Stop The ACLU » News

Obama’s Surgeon General Pick: A Few Surprises

Maggie Thornton — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:48:28 +0000

Perhaps you have read that Obama has asked his national security team to investigate the claims of human rights violations in Afghanistan by Allied Forces against Taliban. The short story is, there is a group claiming that we put 2000 Taliban in a railroad container to move them somewhere, they suffocated and we buried them in a mass grave. All this happened in 2001. You can read that story here. Now, the following is the rest of the story.

Obama’s Surgeon General Pick…Finally No Controversy! Wait…Better Think Again

by Holger Awakens

Let’s face it….all seemed so innocent yesterday as we saw Regina Benjamin nominated as Surgeon General of the United States by Barack Hussein Obama…here was this rural doctor from Alabama, this champion of non-profit healthcare…a doctor who herself was a victim of Hurricane Katrina. Well folks, what I have found out about our President is this – nothing is innocent and nothing isn’t calculated. It’s all about pieces of a jigsaw puzzle fitting into the finished product and quite frankly, more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the finished product is uglier than sin. We might just come to understand why Regina Benjamin runs a “non profit” clinic. It took a little digging into some facts about Regina Benjamin but I couldn’t quite understand the following:

Why is a rural doctor from the poorer section of Alabama connected to President Obama’s shocking announcement this past weekend that he will investigate U.S. involvement in the alleged mass murder of Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan in the early days of the War in Afghanistan?

I know, you think that I’ve finally lost it here, don’t you? haha Well, let me try and connect the dots for you. First off, from the article at Yahoo News, let’s take a glance at this rags to riches story of Dr. Benjamin:

Pushed by the need in her own shrimping community of Bayou La Batre, Ala., and its diverse patient mix — white, black and, increasingly immigrants from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos — Benjamin, 51, has emerged as a national leader in the call to improve health disparities. She became the first black woman and the first doctor under age 40 elected to the American Medical Association’s board of trustees, and in 2002 became the first black woman to head a state medical society.

Impressive, to say the least. However, not every organization that Regina Benjamin belongs to was included in that Yahoo article or the White House press releases. From the Fox News article, we find that Dr. Benjamin has held another seat of authority:

She also serves on the Board of Physicians for Human Rights

Okay, I meant to put up a Wikipedia reference to that fact that Benjamin is on the board of Physicians for Human Rights but from the time last night when I noticed it at Wiki til this morning, that information has mysteriously (or conveniently) been deleted from the Wikipedia information. So, since Regina Benjamin serves in such a high capacity at Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), I decided to find out more about that organization.

I invite you to view the home page of Physicians for Human Rights here and after viewing that home page, I ask you…does that organization not resemble the most radical of activist groups in America? I mean, for pete’s sake, that home page looks like something you’d find at Code Pink or one of the anarchist sites! You notice all of the calls to expose President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s role in the Afghanistan incident from years ago? And the light went on over my head. I decided to pull up the news story from Fox News that I cited just yesterday in the story of how Obama shockingly has reversed course and decided to investigate the U.S. role in the alleged massacre of 2,000 Taliban prisoners by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan back in 2001. I knew I had seen the organization, Physicians for Human Rights, mentioned there..or at least thought I had seen it and lo and behold, I saw it here:

Reacting to the interview, Physicians for Human Rights hailed Obama’s decision.
“President Obama is right to say that U.S. and Afghan violations of the laws of war must be investigated,” said Nathaniel Raymond, a Physicians for Human Rights researcher. “If the Obama administration finds that criminal wrongdoing occurred in this case, those responsible — whether American or Afghan officials — must be prosecuted.”

Okay. Take a deep breath, because I’m not done yet. We have just seen how the newly nominated Regina Benjamin sits on the board, in a position of highest authority, at Physicians for Human Rights. And, we now have seen where that organization is calling for the prosecution of any American officials responsible for the 2001 alleged incident in Afghanistan (I’m assuming most of us have inserted “Bush/Cheney” in place of “officials”). So you have to be asking yourself just why this Physicians for Human Rights organization seems so radical….doesn’t their mission seem a bit too….oh, how should I put it….political?

Hold on to your chairs as we look at the dude that founded Physicians for Human Rights. The gentleman’s name is Dr. Jonathan Fine. Now, Dr. Fine is retired but I want you to look at this from the PHR site that describes the mantra of this organization:

Dr. Fine also led investigations into the massive use of tear gas in South Korea and chemical weapons against Kurds in Iraq. Under his tenure, PHR documented human rights violations in Colombia, El Salvador, the Balkans, Israel and the West Bank, and Iraq following the Persian Gulf War.

