may laugh at me. Qaddafi may laugh at me. I say don't. For if not for miracles, I'd have been long gone already. I have often read or heard about cars or trucks or lorries running over people. Most, if not all, reports were about deaths not injuries. Reports of injuries would not make it into newspapers -- unless it's about a famous celebrity or a VIP. "...a marketing executive Julia Decruss was crushed to death by a car yesterday..." (pic) was typical of such reports. In my case, I was crashed from behind by one one-ton run-away lorry which pushed me against a
solid-steel front gate of a house with a bone-crushing sound, which could be heard many doors away. The gate which had two frames (each heavy enough to be carried by four men) was flung open like a Cowboy town saloon swing door; the right frame which was secured by a three-inch long iron rod stuck in the cement floor was lifted up more than 3 inches to clear the hole. With me (bone and flesh) sandwiched between
the hard bumper of the lorry and solid steel gate, I thought I was a goner, but lived. Of course, it's miracles that had snatched me from the jaws of death
then.
When you get run over by a car -- let alone a lorry -- expect the worst.
Do you believe in miracles (an event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a divine or supernatural cause)? You should. May be you will after reading about my experience. Even the current Pope believes in miracles. When on a visit to England, and during a personal moment with the then prime minister Tony Blair, he commented: "It seems miracles
are hard to come by in England nowadays," alluding to the carnage and destruction that had befallen Britain of late as a result of the London bombings. The prime minister could only nod in silence.
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Who's Keith Maurice Ellison anyway?
By David Rubin Lang
Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:09 AM
religionobamatrue-muslimmuslim-broterhoodkeith-maurice-ellisonambiguous-name-muslim-countries-tradition
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here ...While researching for an article I was writing, I stumbled on a Youtube video of President Obama's speech extolling the virtue of a fellow African-American Muslim, who has acted in exemplary manner, he said, in refusing to place his hand on anything except the Holy Koran while taking his oath to become the Congressman for Minnesota. Obama's so full of praise for this man that he almost sounded like he was speaking at an election campaign rally, shouting to drive the message home. Although he omitted the House Representative's name, for some reason, my suspicion fell on the Representative for DFL-Minnesota Keith Ellison. I could recall vividly how this Congressman shamelessly cried while testifying at the Peter King Congressional hearing to investigate the worrying radicalization of American Muslims. Of course, he slammed Congressman Peter King for tarring the whole Muslim community together and in the same way with Islamic militants, while at the same time profusely praised Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a Pakistani-born Muslim American who Congressman Keith Ellison said gave his life for fellow Americans, and yet was accused of being in cahoots with the Islamic militants who brought down the World Trade Center. We all also know it was the Muslim Brotherhood who asked Obama to insisted they be included in any deal or discussion to determine Egypt's political future, not to mention also paid for Ellison's haj.
But I digress.
Sometimes I wonder, why House of Representatives' Keith Maurice Ellison continues or prefers to be known by a Christian-sounding name despite having converted to Islam? For convenience's sake? Or what's he up to? I have no doubt whatsoever that this man is proud to be a Muslim, judging by how passionately he defended his fellow Muslims or his Muslim community; why then he chose to be practicing ambiguity as regards his faith. Although I respect his right to choose any name he wishes, but non-believers like me prefer he be unambiguous about whether he's Muslim; so that we can be on our appropriate behavior (like to not consume pork in his presence) and show sensitivity to his religion.
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet. C
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Who's actually Keith Ellison?
By David Rubin Lang
Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:22 AM
religioncongressional-hearingpeter-kingradicalization-of-american-muslimskeith-ellison-criedmuslim-name
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here ...While doing some research for an article I was writing, I stumbled on a video of President Obama's speech extolling the virtue of a fellow African-American Muslim, who's the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, for agreeing to pledge loyalty to the American constitution only on the Holy Koran, and refused to swear on anything else. Although Obama, deliberately or otherwise, omitted the name of the Congressman concerned, my suspicion fell on the famous, or shall we say, infamous, Congressman Keith Ellison, who cried at the Congressional Hearing to probe the worrying radicalization of American Muslims.
David Rubin Lang (DONE AND DUSTED)
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
NATO's Dilemma
By David Rubin Lang
Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:14 AM
pakistantalibannatoworld-newsmujahideensafghanistan-no-libyaeventual-defeat
DISCUSS: 0 1 !
But like everything or everyone else, it
has its underbelly.Its weakness spot is when fighting terrorism; it can be
bombarded or shot at from all sides but cannot fight back effectively.It cannot
employ air superiority; it cannot carpet bomb its enemies who mostly lurk among
the local population without hitting innocent civilians.
Should NATO be
disbanded?
NATO was founded
in 1949 - with the aim to forestall the Warsaw Pact rival
organization.
After the demise of the USSR and, by extentsion the Warsaw
Pact, it was presumed NATO had lost the reason to continue to exist and therefor should disband.
But it didn't.
It's not hard to see why? Though the cold war was history,
the resurgent Russia under Putin had found an appetite to to relive its former
glory.
With much of its nuclear arsenal and intercontinental ballistic
missile systems, not mention its research and development for advanced weapons,
largely intact, NATO planners and its members decided NATO was still needed.
When its rival Warsaw Pact closed shop, NATO didn't follow suit; so that's how
or why it continues to function, regardless.
It has since broadened its
roles from containment of Warsaw Pact forces to being used as the US tool to
project American power far and wide.
With spending of more than 70% of
the world's total arms and defense spending, NATO is a formidable defense
pact.
It has the most modern devastating nuclear weapons; it's led by the
US, the world's sole super power, which ironically alone can take on any enemy,
big or small, nuclear-armed or not, and wins; it has and can manufacture
state-of-the-art fighters and bombers (which it deployed with devastating
effect in Libyan air campaign; in short, NATO, in a conventional wars, is
unstoppable.
It has in fact become so powerful that it has commanded to
the happy people of internet protocol that its name be treated with case
sensitiveness; you have to write NATO (all capital letters) or the browsers
will correct it for you, see!
If NATO makes a
mistake which is inevitable, like mistakenly killing the 24 Pakistani soldiers,
there are prices to pay.
It's still early to speculate what will happen as
a result of loss of lives suffered by Pakistan, but if past events are any
indications, NATO and the US, especially the US, will have to pay a heavy
price.
When a CIA agent shot dead three Pakistanis a few months ago,
apparently in self-defense as he's being robbed (or felt being robbed), the
whole country took to the streets to protest. The Pakistan government lost no
time in closing its borders with Afghanistan, barring hundreds, if not
thousands, of trucks transporting supplies to the war fronts in Afghanistan from
passing through them.
No amount of apologies could move the Pakistani
leaders to reconsider, and that was after only two deaths, not 24!
And
just when it has just wound down its air campaign against Libya and celebrated,
after successfully disposing of Col. Qaddafi - thereby stamping its mark as the
military organization that could subdue any leader or country that dares to
challenge it, this had to happen! It forgot one thing, though. Afghanistan or
Pakistan is no Libya. The terrain are different. In the desert with sparse
population bombing or strafing could be effective; in the porous borders
between Afghanistan and Pakistan region, with forest cover, it's different. You
can hit with airstrikes but you don't know whom you're hitting.
Despite
the advancement in guidance systems, accidents can still happen resulting in
loss of lives.C
The war against the Taliban must go on; but we still need
the Pakistanis to be on our side.
This is the dilemma for NATO.
It
had unfortunately brought them down to earth after heady days of easy victory
over Libya. It dawned on them that they are not the master of the universe
after all.
While they are not yet staring at defeat at the hands of the
Talibans, they should face heavens in silent prayer in celestial thanks that
they are not, yet. But this fight will zap them, weaken them until they accept
defeat. For no one, no one, has ever won in a fight with the Mujahideens. In fact
this is the only place where the British got routed. The only blot on the
proud name of the colonial GB which ruled most of the world. The Soviet Union -
though at its height - was dealt with the same way: routed!
