Posted on 06/03/2011 7:42:12 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
In a much-anticipated speech in Washington May 19, the president insisted that US policy in the Middle East will be designed to support -- rather than thwart -- the same popular yearnings for self-rule and prosperity that built America and produced what are now universal values.
Gone is the tipping of the hat to Arab autocrats that has accompanied decades of American calls for expanded political freedoms and economic opportunities in the region. "After decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be," Mr. Obama said. "It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy."
The change in two years was striking. In Cairo, Obama spoke with one of America's favorite autocrats, Hosni Mubarak, at his side. Now the US president spotlighted the young protesters of Cairo's Tahrir Square who chased Mr. Mubarak from power.
...
"The status quo is unsustainable, and Israel must act boldly to advance a lasting peace. The dream of a Jewish and democratic state," the president added, "cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation."
Obama did speak of the reconciliation between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement and Hamas, the radical Islamist organization. But while he said the Palestinians will have to "answer questions" about Hamas's rejection of Israel, he did not state categorically that Hamas's participation in government is an automatic deal breaker. That may have been one of several signals in his speech suggesting that political Islam is likely to be a reality in the region and can be acceptable in nonviolent, democratic forms, some analysts say.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Even the partisan media shill who swilled this out couldn't quite ignore the obvious hostility Zero has toward Israel and democracy, and Zero's wholehearted embrace of jihad.
Impossible, simply because it would require Obama and his administration to be able to both know and articulate what American values are. Since that is not possible, neither is the title.
Impossible, simply because it would require Obama and his administration to be able to both know and articulate what American values are. Since that is not possible, neither is the title.
Ah, yes — the old “values” slight of hand; he knows he’s perfectly safe because NO ONE will ever say to him, “Ah, Mr. President, just exactly what values are you talking about?” He plays the media like a fiddle.
FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO FUBO
zer0 lies. He always lies. He lies about everything. And he doesn’t care who knows it.
policy closer to American values?
“all 57 states’
“my Muslim faith”
“Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.” “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
OK, I agree with the Monitor about American values. The southwest has to go. But what's this Aztlan nonsense, the region is Apacheria. Comancheria and Navahoaria too, but they didn't come up with fancy regional names. Maybe Native Americanaria. As long as the Pueblo folk are left alone, a good idea as the Spanish learned, it's OK with me. Wonder how much the Apache can sell California to China for? Did I say sell? Significant Chinese presence in the region a century and a half ago. Maybe it should be Chinaeria.
The Aztlan nonsense is nonsense and it has nothing to do with the native Americans north of the Rio Grande - Navajo, Hopi, Apache, Comanche or any of the tribes in California.
It is a strictly Hispanic-Mexican nationalistic idea. In other words it is an idea born of the Hispanic-European imperialist class that conquered Mexico and the ruling political class descendants of theirs.
Native "Mexicans" (the Mixtecs) before the Europeans arrived were never part of that portion of north America comprised of the western and southwestern states of the United States. The native "Mexicans" did not "civilize" (spread their tribal influence) much more than a few hundred miles north of Mexico City and neither did the Aztecs, who conquered nearly everyone in "Mexico" and then later fell to the Spaniards. Yes, along very ancient lines, the Aztecs have some ancient linguistic affinity to some of the native tribes north of the Rio Grande. As a civilization they did not.
It's no different than the Celts (Celtic speakers) who populated the British Isles, Ireland and other places. As descendants of "Celts" and by Celtic linguistic affinity, one cannot say the British had "natural" rights in Ireland. That is the manner by which people attempt to spread today Aztlan-Aztec-Mixtec "native" "rights" of Mexicans to areas north of the Rio Grade.
So, Spaniards, from either Spain or Mexico are not "native" to the southwestern or western states of the United States, so what is "natural" and "by rights" to the presence of their political descendants there now? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
The modern version of "Aztlan" is a Hispanic political myth about "native" Americans and their "natural" rights, concocted to support nationalist interests of the political descendants of the Europeans who colonized Mexico.
The fact is that that political class and its economic cousins rule Mexico today via political and economic oligarchies that work to the greatest benefit to those who today are still closest to the Spanish conquerors, their descendants and the 'Mexican' ruling class they built; and it works to the least advantage to those closest to the once "natives" of southern Mexico, who are more segregated in Mexican society than are "blacks" in the U.S. And it is mostly that underclass of Mexico that tries to leave for something better. Were it not for the political agenda they are being used for and exploited for, they would be worthy of the status of "refugees".
No, we have to adjust it with land swaps to match the facts on the ground. Part of the country must now be given to found the new state of Brohomia. It’s the least you can do to make up for enslaving their ancestors. Then the Southwest goes back to Mexico, Louisiana to the Cajuns, and San Francisco becomes Fudgepackia. The rest of the land mass can be Whitelandia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.