hasan yahya asked:


The Zionist Lobby at work in the USA Congress!

Hasan Yahya, Ph.D

The power of the Zionist Lobby in directing American foreign as well as local policies are debated for a long time, the AIPAC denies its involvement, Today, a Washington Post editorial ‘Blame the Lobby’ (3/12) offered a ridiculous critique of the Charles W. Freeman debacle — which ended on Tuesday with Mr. Freeman withdrawing his nomination for chairman of the National Intelligence Council.  Mr. Freeman, formerly chairman of the Middle East Policy Council,  is known for his strong criticism of Israeli policies against Palestinians — and claims he withdrew his nomination mostly as a result of heavy pressure from supporters of Israeli policies. (the Jewish Lobby)     

The Washington Post editorial page took issue with Mr. Freeman’s claim of the role of an influential Israeli lobby and rejected Freeman’s argument that there is an ‘inability to discuss Middle East policies opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.’    

WRITE! Team issued a report as an activist group  stands For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. In the report  www.writetruth.org describing the “Lobby”and the unsuccessful nomination of former ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. As the chair for Obama administration’s National Intelligence Council.

Who was Mr. Freeman? He was a former envoy to Saudi Arabia and China, he suffered from an extreme case of clientitis on both accounts. In addition to chiding Beijing for not crushing the Tiananmen Square democracy protests sooner and offering sycophantic paeans to Saudi King “Abdullah the Great,” Mr. Freeman headed a Saudi-funded Middle East advocacy group in Washington and served on the advisory board of a state-owned Chinese oil company. It was only reasonable to ask — as numerous members of Congress had begun to do — whether such an actor was the right person to oversee the preparation of National Intelligence Estimates.

What was his fault? He describes “an inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics.” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman’s appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. What’s striking about the charges by Mr. Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists is their blatant disregard for such established facts. Mr. Freeman darkly claims that “it is not permitted for anyone in the United States” to describe Israel’s nefarious influence.

Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister “Lobby” whose “tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency” and which is “intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.” Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel — and his statement was a grotesque libel.

As proof of the vigorous US debate with Israel, the editorial cites examples such as US support for actual Palestinian elections, not providing Israel with weapons to provoke war with Iran, and the idea that the US can negotiate directly with Iran.  The Post editorial fails to acknowledge that the US raced weapons to Israel during the bombing of Gaza and Lebanon, signed a $30 billion agreement to promote Israel’s regional defense — and played a central role in disrupting the previous Palestinian unity government.  More recently, the Obama administration is seeking to tie Gaza aid to a recognition of Israel without reciprocal recognition of a Palestinian state.   

The Post also makes the incredulous statement that two Israeli governments have been forced from power because of disagreement with the US over Israeli settlement policy — even though the settlements doubled during the Clinton administration and continued unimpeded during the Bush II administration. 

For readers anywhere in this world support the cause For Justice, Human Rights and International Law in Palestine. WRITE! Team and the writer urge all to send this letter to let  the Washington Post editorial page  letters@washpost.com know that while one may disagree with Mr. Freeman’s assessment, its own tirade on this matter, sorely lacking in factual analysis certainly does not pass the credibility test. And the Zionist Lobby role in the unsuccessful nomination of Mr Freeman should be known for Americans. We have the right to ask: For how long American government remains far from justice when it comes to Muslim, Arab and Palestinian human rights? (759 words) 

Carol Forsloff asked:


 

Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.

Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.

At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.

We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.

Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in  Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.

Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the  Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues.  He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.

Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.

Chad asked:

After less than eight months in office, President Barack Obama’s administration is under serious scrutiny by some leading immigrant advocates.

As the legislative drive for health care insurance reform picks up steam, pro-immigrant groups are increasingly alarmed by proposals that target both documented and undocumented resident of the US.

In a telephonic press conference September 16, Latino rights, religious and political leaders blasted policy ideas circulating around the White House and Capitol Hill as not only an attack on the immigrant community

but a threat to public health as well.

“We’ve been deeply disturbed by developments in the health care debate and the treatment of immigrants in it,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the Washington, D.C-based Americas Voice immigrant advocacy organization.

Sharry criticized Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana), President Obama and Democrats for bending over backwards to accommodate political opponents, especially Republicans like shouting South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, who “demonize immigrants.”

Sharry and other pro-immigrant leaders said they were deeply concerned by measures unveiled in the Senate Finance Committee and in other quarters on Capitol Hill that would exclude immigrants from participating in an insurance exchange even with their own money, prevent children of undocumented residents from getting coverage, probe the residency status of emergency room patients, and make verification of residency status an expanded, cumbersome process for both citizens and non-citizens alike.

According to Eric Rodriguez, vice-president of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) an estimated 7 of 28 million legal immigrants do not have health insurance.

Under the plan released by Senator Baucus today, undocumented immigrants, who will be virtually barred from obtaining any kind of health insurance at all, would face fines of $950 and upwards if they managed to obtain any sort of emergency treatment.

US Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) voiced dismay that the White House was considering keeping many immigrants out of the insurance exchange, especially after Gutierrez and other members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus agreed that no public monies or tax credits could be used by undocumented residents in a new health insurance reform scheme.