Despite its
might and led by the world's only super power with unique capabilities
(according to President Obama), NATO could be next - if not by the sheer
ferociousness of the Mujahideens, then perhaps by their own weariness.
Do you wish to know more?
[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/27/9045633-natos-dilemma]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
The Muslim Brotherhood will rule in Libya, Egypt, everywhere including possibily in America, eventually.
By David Rubin Lang
Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:32 PM
politicsmuslim-brotherhoodrulesisraeli-embassy-breached-effortlesslyunseen-hands
DISCUSS: !
Libya will end up a Muslim fundamentalist state ruled through sharia law, as widely feared.
At best, it becomes another Egypt.
Much earlier when the battles were even between both sides, many people were concerned we didn't know much about whom we decided to throw our lot behind. We wondered what form of government would rule the country when the rebels achieved total victory? But we didn't have to wait that final victory; some rebel leaders or commanders have often voiced out their aspiration to rule and be ruled through sharia law, no less no more, even though they have yet to defeat Qaddafi and his loyalist forces.
Even in this report we are discussing, some important former rebel leaders, including the #1 man himself (Abdul Jalil) said Libya's new laws will be souced from sharia.
I am not one bit surprised by this turn of event. I had often in the past months read about reports of people questioning the wisdom in supporting a group who were AlQaeda fighters who previously fought against our soldiers in Iraq, but many analysts who supported President Obama's election, including Pentagon officials vigorously downplayed that danger, only saying there was no sign of wide-scale infiltration by AlQaeda./div>
It snuffed out whatever a likelihood of Hamas agreeing to eventually compromise on its rigid position. In a way it destroyed any chance of peace between the Palestinians and the Jews. There's no more reasons for them to be flexible -- which is the key to any negotiation. Now the Palestinians want far more than they originally demanded, and which in turn hardens the Israeli position. Now the gap between the two sides have become too wide to be narrowed.
Although these liberal people have been proven wrong, they should not be blamed squarely alone as they apparently couldn't do anything they had to follow orders.
Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who at first balked at the Us intervening Libya, had to toe the line.
As everyone knows, when he went to give his speech in Cairo, he saw ot it that the Muslim Brotherhood was invited to be among the audience! And Mubarak had to eat humble pie! Not only that, he orchestrated the removal of the Egyptian president who ironically was the only one to stand in their way. Can you believe it, at the height of the uprising by the Tahrir square demonstrators to topple Mubarak, Obama began pushing openly for the Muslim Brotherhood to be included in every consultation, deliberations to forge a new Egypt. That was all the MB needed from President Obama.
The only thing that stands in their way now is the military council that rules Egypt after Mubarak. It will be a matter of time, at least that's what they believe, before they rule Egypt through Sharia.
Meanwhile they behave cautously, trying to avoid creating the scenarios when people would say, "I told you so." (That won't help their cause).
When the Israeli embassy was stormed, our pathetic western press (through a reporter) claimed to hear from a man who was involved in over-running the embassy to say the Muslim Brotherhood didn't want to get involved and didn't. "Come on! Did you think this was not their work?! The reporter must be a moron or a liberal! Of course, they must be the ones organizing it as they stand to benefit from it, but used a neat way to do it. Have you heard what they have been saying about Egypt vis-a-vis Israel lately? We call people like them: unseen hands.
I know many liberal people or Obama supporters will slam me; I am sorry, but it has to be done.
But I don't want people to simply take my words for it; do your own checking. For a start simply type: "Is Obama a Muslim or MUslim sympathizer?"
Do you wish to know more?[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/13/7736825-the-muslim-brotherhood-will-rule-in-libya-egypt-everywhere-including-possibily-in-america-eventually]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Obama Israel's Friend?
By David Rubin Lang
Fri May 20, 2011 1:38 AM
politicsisraelpresident-obamahamaspalestiniansunfair1967-warright-to-exist
DISCUSS: 67 16 !
During his campaign against Hillary Clinton in the primaries for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barrack Obama had to do the right thing (standby and guarantee the safety of Israel) or he wouldn't get to become president. A good analogy is to compare the ubiquitous pledge by all US presidents to defend Israel to the political correctness of American politics today.
No right thinking American president will go against the Jewish state or be seen as doing anything against the interests of Israel. That's central to American foreign policy in the Middle East and Israel, being closest American ally living on the ground among Arabs, proved to be a valuable partner (providing eyes and ears for uncle Sam). By defending Israel -- the only successful democracy in the Middle East -- the US dampens the Palestinians' appetite for aggression against the Jews and nudges them towards peace. Although Hamas still insists in pursuing the destruction of the Jewish state, it's constrained by the disunity among the Palestinians to really be a force to be reckoned with.
The status quo will be welcome by Israel, even though it's a nation that yearns for peace; so that it can have enough time to develop its economy and defense industry to the point that it can single-handedly deter the Muslims. And so far so good, as far as defense is concerned; big emerging powers like India and China found to their advantage to make a beeline for Israel, attracted to its honey of state-of-the-art weapon systems that only the country of God's favorite children can come up with.
Israel's success -- in turning the non-arable desert into profusely productive farmlands; invented guns that can shoot around corners without being seen, and perfected a system, called the Steel Dome that was designed to stop or deter the cross-border shelling from the Palestinian side -- was not achieved due to divine intervention alone; the US was there as a protective umbrella , like it had been to the then defeated Japan and Germany, providing the peace and stability for the Israelis to succeed.. Israel is so much bigger thanks to the return of Diaspora from around the world, namely Russia. To the Jews, size matters. When it went to wars against the Arabs in the 60s, 70s, 80s, up to 90s, it took a big risks. It didn't have the math vis-a-vis the Arabs Muslims. It was alone against the entire army of 13 Arab countries. The world held its breath for the duration of the 1967 war; Israel had only to lose this fight in order to lose everything. Literally. The Arabs was so confident they almost tasted victory already, and they had reason to be. Egypt alone, speaking of army and air force, was stronger than Israel. And Syria, Jordan and Lebanon -- other main fronts, not to mention other nine countries -- also had a combined army and air force that dwarfed the Israeli total armed forces.
But God was great. He saw to it that not only the Jewish people didn't lose but also went on to capture territories from all fronts which it later annexed to be used as buffers against future attacks from the Muslims.
If the latest outrageous message put out by the White House (President Obama reversed US policy of supporting Israel to have sustainable borders and endorse the Palestinian proposal for Israel to give territories it captured during the 1967 back to the Palestinians and go back to its pre-1967 borders), was to be the harbinger of things to come, the Israelis can expect trouble. Big trouble. It will be a suicide for Israel to give up its water, farmlands and land mass to accommodate its increased population. It's impossible to uproot millions, economically, physically and politically. It's irreversible, whatever the reasons. And, if I am not mistaken, this scenario was never part of their plans for the future of the Jewish state.
What Obama did was not, if you will, out of the blue or unexpected. He had been acting unfairly towards Israel for sometime now, and he knew it and Israeli leaders knew it; however, for President Obama to blatantly endorse a Palestinian state bounded the pre-1967 borders he could be said to be attempt to throw the Jewish state under the bus.
Sadly all has been lost, due to just one statement. One poorly thought-out statement, perhaps.
And with President Obama trying to reach out to the Muslims, again, and his seemingly morphing into a knight in shining armor for the Palestinians, it would be unrealistic to expect them to treat the Israelis as equal negotiation partner anymore, or to approach the negotiation as it used to when its position was weaker.
Now the Palestinians have united, which inevitably makes them stronger, and the weapons could very soon flow from Egypt into Gaza unrestrained, courtesy of Obama, again. All this would not have happened if Mubarak's still around. And all this would never have happened if Barrack Hussein Obama was not elected the 44th president of the United States. Due to affirmative action and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt, if you will. They're taken in by his oratory prowess (and bought his snake oil wholesale.