Okay, look at that more closely with me:

1. PHR looked into violations made by South Korea, not North Korea
2. PHR looked into human rights violations in Colombia but not Venezuela or Cuba
3. PHR addressed human rights violation in Israel but not in Gaza, Saudi Arabia or Syria
4. PHR investigated violations of human rights in Iraq AFTER the Persian Gulf War but has not investigated human rights violations in Iran, Pakistan, China or Russia

So, you could ask me, why are you spending so much time on this, Holger? Because I have determined that every single appointment, every single decision and every single action taken by our new President in the past six months can be linked to his furthering a Socialist/Marxist agenda for America. This woman, Regina Benjamin, stood up in front of the press corps yesterday, supposedly with this down home all-American image and the whole time the American people did NOT get to see her for what she is…she is a radical activist in the movement of Socialism in this country – she helps direct an organization that demanded that Barack Obama do its bidding and he did. This is an alliance between a front group of radical activism and the head of our government.

Barack Hussein Obama. A President who has now used the post in America most associated for watching out for the health and welfare of American citizens to further his socialist agenda.

Regina Benjamin. A simple, rural doctor tending to the poor in Alabama? Think again, America, think again.

Michelle Malkin has a bit on this pick too.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Syria, Israel Letterbox Operation

Maggie Thornton — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:40:00 +0000

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook

On July 5, 2005 I posted on the U.S. and Syria closing ranks to neutralize Israel. That report indicated that the U.S. and Saudia Arabia were pressing Syrian President Bashar Assad to demarcate Syria’s borders with Lebanon. It’s a conundrum but it can be explained. At the time, I predicted that the demarcation and the hoped-for result would not happen. Here’s some more of the story:

Syria, Israel

The DEBKAfile says that President Assad traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan and received communications from Israel president, Shimon Peres and prime minister Benjaman Netanyahu. Baku is considered a “new channel of communications,” and a “hub of a complicated new negotiating track between Damascus and Jerusalem,” and is being referred to as the “Azeri diplomatic postbox,” or the Israel-Syrian letterbox.

Also in this mix with the U.S. is Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon. Middle East Envoy George Mitchell is standing in for Barack Obama.

President Assad’s reply will be sent to Jerusalem on Thursday or Friday. The problem is we don’t know what Assad is replying to, other than the words “peace process” appearing in the DEBKAfile post.

So if the bottom-line of the letterbox operation is a “peace process,” how might that come about?
My post of July 5th might answer that question and I’m reposting it below. Let me know what you think. As I said, earlier this month I predicted that it was a fantasy – not going to happen. Now, it seems we have Israel contacting Syria.

*****

U.S Syria Relations Cozy: Neutralizing Israel
Maggie’s Notebook – July 5, 2009

Syrian president Bashar Assad has invited President Obama to visit Damascus, in the wake of a U.S.-Saudi press for Syria to “demarcate” its border with Lebanon. By marking the Syrian border and giving up its claims to Shaba Farms, also known as Mount Dov, and placing Mount Dov inside Lebanon’s borders, the reasoning is that Israel will have no rationale to claim the militarily strategic Mount Dov, and so Hizbullah will also have no reason to attack Israel. The move is on to neutralize Israel.

Syria, Israel – Shebaa Farms – Mount Dove (photo)

It’s a fantasy – it’s not going to happen.

For those who have forgotten, Israel liberated Mount Dov from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Lebanon claims that Mount Dov belongs to it, and Hezbullah uses Israel’s ‘occupation’ of Mount Dov as proof that Israel is ‘occupying’ ‘Lebanese territory’ thereby justifying its existence in Lebanon. The US claims that if Syria demarcates its border with Lebanon, and puts Mount Dov on the Lebanese side of the border, it will take away Hezbullah’s raison d’etre (see map below).

It’s a bit shocking to know that in 2009, there are countries without official borders.

Israel took over the area in 1967 and sees it as part of the Golan Heights. The UN accepted this position following the IDF’s pullout from Lebanon in May 2000 but Hezbollah and Lebanon claim that this is Lebanese territory still under Israeli occupation.

From Israel’s long-time point-of-view, Shaba (Shebaa) Farms (Mount Dov) has been off the table for discussion.

What are the issues?

In the 1923 Anglo-French Demarcation Agreement, which set the borders between the British and French mandates in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, the area was included in Syria. The maps of the 1949 Israeli-Syrian Armistice Agreements similarly designated the area as Syrian.

In the 1967 Six Day War, the farms were occupied by the IDF as part of its conquest of the Golan Heights. Lebanon was not involved in that war, and Israel did not engage in any fighting against it.

At that time, no one – neither Syria nor Lebanon – claimed that the area was Lebanese.

IN THE negotiations leading to the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, Lebanon for the first time raised its claim to the farms, but based on all previous historical documents and maps, the UN sided with the Israeli version, i.e. that this was Syrian territory and subject to future Israeli-Syrian negotiations. The Lebanese claim was used by Hizbullah to continue its resistance to “Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory.

At the time of the 2000 Israeli withdrawal the UN asked Syria about its position on the issue. Damascus was in a quandary: On the one hand, this was obviously Syrian territory; on the other, if Syria conceded that the farms belong to Lebanon, there might be a chance of getting one more sliver of Arab territory out of Israeli hands.

Syria thus responded that whatever its former claims to the Shaba Farms, it now agreed to cede them to Lebanon.

But when the UN asked Damascus for a formal document stating that the area had indeed been legally transferred to Lebanon, Syria balked – and it has still not supplied such a document.