Gutierrez contended that prohibiting undocumented residents from being in the exchange even with their own cash could result in masses of people losing their health insurance coverage.

“What about millions of undocumented workers who have health care through their employers?” Gutierrez asked. “Are they going to lose their benefits?”

“Health care policies should not be dictated by a heckler,” said NCLR President Janet Murguia, in a separate statement also made on September 16. Despite some improvements in the plan announced by Sen. Baucus,

Murguia warned that the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee had the potential to “drive up costs, leave people uncovered and threaten public health.”

Kevin Appleby, director of migrant policy for the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, said that the Church, one of the largest health care providers in the country, often provides treatment to immigrants. The migrant

advocate characterized the denial of health care to sick people as a “fool-hardy” and “mean-spirited” policy. Asserting that the Obama Administration had “capitulated” to anti-immigrant forces, Appleby said

that elected officials had sacrificed public health care on the altar on politics.

Rev. Luis Cortes, president of Esperanza USA, said that it wasn’t too long ago when widespread concern surfaced about the H1N1 virus, but that current proposals on the table would jeopardize people in dire need of health care.

Both political parties, Cortes contended, are “running the fastest to see who is the harshest.” Judging looming actions by Congress and the White House, as “morally punishable by Christian scripture,” Cortes said that the political price could be high for Democrats as well as Republicans. Adding that the immigrant community was once hopeful of the Democrats, Cortes said that local elections would have to be examined “one-by-one” in the future.

Numerous analysts consider New American voters, immigrants and their children, a key voting bloc that swept the Democrats into the White House and Congress last year. Many pro-immigrant groups are growing increasingly frustrated by the pace of immigration reform promised by presidential candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Speaking to reporters, Rep. Gutierrez recalled how the Latino community was inspired by Obama’ candidacy, and took to heart the fellow Illinois Democrat’s pledge to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows and on to the path of legalization. “That’s the President I voted for, not the one who says you cannot have health care,” Gutierrez said.

The longtime Latino political leader and other participants of the September 16 press conference called for the end of “wedge” politics and the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.

World Energy asked:

Carbon offsets have received some bad press of late, some of it deserved but much of it misdirected. This is due in part to the fact that there is no single prevailing quality assurance standard or government oversight of the voluntary emissions reductions (VER) market. However, the variety of standards means that there are high quality and lower quality offsets, and therein lies the challenge.

The truth is there are many praiseworthy carbon reduction projects. To increase the odds of selecting one, offset buyers must become educated consumers. Only through education can buyers ensure they are purchasing the right carbon commodity for them and avoid the traps that have tripped up the most well-intentioned greening efforts.

Buying Carbon Offsets: A Quick Primer

Carbon offsets serve a number of purposes. In the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS), under the auspices of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), European companies can invest in emissions reduction projects in developing countries and claim the reductions as their own. That’s because greenhouse gases, unlike local pollutants such as mercury, are global: reducing one ton of CO2 in China has the same result as reducing one ton of CO2 in Germany.

Cognizant of this fact, and seeing an opportunity for wealthier countries to reduce their emissions at the lowest cost while simultaneously contributing to international development, the framers of the Kyoto Protocol included the CDM as a cost containment mechanism. In the US, where there is not yet a mandatory federal cap-and-trade scheme in place, offsets can be purchased by those companies that would like to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint but find it too expensive to curtail their own emissions without an incentive to do so.

There are several key components of an offset that every potential buyer should examine closely before making a purchase:

Five Easy Pieces: Your Offset Quality Checklist

Verification standard: There are numerous standards under which an offset project can be certified (a good comparison of the major standards can be found here). The most important criterion for many buyers is additionality, or whether the project goes beyond business as usual. If you are about to invest in a project that can’t meet the additionality standard: think twice! A rigorous additionality requirement is the most important component of a high quality offset.

Project type: As with additionality, some standards are more selective of the types of emissions reductions projects they will certify. Moreover, from a public relations perspective, some project types can be more appealing to stakeholders than others. For example, while a wind farm and a landfill gas capture project may have identical emissions mitigation potential, the former might look better on your company’s annual report.

Project location: The geographic location of an offset project may be important to a company looking to make an investment in a strategically significant region. Where a project is based can also introduce geo-political risks. Knowing where a project is based can allow buyers to factor country risk into their pricing considerations.

Co-benefits: Some projects provide employment in the local area. Others create clean drinking water as a by-product. Auxiliary benefits such as these can make offset purchases more attractive.

Likelihood that offsets will be accepted under a future compliance regime: As the US Congress debates a mandatory, federal cap-and-trade scheme, there is speculation as to which offsets, if any, will be permissible in meeting compliance obligations. While there is no way to be certain that offsets from a particular project will be accepted, a good rule of thumb is that the more rigorous the protocol a project adheres to, the higher the probability that those offsets will be fungible.

These factors, amongst others, demonstrate the need for transparency in the offset marketplace. When buyers know exactly what they are buying – when they can see all project documentation and compare offsets from projects based on the criteria that matter most to them – they will be making an informed decision that they can defend to their stakeholders. And thankfully, opportunities to buy high quality offsets at a reasonable cost and in a transparent and liquid marketplace are closer than you might think.