Either the American people are oblivious to what President Obama have been up to, or just couldn't care less, nobody knows. However, make no mistake, if Obama sticks to the course, America and Americans will suffer (much more than under President George W. Bush's watch).[]
67 comments in 1 conversation
CODE OF HONOR
To begin a conversation on this article, please join a Nation first.
To start a nation discussion, either:
Find and join a Nation via the NATION DIRECTORY
or START YOUR OWN NATION
Nation Discussions are above
This is where the action is. It’s where you want to be.
Newsvine Nations are self-organized groups of people having thoughtful discussions. Join up to 15 Nations or start your own.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
67 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
Jason BurnhamMay 20, 2011
#1
comment author avatar
Totally agree. My wife has stated she won't vote for Obama and has been on the phone to numerous Jewish leaders today. I was on the fence about voting for Obama till he said this and now my vote is going to a Republican Candidate and it doesn't matter who he is. He's made clear his policy towards Israel and the Jewish people who live there. The question is why?
9SHAREREPORT
CCArmMay 21, 2011
#1.1
comment author avatar
Due to affirmative and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt, if you will; they're taken in by his oratory..still are to this day.
This statement is total bull @!$%#ing shit. You can take PC and affirmative action and stick it where the sun don't shine. I voted for Obama because he is an intelligent, caring, pragmatic human being that is more qualified than dozens of our past presidents ever were.
Bush set back talks in the ME, he didn't do jack shit.
I am taken by President Obama's ACTIONS, all of which you with ODS ignore or falsely represent. lie about.
I was on the fence about voting for Obama till he said this and now my vote is going to a Republican Candidate
Seriously Jason? I think not.
7SHAREREPORT
Ptolemy-kMay 21, 2011
#1.2
comment author avatar
@ the author of this piece
Due to affirmative and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt, if you will; they're taken in by his oratory..still are to this day.
This is a patently offensive (&, I believe, intentionally) inflammatory statement. Furthermore, this & most of the assertions you make in this article are precisely the type of attitude that facilitated the creation of groups like Hamas & the PLO. Your position that negotiations (from the perspective of the Palestinians) should begin from a position of weakness is absurd & is not a viable starting point for real negotiations at all. (I will likely be authoring a direct rebuttal of this article to be posted later. You are welcome to read it if you wish.)
(FYI…my grandmother was a Jewish immigrant from the Ukraine; I, a few years ago, buried my mother in accordance with full Jewish custom. I - like this President - am a friend of Israel’s. However, friends speak to friends candidly & honestly or they are not friends at all.)
5SHAREREPORT
SH-2000May 21, 2011
#1.3
comment author avatar
Totally agree. My wife has stated she won't vote for Obama and has been on the phone to numerous Jewish leaders today. I was on the fence about voting for Obama till he said this and now my vote is going to a Republican Candidate and it doesn't matter who he is.
He's made clear his policy towards Israel and the Jewish people who live there. The question is why?
Jason why indeed! WHY to you! President Obama is the AMERICAN president not the Israeli one. He speaks for the best interests of the United States not any other nation. When is a better question. When is Israel going to get serious about making peace with Palestine? Good faith shown, Palestine will follow...the world is weary of the nonsense between these two nations. The US should get tough and withhold all aid until BOTH Israel & Palestine become peaceful. One is NOT better than the other.
6SHAREREPORT
SH-2000May 21, 2011
#1.4
comment author avatar
Sorry stuck on quotes.
3SHAREREPORT
gatoralumMay 21, 2011
#1.5
comment author avatar
But God was great. He saw to it that not only the Jewish people didn't lose but also went on to capture territories from all fronts which it later annexed to be used as buffers against future attacks from the Muslims.
Not true. Israel has not annexed these territories. They are not considered, by Israel, to be part of Israel.
If the latest outrageous message put out by the White House (President Obama reversed US policy of supporting Israel to have sustainable borders and endorse the Palestinian proposal for Israel to give territories it captured during the 1967 back to the Palestinians and go back to its pre-1967 borders), was to be the harbinger of things to come, the Israelis can expect trouble.
Not true. The U.S. Policy has always been that Israel should withdraw from the west bank and Gaza in exchange for acceptance of its right to exist in its 1967 borders. Obama did not change any policy and he certainly did not endorse a Palestinian proposal. He stated the longstanding policy of the United States.
Due to affirmative and political correctness reasons, the American voters thought they would give Obama a trial, the benefit of the doubt,
Great, the "affirmative action president" This is where I decry this clearly racist remark. Next we will get the whining about playing the race card, ignoring the obvious racism of referring to the President as a product of affirmative action, a ridiculously silly thing to say about a man who received more votes than any candidate before him.
2SHAREREPORT
Luther28May 20, 2011
#2
comment author avatar
I have been pro Israel for some time and certainly believe in a Jewish state, having said that I feel too much is being read into Mr Obama's recent comments. It is nothing more than a one notion thrown out there to perhaps nudge one or the other parties to the negotiating table and nothing more, but if rolling back to the 67 boundaries is what it will take to bring peace to the region then why not. The answer does not lay in digging in and both sides taking pot shots at one another but acceptance of one another, the present way of life is not sustainable for either party. And this may be a little payback for the stunt that Israel pulled on Biden hours prior to his visit.
Luther28May 20, 2011
#2.2
comment author avatar
Perhaps it is time to stop talking and sit down and do something. But I do agree it has been gone over and over.
2SHAREREPORT
usa1May 20, 2011
#3
comment author avatar
C
pre 1967 boundaries will not bring peace to that region. Perhaps maybe for a few months but inevitably there will always be war and violence there
Very sad situation and really no quick fix
5SHAREREPORT
SH-2000May 21, 2011
#3.1
comment author avatar
No fix because neither side is serious enough.
5SHAREREPORT
DarkdonnieMay 21, 2011
#3.2
comment author avatar
If the Arabs put down their guns there would be peace, If Israel did the same they would cease to exist!
6SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2May 23, 2011
#3.3
comment author avatar
Darkdonnie,
No, if the Arabs put down their guns Israel would say, "We have no credible partners to achieve peace with", crank up their remote control house crushing bulldozers, and flatten the rest of Arab held East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Fatah has tried negotiation for the past several years. And what did it earn them? More of East Jerusalem being turn over to Jewish citizens, increase settlement building in the West Bank, and a beautiful "Separation Wall" running thru the West Bank to create a defacto border.
Israel has nothing to gain from the Palestinians from negotiation. They are not willing to offer land swaps, right of return for refugees, or anything else (Palestine in control of it's own borders, ports, air space, or water rights.) So they are grabbing as much land as they can, and are defying the rest of the world to do anything about it. When they feel they have all of the best land, and have force the Palestinian population out from their side of the Wall, including Jerusalem, they will unilaterally declare their borders set. Leaving 2 small, separated, open air prisons for the Palestinians to live in.
C
3SHAREREPORT
Better CarefulMay 20, 2011
#4
comment author avatar
Let's be clear that there's a lot more to Israel and Israeli politics than its right-wing. Like here in the USA, or in Iran, or in the Egypt of old, Israel has a right-wing problem. The right-wing there likes their militarism, fascism, economic oppression, authoritarianism, and power just as much as the right-wing here, in Iran, or anywhere. That's who they are, that's what they do.
Just as here in the USA or Egypt or Iran or Pakistan, the nation and people will all benefit from moving away from fascism towards democracy and liberalism. President Obama offers a solution for stability and sustainability in the ME. In the end the only lasting authority is a moral authority. The right-wing in Israel, or anywhere else, exist in denial of
6SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 20, 2011
#5
comment author avatar
The negative reaction to the President's speech is obtuse but not surprising. Any explicit statement perceived to be admonishment toward Israel will be met with reflexive angst, even though nothing that the President said represented a radical departure from American policy, from the historic back and forth between Israel and it's enemies, or from what Israel itself proposed doing (yes, they offered to give back captured land).