The short story is that Syria has refused to recognize Lebanon as a sovereign state. Not until this year did Syria appoint it’s first ever ambassador to Beirut. At the same time, Lebanon sent its first ambassador to Syria.

Damascus still has powerful allies in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shi’ite party with a powerful guerrilla army.

The U.S. has pressured Israel to withdraw from Mount Dov for years.

The area is a 100 square mile parcel of land located at the foot of Mount Hermon where the Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli borders meet. Israel took control of the area after the Six Day War in 1967, and since then has built up a number of military outposts on the strategic hills.

Israel’s indefensible borders on all sides have led to the necessary land-grabs gained in the 1967 war. How can you defend your people when your enemies refuse to respect your border towns? This 2006 report describes the importance of not letting your enemy bite at your heels:

The drive up to the top of Mt. Dov on Wednesday is done along a narrow and winding road, accessible only in armored vehicles, a memory of Hizbullah’s incessant shelling of IDF outposts there not so long ago.

The Gladiola outpost is situated just over the Lebanese village of Shuba with a clear view of Ghajar, as well. Soldiers man heavily-fortified positions along the ridge, keeping an eye on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) patrols below.

Strangely enough, during the war this summer, the Mt. Dov area was quiet, and saw nearly no fighting. According to the officer, the explanation is simple – Hizbullah does not attack military bases, since they know that in such a situation they will lose.

The importance of the area to Israel is clear:

Since the war in Lebanon, the IDF has invested millions of shekels in fixing the infrastructure along the mountain – from repaving the winding road to installing new antennas and surveillance equipment.

The officer said the soldiers stationed in the series of outposts along the mountain play a key role in assisting the IDF to form accurate assessments of Hizbullah’s plans.

The purpose of the powerful Hizbullah in Lebanon is to protest the Mount Dov possession by Israel, claiming that the land belongs to Lebanon.

Hizbullah’s attempt to claim sovereignty of Mt. Dov is because the group needs an excuse for its existence,” he said. “Otherwise, they are worthless.”

Israel Matzav questions any notion of Syria’s abandonment of Hizbullah and says this:

Engagement’ is one thing and giving up real assets (even if the asset is only a claim) is something else. Mount Dov is a very strategic point that is used for military purposes by Israel.

Why would the Syrians want to let Lebanon have it?

What is Lebanon giving them in return?

…even if Israel were to hand Mount Dov over to Lebanon tomorrow, Hezbullah would continue to exist and would continue to charge Israel with ‘occupying Lebanese territory.’

So what is the U.S. doing? Should Syria mark their border and place Mount Dov in Lebanon’s hands, and Israel acknowledge that border and abandon the area, how can Israel be rightly convinced that the position would not once again be used against the people of Israel? Could a treaty between Israel and Syria be achieved? Would such a treaty mean safety for Israel? There is no way for Israel to be rightly convinced. This has been a U.S. endeavor through the Bush years. The U.S. should not ask Israel to enter into such an agreement. Afterall, had Israel’s neighbors respected their sovereignty, the 1967 War would not have happened.

I believe that if the U.S. and the free world would wholeheartedly and very publicly back Israel, Hamas and Hizbullah would be defeated by the very notion that the west would assist Israel’s defense of its own borders. It’s very simple. Actively support the right of the Israeli people to exist…but rather than follow such a justifiable position, we quake at the wrath of the Muslim world. The thing we seem to ignore is that living inside that Muslim world is a sovereign non-Muslim nation. Where is the justification for the Muslim rejection of these people?

So what do you think? Can these two stories possibly be connected?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The ACLU and the Candidates

Basil — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:14:24 +0000

Commenter Rastaman asked a question today:

What do all these Republican-oriented political posts have to do with Stopping The ACLU?
Answer: Not a GD<[edited] thing.

Hmmm. He’s right.

This is StopTheACLU.com … and it seems that we haven’t been talking a lot about stopping the ACLU. Not directly, at least.

But, the case can be made that electing a conservative … or a more conservative than the Democrats’ offerings … candidate will help the fight against the outrages of the ACLU.

So, let’s look at the candidates from the standpoint of the ACLU.

Here are the ACLU lifetime ratings of the major party candidates still in the race:

Barack Hussein Obama (D) 82%
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (D) 75%
Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul (R) 61%
John Sidney McCain III (R) 25%

Note: I have been unable to find ACLU ratings on Maurice Robert “Mike” Gravel (D), who was in the Senate from 1969-1981, and Michael Dale Huckabee (R), who served 10 years as governor of Arkansas. I would be very interested any any data (with sources) regarding their ratings. I will say that I suspect they rate Gravel very high, and Huckabee in the same range as McCain.

So, there you go.

The ACLU rates Obama, Clinton, and Paul highest of the four remaining candidates that are currently in Congress.

And McCain the lowest.

So, if you read anything here supporting McCain (or Huckabee), then, yes, it’s related … though indirectly … to stopping the ACLU.

Oh, and if you see a post supporting Ron Paul … well, then, it looks like someone might have forgotten to take their medications.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post