Further, those spewing vitriol at the President also ignore the explicit support he gave to Israel's negotiation position. Netanyahu can walk away from negotiations if the Palestinian's do not explicitly recognize Israel's right to exist.
In reality, the President merely articulated that which is general American policy. The concept of 1967 borders is not as provocative as it sounds.
7SHAREREPORT
TheNavyChiefMay 20, 2011
#5.1
comment author avatar
dwillie - very true and it has been around for a long time. The European stance has long been to go back to the 67 boundries. Obama is just the first US President with the guts to say it!
8SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2May 20, 2011
#6
comment author avatar
dwillie
While I agree with most of your post, but you have to understand there are still those that call Jordan Palestine, and will never consider the 1967 borders even a starting point. The Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, and the West Bank are steps to establishing facts on the ground to preclude any negotiations.
Also, the EU has publicly stated the the Palestinians in the West Bank have met all of the needed criteria to establish statehood and declare it in the UN- which I believe is planned sometime in September if negotiations break down. Obama is moving his stance to match the EU.
As for the Palestinians recognizing Israell.... There needs to be simultaneous mutual recognition between both sides. The Israeli's only refer to Palestine as the occupied territories at best. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
But, this all might be mute if the UN votes to recognize Palestine and make them a member based on the 1967 borders. Then it will be left up to the UN Security Council to decide what efforts will be needed to make Israel comply. That is if the US is strong enough not to use it's veto power for a change in matters concerning Israel.
2SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 20, 2011
#6.1
comment author avatar
I do understand, Ronin, that the Palestinian side does not have clean hands and the President's speech reflected that. As for settlements, the President's proposal included land swaps and the overall structure mimics what Israel and the Palestinians were negotiating decades ago. I don't doubt that there are those on the Palestinian side with no intention of negotiating in good faith, but that shouldn't be an impediment to the President clearly expressing what has generally been long-standing American policy, particularly when it hasn't in any way compromised Isreal's position.
If I remember correctly, the President in his speech also rejected the concept of UN recognition of Palestine as a state.
I think that your expressed concerns are reasonable, Ronin. But the President's detractors are merely reflexive in their blind criticism, with no consideration of the actual facts of long-standing American policy and history.
5SHAREREPORT
Ronin-2May 21, 2011
#6.2
comment author avatarC
dwillie
Unless the UN takes real action to fix the situation nothing will be resolved. Israel wants all of the large settlement blocks in the West Bank, and all of East Jerusalem. They are unwilling to negotiate on those points. Also, their "separation wall" running thru the West Bank to encompass all of the larger settlement blocks will set a defacto border.
Land swaps are great in theory- just don't expect the Israeli's to give anything from their end without some major arm twisting.
I am not against the President on his stance with Israel. Something needs to be done. Israel is content to let things run as they are forever. Setting a real deadline might get something done, so long as we are willing to back it up (or at least abstain) in the UN Security Council.
3SHAREREPORT
TheNavyChiefMay 20, 2011
#7
comment author avatar
You know the question in the seed is Obama Israel's Friend? I say yes! A true friend will tell you when you are screwing up or acting badly and will feel secure enough in that friendship to be honest. Others will just try and placate you (every other American President before) so they can use that friendship just to get the Jewish vote.
7SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 20, 2011
#7.1
comment author avatar
Spot on right NavyChief.
5SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 20, 2011
#11
comment author avatar
I watched the speech yesterday with a group of guys, about half of the dozen present were Jewish, and the reaction to the "1967 borders" comment and other parts of the speech was profound.
These guys were suporters of Obama in 2008 and were pretty clear that they would not be in 2012.
The Jewish vote is only 2% of the electorate (using 2008 as a reference) but a significant shift in that block of votes could be a factor in some states in a close election.
I wonder if the desire to be an international figure of renown could have been a political misstep for Obama.
It will be interesting to hear what my Jewish friends and neighbors have to say about politics in the coming days.
Thanks for the article
7SHAREREPORT
TheNavyChiefMay 20, 2011
#11.1
comment author avatar
Robert - the problem is and perhaps your friends aren't aware is that this has been policy all along, Obama is just the first American President to actually say it out loud. He also gave Israel a clear out for further negotiations with Palestinians if Hamas doesn't clearly accept Israel as a State with the right to exist. What is wrong with that?
5SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 21, 2011
#11.2
comment author avatar
Chief
At least the Jewish members of the crew are well aware of what's what in Israel, Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. All have family of some type there and all have visited the region. They all support the reaction of Israel (Netanyahu) that the 67 borders are unacceptable.
If Japan and Russia decided that we should revert to our 1950 borders and give Alaska to Canada and Hawaii to Japan, would we readily agree?
You say it has been the policy all along. Whose policy? Certainly not the Israeli's policy I would guess.
6SHAREREPORT
usa1May 22, 2011
#11.3
comment author avatar
Actually what the president said of Israel, should not matter as with the Kural Islands in Russia that Japan is claiming. It is time for the US to butt out of affairs that do not directly concern the country. right now smoke screens and diversions from real domestic problems must be extinguished.
We can all get on the band wagon for the president or we can denounce and ridicule every thing the president does. Either extreme will only hurt the USA in the long run, only a realistic view of what is best for the USA without biased opinion will bring the USA back to a first rate country..
There are many problems right here in the USA and between the party of no, and those who can not see errors with current policies due to personal views and convictions either for or against Obama, are just as much the problem as any terrorist group.
Get over the thin skinned politics and bring the United back to the states.
2SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 20, 2011
#12
comment author avatar
What happens if he moves our borders back to pre War of 1812?????????????????
4SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 21, 2011
#12.2
comment author avatar
What no one has not a single one liner yet???
1SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 21, 2011
#12.4
comment author avatar
and if obama gets antoer 4 years we might as well say goodbye to our freedoms and our country. Remember his wife said she was FINALLY PROUD to be an american. Really after 50 years cuz who really cares how old the tv wife is. SAD!!!!!!!
2SHAREREPORT
DocPhilMay 20, 2011
#14
comment author avatar
Did anyone listen to the speech? The President restated American foreign policy that has been in place since 1967. He said that the USA wants Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders with SWAPS. The concept of swaps was one that was part of the original roadmap. The rest of the speech reiterated the American commitment to Israel and Israeli security. There was NO change in American policy. We are allowing the spin doctors on the right to control and change what the President said. Go back and listen to the speech. It was a reiteration of American foreign policy.
5SHAREREPORT
2 PREVIOUS REPLIES
KavikaMay 20, 2011
#14.3
comment author avatar
dwillie, agreed
3SHAREREPOR
4SHAREREPORT
CCArmMay 21, 2011
#14.5
comment author avatar
what's new eh Dwillie? The never miss a step, those ODS sufferers.
3SHAREREPORT
WILDWONDERFULMay 21, 2011
#14.6
comment author avatar
dwillie
So why is Israel upset
1SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 22, 2011
#14.7
comment author avatar
dwillie
I would expand on Wild's question, if I could...
If this is such an obvious decision why are the Israelis so adamantly opposed to it?
And a second question if I might, are U.S. interests in the Middle East in better shape with Israel as an ally or Palestine?
2SHAREREPORT
dwillieMay 22, 2011
#14.8
comment author avatar
I didn't say it was an obvious decision, RIO, I said that the construct wasn't new. Israel's opposition lies in the details of what land gets swapped. Besides, there is no point at all in Israel agreeing to anything as long as there are no active negotiations and the other side has presented nothing they find compelling. No need to tip their hand toward anything different. There are plenty of reasons that Netanyahu would say no right now, many of them tactical.
The answer to your second question is obvious - Israel of course for a great many reasons. But this isn't just Israel vs. the Palestinians and I can't remember a time when allies completely agreed on everything. President Obama was clear in his speech that the United States was squarely in Israel's camp. But perpetual war isn't in anyone's interest (except the people who sell the weapons) and given the vast complexities of interrelationships throughout the reason, not to mention our continued dependence on fossil fuel, suggesting ways to get to the negotiation table is at the very least the responsible thing to do, even if such an overture is rejected.
There are also negotiating and other tactics at work here, relative to Netanyahu's upcoming speech before Congress. The Obama Administration, whether you agree with it or not, felt the need to be in front of that speech so that Netanyahu would not be able to insert something into any possible negotiation vacuum.
What President Obama put forth broke no significant new ground and It is disingenuous to attempt to claim otherwise. That goes for Netanyahu as well.
3SHAREREPORT
gatoralumMay 22, 2011
#14.9
comment author avatar
If it so obviously a wrong decision, why is it supported by the rest of the world?
1SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 22, 2011
#14.10
comment author avatar
gatoralum
I didn't say it was a wrong decision.
dwillie
Thanks for the feedback, you make good points.
I think that Netanyahu will reiterate before Congress that the 67 borders is not going to happen for a variety of reasons that he will elaborate on. I also agree with you that peace is a desirable situation in the Middle East, but since there hasn't been true peace there in many many years I do not think we should expect tranquility anytime soon.
2SHAREREPORT
gatoralumMay 22, 2011
#14.11
comment author avatar
Sorry. When you figure out what you think about the President's restatement of U.S. policy regarding the starting point for settlement in the region, post it and we can talk.
1SHAREREPORT
Robert in OhioMay 23, 2011
#14.12
comment author avatar
gatoralum
I am not an expert on middle east relations, let us establish that up front.
IMHO Israel is the most important ally that we have in the region and probably 2nd only to England as our most important ally overall.
I think that it is up to Israel to determine what they are willing to negotiate about with whom and that the U.S. should let them do it without presuming to establish the ground rules.
I know that other presidents/administrations have expressed this idea, but I still think it should be left up to the parties involved and the U.S. should worry about the U.S.
I also think the position taken of late will hurt the President in the 2012 election, but the number of Jewish voters is small so it is not a game changer.
2SHAREREPORT
DBE928May 21, 2011
#15
comment author avatar
Good post. I think Obama has been harmful to the U.S on domestic and foreign policy., to the allies of the US in Europe and Asia, and especially to Israel.
Experience counts and he didn't have any. It's now coming home to roost.
5SHAREREPORT
Jim-789449May 21, 2011
#16
comment author avatar
While obama may not be Muslim today, his sympathies lie there, that has been obvious from the start.
I have never understood why so many in America seem to hate the Jews; no one has ever given a concise and exacting reason.
Israel is a small nation that has struggled for centuries to be left alone and allowed to be a state, but the Arab countries only want to dismantle them and some want to kill all Jews.
No matter what a person believes about the Bible, God said that when Israel became a nation, they would never be under the rule of another again.
A study of Israel’s history and their fight to be independent will show that they must have some divine protection, that protection is not the U S; we have never been involved in their wars with the Arabs.
Israel has indeed taken a desert and turned it into a garden; they are second to none in cotton production and one of the three top countries for food exportation.
Israel’s history is nothing short of a miracle, they are outnumbered and surrounded on three sides by Muslim’s, have been in numerous wars with them and won every time.
In 1948 the Jewish Yishuv population was 650,000. Today, at the 60th anniversary it is 7,282.000.
Of them 75% are Jews, (5.5 million), 16.5 % are Muslims, 3.3 % are Druze and 2.1 % Christians.
5SHAREREPORT
Jim-789449May 21, 2011
#17
comment author avatar
Leaders of 14 Palestinian political parties including Fatah and Hamas announced a unity agreement in Cairo on Wednesday. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the Fatah party, joined Hamas leaders Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh for the announcement.
Also present were Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi and United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry.
“The pact provides for a transitional unity government of nonpartisan “technocrats” that will prepare for presidential and parliamentary elections next year. The new government will administer the Palestinian territories, while the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will continue to be in charge of international relations including peace talks with Israel.
The signing of the agreement on Tuesday and the ceremonial announcement Wednesday saw “all the Palestinian factions come together for the first time in four years,” al-Jazeera correspondent Nicole Johnston noted.
The agreement would end the split between the West Bank and Gaza which dates back to 2007. It is seen as a key step for the Palestinians in building international pressure on the Israeli government to come to terms with a Palestinian state. A next step is a request for full United Nations recognition of Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders. That request is expected to be taken up by the UN in September.”
With obama calling for Israel to reset their boarders, he has put a wall between himself and them, Israel is now preparing for a possible war with Palestinians over the above meeting.
If the UN tries to enforce the pre-1967 boarders, there will be a war, based on his comments, we know where obama stands, he has made comments about Israel’s bombing Palestine but said nothing about them bombing Israel.
Things are about to get very interesting, and if you believe the Bible or not, it says “God will curse all those who curse Israel”.
The Bible warns the destiny of the World is inseparable from Israel and Jerusalem.
God said;
"Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of staggering to all the peoples round about, and it shall also be for Judah during the siege against Jerusalem. And on that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all the peoples: all that burden themselves with it shall be grievously hurt: and all the peoples of the earth shall be gathered together against it. On that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem?.And it shall come to pass on that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. Then shall the Lord go out, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle." Zechariah 12:2, 3, 8, 9; 14:3
“I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” Genesis 12:2-3
3SHAREREPORT
DBE928May 21, 2011
#18
comment author avatar
Obama is not Israel's friend.
I don't know if it's due to his upbringing in Jeremiah Wright's church, or some other factors, but it is clear he does not understand or respect global geopolitics or the concepts of allies and enemies.
He also must not read Palestinian media translations from Arabic, in which they continue to spew hate of Jews and Israel and vow to destroy Israel no matter what agreements are put on paper
5SHAREREPORT
Rich Thomas-2189682May 21, 2011
#19
comment author avatar
is it this easy to rattle the cages???????
1SHAREREPORT
chloe.May 22, 2011
#20
comment author avatar
go back to its pre-1967 borders), was to be the harbinger of things to come, the Israelis can expect trouble. Big trouble. It will be a suicide for Israel to give up its water, farmlands and land mass to accommodate its increased population. It's impossible to uproot millions, economically, physically and politically. It's irreversible, whatever the reasons. And, if I am not mistaken, this scenario was never part of their plans for the future of the Jewish state.
I've come to see that as a very true and logical statement. Admittedly, I originally wanted to see Israel relinquish the land, but now I see it would be a literal suicide to do so. ..Very nice article.
4SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilApr 8, 2013
#21
comment author avatar
Thanks for your comments o my less-than-perfect article . I also like to point out, I was not a born hater of President Obama. In fact this was an old article; when I looked at my article again today with the intention to only correcting any misspellings that I may find, but when I saw so many comments, I felt like I needed to say something. If you must know, I might have changed my view of the president. I even supported his reelection in November.
0SHARE
SyriaInTurmoilDec 8, 2013
#22
comment author avatar
0SHARE
[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/20/6680682-obama-israels-friend]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
And the loser is...James Durbin!
By David Rubin Lang
Fri May 13, 2011 11:31 PM
entertainmentjennifer-lopezrandy-jacksonsteven-tyleramerican-idolsshocking-last-three
DISCUSS: 2 1 !
Why James Durbin was eliminated from the American Idol competition? While it's up to the American voters to choose who continues to get a shot at fame and fortune, I know why and, like the American pop-star-in-the-making James, I am ready to assign blame. And, correct me if I'm wrong, I think Jennifer Lopez deserves much of the credit for being the cause of the ouster of Durbin, who ironically was all but..earmarked by her to be the next American idol.
Both she and Jackson seem to be in cahoots to ensure that James Durbin marches towards the American Idol crown not only through his own efforts and talents (which actually are not lacking at all), but also judges' comments. You see, most times, if not every time, after Haley finished her singing and turned to the judges for kindness and help which would go a long in helping her, especially at this critical stage, the two judges seemed to prime her for the guillotine. While they may be innocent of the blame I assign squarely on them (they might just innocently wanted to help their favorite contestant), but their actions spoke loud and clear -- it will not be a big loss (to them) if Haley was eliminated. But Haley was not only not eliminated, she was the safest of all after the nation-wide vote. The apt word for what transpired was: backfire.
The judges should not forget that, at this later stage in the competition, they have no say in determining the winner; so the less they comment (especially the words by Jackson that he considered what Haley sang her heart as shouting at the top of her voice..and Lopez proudly announced that James had just created a bar that's just too high for her...judging by the song that she had just delivered) the better for all contestant, favorite or not. They should know better. In fact, helpful and kind words (the trademarks of Steven Tyler) never hurt anybody. This is not to say that James' misfortune became Haley's gain. Definitely no! Haley deserved what she got so far. Her beauty, especially her innocent bubbly smile, no doubt gave her an edge, but actually it's her singing prowess that had propelled her this far. It's still premature to speculate if she's good enough to be the winner of the American Idols crown.
Who knows, if James Durbin would still be in the show if not for the two judges' open rooting for him which could have put off some viewers.
However, to be fair, to both Randy Jackson or Jennifer Lopez, I admit that I've no hard evidence about the whole conspiracy thing. I just speculate based on what I heard and observed. I stand corrected.
But one thing is certain, one of the remaining three contestants will make it and laugh all the way to the bank.For the rest of the idol aspirants, especially those among the top twenty, I am sure they will think of something. Losing the competition doesn't mean the end of anything, least of all their singing careers. In the end, there will be only one winner. Not everyone can win. They lost not because they lacked talents. It was mainly a matter of song choices. Not singing.
And who knows, at the end of the day, they could also make it (in their chosen industry)?
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
2 COMMENTS
Here you’ll notice that there is very little moderation, no tracking, no threaded replies, and none of the niceties of Nation Discussions.
bratcat-1305218May 16, 2011
#1
comment author avatar
heres an idea, what if the people voted for who they think that should leave the show instead of voting for their favorites. i am sure the outcome would turn out totally different.
[[Permalink:https://hardblall.newsvine.com/_news/2011/05/14/6641360-and-the-loser-isjames-durbin]]
0SHAREREPORT
SyriaInTurmoilSep 12, 2013
#2
comment author avatar
I reserve my comment at this stage. May be next time.
0SHARE
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
A tit for tat
By David Rubin Lang
Fri Apr 15, 2011 12:12 PM
politicsghadaffian-eye-for-an-eyeuss-aircraft-carrier-george-washingtonbig-ben-eiffel-tower-of-paris
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here ..
.It seems when Col. Ghadaffi promised President George
Bush he'd give up WMD and terrorism, he meant
literally.
After having endured blows after blows from those he
thought were friends until the Obama doctrine started to
destabilize the whole of the Middle East, people could
forgive him if he wanted to send agents to sink the US
ultimate aircraft carrier USS George Washington;
or (how about?) bringing down the Eiffel Tower of
Paris and sending tourists running helter-skelter to put
paid to France's tourism industry, as well as sending
President Sarkozy a clear message that his scheme to
reverse his political fortune will be futile, ill-
advised by Zionist the "rock-star" philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy, known to the French
media simply as BHL; or remove both hands of the
Big Ben so that the adsan call to pray fails to ring
out over London leading Muslims to miss their
religious duties, and in turn drive them out to the
streets in anger to chant "The People want Her Majesty's
government to fall;" or dynamite the Rome's Coliseum preferably
when there are gladiators fighting for their lives
inside (to goad the remaining gladiators to demand that
the wicked government leaders, especially the Italian
foreign minister Fernando Frattini, face them in the
fight to the death); or call on Qatar and UAE rulers to
not forget they are next, and last but not least, send a
few Algerian students to remove the wheels of the
Air force One Boeing 747, to give a last warning to
Obama to show his real birth
certificate or else....Even though Ghadaffi called
him a son and wished him luck for his reelection comes 2012,
imploring him to use is power to order the NATO planes
to stop bombing his troops on the ground, Obama didn't
or couldn't oblige as he was not very much himself
then.
[]
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Gadaffi's troubles started after he's perceived as a spent force; not dangerous!
By David Rubin Lang
Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:08 AM
bushnewoverpoliticspresidentsuccessorabyturnmiraclesbushsleafbetrayedghaddafiadvised
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here
The words or phrases that the West have been relying on to pull wool over people's eyes have become
..cliches. Cliches are stereotyped expressions that have lost originality and impact by long overuse, as "Our mission is to protect civilians... the no-fly zone and all necessary measures are to protect civilians... Qaddafi must go.. Qaddafi had to go...he has lost legitimacy to lead... he turned on his people, remember?.. we had to act, if not thousands of innocent civilians will be slaughtered.. thirty civilians killed by Qaddafi forces today, according a rebel fighter...forty..fifty civilians killed by Pro-Qaddafi forces, reported by Stephanie Gosk according to the rebel fighters... according to rebel spokesman.. according to rebel fighters..Qaddafi's inner circle is deserting him... Qaddafi forces moving toward east. Pro-Qaddafi forces... racing toward Benghazi...the rebel fighters on the run...we will not talk unless Qaddafi steps down...all options on the table --by Obama... I won't rule out or rule in giving arms to the rebels..."
Most, if not all, have been uttered or written not more than 10 times per day; so you can imagine how overused they have become. They have not only become hackneyed,they have started to reflect badly on the credibility and righteousness of the three western powers' (the US, Britain and France) leaders'--warped sense of morality ("We can't just sit on our hands and watch by while a tyrant turned his guns on his own people. What
if he were to actually carry out his threat to show no mercy? The world's conscience would be stained and the U.S. government would blamed for turning a blind eye").. While on the subject of morality, or moral high ground, how about calling a spade a spade, for a change?
The word rebels doesn't mean civilians, nor civilians equal rebels. These are two different, separate things. Nothing ambiguous or unambiguous about them. Until they come out and call a spade a spade, they have no moral right to do what they are doing, even with the UN resolution (which was called flawed and medieval by many world leaders who refused to take part in it).
If the purpose in having the no-fly zone was to protect civilians, they should immediately stop bombing Qaddafi forces as there are no reports of him targeting or killing innocent civilians. Qaddafi has said innocent civilians (those who aren't armed to the teeth or rebellious) are free to leave or stay. I believe him because as things stand, it would not be in his interest to even be seen as going against his own people -- whether by words or perception -- let alone deliberately killing civilians. According to Stephanie Gosk, the civilians of Benghazi are becoming nervous that pro-Qaddafi forces may again try to overrun the second largest city of Libya again; they apparently are nervous because of perception -- everyone knows Benghazi was always a thorn in the flesh for Qaddafi for a long time. (But if he really wanted to punish them for exporting Islamic fighters to Iraq and other places without his permission, he could have done it earlier when there was no state-of-art- fighters and bombers bombing the hell out of his ground forces.
At the end of the day, this much touted moral cause to do good was flawed, medieval and unacceptable. The sooner the leaders of NATO undo this injustice the better for the world and their own conscience.
What right do they have to impose democracy on other countries, failing which they rained down hundreds of bombs and missiles on a tiny country, which was no match for even one of the three nuclear powers.This was a clear case of abuse of power; a clear case of disproportionate use of force; a clear case of double stand, and blatant case of crime against humanity.
Although the British and the French leaders may look like they are spoiling for the fight, they were not
solely to blame for the carnage in Libya. The whole thing was planned, funded and implemented by the Obama administration. It all started when Barrack Hussein Obama got elected as president of the United States. The world not have to witness so many lives lost if not for Obama's Cairo speech. The Middle East would be peaceful, albeit far from perfect. President Mubarak would continue to helm Egypt, and act as a moderating force and leadership to the Muslim world. The Muslim Brotherhood could not do as they please (and that's to pursue, permeate and pulverize, to prevail over western societies).There was absolutely no pressing reason or rational for the Libyan people, even young Libyans, to topple their government, and probably wouldn't have happened if not for what happened earlier at Tahrir Square. It was said by fair-minded analysts that Libyans enjoyed the best education in the Middle East and North Africa. One sore point for other Arab leaders, who were viewed in less favorable light in comparison. And his so-called plan to unite all Arab states and some African countries into a loose federation with him
as its first head which didn't go down well with other proud leaders, was another. Since then King Abdullah, especially, became his nemesis. One thing led to another, and Gaddaffi ended up ostracized by fellow Arab leaders, but remained popular among Africans because he generously used oil money to help develop Africa. But by far, the worst mistake he ever was, to turn over a new leaf and renounced violence. He became not dangerous or less dangerous. He probably wishes now he didn't listen to Bush. It might be good for America without having to deal with another Iran or second Iran, if you will.But for Qaddafi, he definitely had Bush to thank for his present predicament.If only he could turn the clock
back, he would never listen to President Bush again. If only he didn't allow his once 400-aircraft Air Force to deteriorate to less than a hundred aging fighters and bombers. If only he remained dangerous -- he wouldn't be in this corner. If only he realized back then that George W. Bush would not be president for life. When a new man occupied the White-house, you can bet your last dollar, he would do something different. He could bomb you in your "tent!" But the good news (for Qaddafi) is: if he really keeps his word to President Bush, he has nothing to worry. Miracles will protect
him. Trust me. I know. People may laugh at me. Qaddafi may laugh at me. I say don't. For if not for miracles, I'd have been long gone already. I have often read or heard about cars or trucks or lorries running over people. Most, if not all, reports were about deaths not injuries. Reports of injuries would not make it into newspapers -- unless it's about a famous celebrity or a VIP. "...a marketing executive Julia Decruss was crushed to death by a car yesterday..." (pic) was typical of such reports. In my case, I was crashed from behind by one one-ton run-away lorry which pushed me against a
solid-steel front gate of a house with a bone-crushing sound, which could be heard many doors away. The gate which had two frames (each heavy enough to be carried by four men) was flung open like a Cowboy town saloon swing door; the right frame which was secured by a three-inch long iron rod stuck in the cement floor was lifted up more than 3 inches to clear the hole. With me (bone and flesh) sandwiched between
the hard bumper of the lorry and solid steel gate, I thought I was a goner, but lived. Of course, it's miracles that had snatched me from the jaws of death
then.
When you get run over by a car -- let alone a lorry -- expect the worst.
Do you believe in miracles (an event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a divine or supernatural cause)? You should. May be you will after reading about my experience. Even the current Pope believes in miracles. When on a visit to England, and during a personal moment with the then prime minister Tony Blair, he commented: "It seems miracles
are hard to come by in England nowadays," alluding to the carnage and destruction that had befallen Britain of late as a result of the London bombings. The prime minister could only nod in silence.
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet.
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Who's Keith Maurice Ellison anyway?
By David Rubin Lang
Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:09 AM
religionobamatrue-muslimmuslim-broterhoodkeith-maurice-ellisonambiguous-name-muslim-countries-tradition
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here ...While researching for an article I was writing, I stumbled on a Youtube video of President Obama's speech extolling the virtue of a fellow African-American Muslim, who has acted in exemplary manner, he said, in refusing to place his hand on anything except the Holy Koran while taking his oath to become the Congressman for Minnesota. Obama's so full of praise for this man that he almost sounded like he was speaking at an election campaign rally, shouting to drive the message home. Although he omitted the House Representative's name, for some reason, my suspicion fell on the Representative for DFL-Minnesota Keith Ellison. I could recall vividly how this Congressman shamelessly cried while testifying at the Peter King Congressional hearing to investigate the worrying radicalization of American Muslims. Of course, he slammed Congressman Peter King for tarring the whole Muslim community together and in the same way with Islamic militants, while at the same time profusely praised Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a Pakistani-born Muslim American who Congressman Keith Ellison said gave his life for fellow Americans, and yet was accused of being in cahoots with the Islamic militants who brought down the World Trade Center. We all also know it was the Muslim Brotherhood who asked Obama to insisted they be included in any deal or discussion to determine Egypt's political future, not to mention also paid for Ellison's haj.
But I digress.
Sometimes I wonder, why House of Representatives' Keith Maurice Ellison continues or prefers to be known by a Christian-sounding name despite having converted to Islam? For convenience's sake? Or what's he up to? I have no doubt whatsoever that this man is proud to be a Muslim, judging by how passionately he defended his fellow Muslims or his Muslim community; why then he chose to be practicing ambiguity as regards his faith. Although I respect his right to choose any name he wishes, but non-believers like me prefer he be unambiguous about whether he's Muslim; so that we can be on our appropriate behavior (like to not consume pork in his presence) and show sensitivity to his religion.
David Rubin Lang
David Rubin Lang does not belong to any Nations, yet. C
ABOUT
Master and Protector of Animals
Articles: 9 Seeds: 0 Comments: 39 Since: May 2010
Who's actually Keith Ellison?
By David Rubin Lang
Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:22 AM
religioncongressional-hearingpeter-kingradicalization-of-american-muslimskeith-ellison-criedmuslim-name
DISCUSS: 0 0 !
Type Your Article Here ...While doing some research for an article I was writing, I stumbled on a video of President Obama's speech extolling the virtue of a fellow African-American Muslim, who's the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, for agreeing to pledge loyalty to the American constitution only on the Holy Koran, and refused to swear on anything else.
Although Obama, deliberately or otherwise, omitted the name of the Congressman concerned, my suspicion fell on the famous, or shall we say, infamous, Congressman Keith Ellison, who cried at the Congressional Hearing to probe the worrying radicalization of American Muslims.
President Obama praised Ellison for sticking to his gun to refuse to swear loyalty to the United States of America on a bible. Now, I'm not saying he's right or wrong. But I want to discuss the following points:
Can Keith Ellison refuse to swear in front of a bible or statue of the American constitution and still can occupy the seat of Congressman for DFL-Minnesota? Has American political correctness paved the way for Keith Maurice Ellison's success as America's first Muslim Representative. When the political correctness first appeared in the U.S.?
Why Representative Ellison cried throughout his testimony at the Peter King's Congressional hearing to investigate American Muslims' radicalization. Did he shed crocodile tears?
Since he's so passionate about Islam, and being a Muslim, and defending the Muslim community until he's in tears, why Congressman Keith Ellison (born Keith Maurice Ellison) continues to move around as if he's a Christian? I mean, why not use the name he adopted when he converted to Islam? According to Islamic law, or tradition, all Christians or Buddhists, for instance, whether men or women, have give up the original Christian or Buddhist name with the exception of surnames which are allowed to be retained and displayed after the Muslim name. If Ellison went through a ceremony to embrace Islam, which I believe he did, given his zealous belief in caliph, he must have a Muslim --mostly followed by ..bin Abdullah. Did he have his personal and identity documents changed to denote he has embraced Islam, and answers the Adhan to pray five times per day? If not, why not? He looks to me like someone who's proud to be a Muslim. The question which arises is: Does he not only want to have the case but eats it, too?
Does American law allows Americans to claim they are Christians when in fact they are not? How do we know Keith Maurice Ellison is a Muslim and show our appropriate sensitivities (for example to not consume pork in his presence) to him as a Muslim. What he's doing (using a Christan sounding name) doesn't make sense, if not forbidden in Islam. In some Muslim countries in Asia, even Poco-poco dance (a form of exercise popular among health conscious folks) was recently banned by a Fatwa issued by an imam for having some trace of Christian connection.
Did the voters in Minnesota whom they voted for?
welcome your comments
Articles commented on by David Rubin Lang
16-foot python found in Florida had eaten a deer published on Sat Oct 29, 2011
Bob, I couldn't agree more. How the poor animal was supposed to survive if it's not allowed to digest something? Are they trying to protect the food chain? For whom? The Burmese python itself is in the food chain, for heaven's sake.
They should just let it go. After all it didn't eat a human being, or a horse, or a pet dog/cat, but a deer. Deer belong in the food chain while domestic cats or dogs do not. The Burmese python has every right to be where he is, and naturally had to to digest something to stay alive. It's cruel and
Libya: Gaddafi son offers to surrender to Hague published on Thu Oct 27, 2011
straight outta Compton I am glad, very glad to have come across another erudite American. You're a well informed as you're fair. Saif's hands are not tainted with blood; he's being hunted purely because of his name. Plain and simple. Yes, he has done more good than evil in his life. Would they take
jane-330227 I must say yours is by far one of the best views (articles) I have seen on Newsvine. So, all is not lost in America. There are still some among us (who haven't become confused, disoriented, irrational, stupid, obedient, or enchanted after buying and applying Obama's snake oil)
Rebels: Qaddafi's son Saif al-Islam captured alive published on Sun Oct 23, 2011
ArchStanton I really like what you have written, including the links. Keep writing. Unfortunately there is no Facebook Like button for me to click. But don't worry. I am only kidding. But when I write I really like your articles, I mean just that.
Sirte residents accuse Libya fighters of looting published on Mon Oct 17, 2011
Liam Fox was officially down and out a few days ago. Next, Secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She will be punished for allegedly consorting with Susan Rice, Samantha Powers to henpeck President Obama to launch an unjust, unneeded war against Libya. Not that Obama actually needed henpecking. But, he
US officials vow to hold Iran accountable for alleged assassination plot published on Wed Oct 12, 2011
Jeremiah, Who says Bush had lied to you? Didn't you remember Israel had bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear installations once? Didn't you hear Israel also bombed Syria's nuclear installations? It was undeniable Saddam was determined to build nuclear bombs. The fact that Bush claimed but later turned up n
I am inclined to think that the Iranians are not plotting to do something; it's the US that's plotting to do something. President Obama and his administration is good at faking things. After the episode of claiming - or shall we say speculating - that Qaddafi was planning to kill seventy thousands E
Occupy DC protesters arrested after unfurling banners in Senate building published on Tue Oct 11, 2011
barnyfife, with 14 You sound like a Obama supporter. You conveniently ignore what the people are protesting for. It doesn't matter. They are protesting the sitting government which is a Obama government. It irks you. But please hold your horse. These people have every right to protest against a government
Freed hikers: Iran held us because we're American published on Sun Sep 25, 2011
JS in SD, I, too, often wonder why American tourists or hikers, or even aid workers, are fond of turning up at a place where Americans are the least welcome - and the last place you would expect to be. Perhaps it's adventure they're after; the adrenaline rush things. For they threw caution to the wind.
SHOW PROFILE
This is done and dusted
President Obama praised Ellison for sticking to his gun to refuse to swear loyalty to the United States of America on a bible. Now, I'm not saying he's right or wrong. But I want to discuss the following points:
Can Keith Ellison refuse to swear in front of a bible or statue of the American constitution and still can occupy the seat of Congressman for DFL-Minnesota? Has American political correctness paved the way for Keith Maurice Ellison's success as America's first Muslim Representative. When the political correctness first appeared in the U.S.?
Why Representative Ellison cried throughout his testimony at the Peter King's Congressional hearing to investigate American Muslims' radicalization. Did he shed crocodile tears?
Since he's so passionate about Islam, and being a Muslim, and defending the Muslim community until he's in tears, why Congressman Keith Ellison (born Keith Maurice Ellison) continues to move around as if he's a Christian? I mean, why not use the name he adopted when he converted to Islam? According to Islamic law, or tradition, all Christians or Buddhists, for instance, whether men or women, have give up the original Christian or Buddhist name with the exception of surnames which are allowed to be retained and displayed after the Muslim name. If Ellison went through a ceremony to embrace Islam, which I believe he did, given his zealous belief in caliph, he must have a Muslim --mostly followed by ..bin Abdullah. Did he have his personal and identity documents changed to denote he has embraced Islam, and answers the Adhan to pray five times per day? If not, why not? He looks to me like someone who's proud to be a Muslim. The question which arises is: Does he not only want to have the case but eats it, too?
Does American law allows Americans to claim they are Christians when in fact they are not? How do we know Keith Maurice Ellison is a Muslim and show our appropriate sensitivities (for example to not consume pork in his presence) to him as a Muslim. What he's doing (using a Christan sounding name) doesn't make sense, if not forbidden in Islam. In some Muslim countries in Asia, even Poco-poco dance (a form of exercise popular among health conscious folks) was recently banned by a Fatwa issued by an imam for having some trace of Christian connection.
Did the voters in Minnesota whom they voted for?
welcome your comments
Articles commented on by David Rubin Lang
16-foot python found in Florida had eaten a deer published on Sat Oct 29, 2011
Bob, I couldn't agree more. How the poor animal was supposed to survive if it's not allowed to digest something? Are they trying to protect the food chain? For whom? The Burmese python itself is in the food chain, for heaven's sake.
They should just let it go. After all it didn't eat a human being, or a horse, or a pet dog/cat, but a deer. Deer belong in the food chain while domestic cats or dogs do not. The Burmese python has every right to be where he is, and naturally had to to digest something to stay alive. It's cruel and
Libya: Gaddafi son offers to surrender to Hague published on Thu Oct 27, 2011
straight outta compton I am glad, very glad to have come across another erudite American. You're a well informed as you're fair. Saif's hands are not tainted with blood; he's being hunted purely because of his name. Plain and simple. Yes, he has done more good than evil in his life. Would they take
jane-330227 I must say yours is by far one of the best views (articles) I have seen on Newsvine. So, all is not lost in America. There are still some among us (who haven't become confused, disoriented, irrational, stupid, obedient, or enchanted after buying and applying Obama's snake oil)
Rebels: Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam captured alive published on Sun Oct 23, 2011
ArchStanton I really like what you have written, including the links. Keep writing. Unfortunately there is no Facebook Like button for me to click. But don't worry. I am only kidding. But when I write I really like your articles, I mean just that.
Sirte residents accuse Libya fighters of looting published on Mon Oct 17, 2011
Liam Fox was officially down and out a few days ago. Next, Secretary of state Hillary Clinton. She will be punished for allegedly consorting with Susan Rice, Samantha Powers to henpeck President Obama to launch an unjust, unneeded war against Libya. Not that Obama actually needed henpecking. But, he
US officials vow to hold Iran accountable for alleged assassination plot published on Wed Oct 12, 2011
Jeremiah, Who says Bush had lied to you? Didn't you remember Israel had bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear installations once? Didn't you hear Israel also bombed Syria's nuclear installations? It was undeniable Saddam was determined to build nuclear bombs. The fact that Bush claimed but later turned up n
I am inclined to think that the Iranians are not plotting to do something; it's the US that's plotting to do something. President Obama and his administration is good at faking things. After the episode of claiming - or shall we say speculating - that Qaddafi was planning to kill seventy thousands E
Occupy DC protesters arrested after unfurling banners in Senate building published on Tue Oct 11, 2011
barnyard, with 14 You sound like a Obama supporter. You conveniently ignore what the people are protesting for. It doesn't matter. They are protesting the sitting government which is a Obama government. It irks you. But please hold your horse. These people have every right to protest against a hove
Freed hikers: Iran held us because we're American published on Sun Sep 25, 2011
JS in SD, I, too, often wonder why American tourists or hikers, or even aid workers, are fond of turning up at a place where Americans are the least welcome - and the last place you would expect to be. Perhaps it's adventure they're after; the adrenaline rush things. For they threw caution to the wind.
SHOW PROFILE
This is done and dusted
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment