|Posté le: Dim 29 Nov - 15:34 (2009) Sujet du message: The news
|Visite de Nicolas Sarkozy en Arabie saoudite : les raisons d’un nouvel échec français
Non seulement il a rien fait pour la fiotasse Shalit, mais en plus les israeliens empochent 460 millions d'aides et de subventions sur 3 ans... Dis donc nain de jardin, t'es tellement irrite que tu retournes provoquer les banlieues, t'en as besoin pour finir de siphonner Le Pen aux regionales ! Et apres tu les envois dans des camps de travail ou sur le champ de bataille en Iran ? Continues comme ca, tu seras le Louis XVI du 21 ieme siecle, si c'est pas pathetique, un juif sioniste né en Hongrie vient parler d'identité nationale... Tu me diras Hitler etait autrichien, un austro-hongrois, comme toi !
Le site « Elaph.com » revient sur ce qu’il appelle « l’échec de la 3ème visite du président français Nicolas Sarkozy en Arabie depuis son élection, effectuée le 17 novembre ». Riyad ne tolère pas l’acrobatie diplomatique de la France et la lui fait payer.
La visite de Nicolas Sarkozy en Arabie saoudite s’est achevée sur un goût amer et une déception, souligne le site « Elaph.com », en raison de l’échec du président français à obtenir des Saoudiens le moindre contrat. A part les quelques formules de politesse, et la promesse d’étudier les propositions de Paris, Riyad refuse toujours - depuis 2008 - de conclure des marchés avec les Français.
« Elaph.com » cite une source saoudienne pour affirmer que « le Président Sarkozy a encouragé les Saoudiens à développer un programme nucléaire civil avec l’aide de la France, pour un montant pharaonique ». Mais ses interlocuteurs ont décliné l’offre, proposée auparavant aux Emirats Arabes Unis sans succès. Selon la même source, Sarkozy a dit au roi Abdallah que « la France était prête à vendre un programme nucléaire civil à l’Arabie ». La réponse du Souverain était sans détour : « Merci beaucoup. Mais pas maintenant ».
Selon plusieurs sources saoudiennes, « le pouvoir en Arabie chercherait, à travers le boycott économique de la France - qui ne dit pas son nom - à sanctionner la politique étrangère de l’Hexagone, marquée par une drôle d’acrobatie ». Riyad n’apprécie pas le rapprochement entre la France et la Syrie, ainsi que ses excellentes relations avec le Qatar, où se trouvait Carla Bruni Sarkozy, pendant que son époux négociait en Arabie. Au point que le site « Elaph.com » désigne Sarkozy par « Nicolas Al-Thani », du nom de l’émir du Qatar. L’Arabie est particulièrement irritée, depuis le début du mandat présidentiel, par l’ouverture accélérée de Sarkozy sur Damas et Doha, deux alliés de l’Iran dans la région, et qui nourrissent l’hostilité à l’égard de Riyad, et soutiennent les mouvements terroristes comme le Hezbollah et le Hamas. Ainsi, « les Saoudiens refusent de récompenser la France en lui attribuant des contrats pour des milliards de dollars, alors qu’elle s’allie avec leurs adversaires ».
Autrement dit, l’Arabie suggère à Paris, indirectement, mais avec beaucoup d’ironie, d’aller récolter les fruits de sa politique en quémandant des contrats en Syrie, un pays au bord de l’asphyxie financière depuis l’arrêt du pillage du Liban à la faveur du retrait de l’armée syrienne du pays du Cèdre. D’autant plus que la Syrie vient d’attribuer, début novembre, un contrat de construction d’une ligne de chemin de fer de plus de 270 km, reliant Palmyre à Deir Ez-Zor, aux entreprises allemandes, trois jours seulement après la visite du secrétaire d’Etat français aux Transports, Dominique Bussereau, à Damas où il a affirmé que « les entreprises françaises sont prêtes à assister la Syrie dans le développement de ses transports urbains et à répondre à tous les appels d’offres ». Les Allemands ont remporté le marché une semaine à peine après l’inauguration médiatisée du bureau de l’Agence Française de Développement (AFD) dans la capitale syrienne. C’est dire comment les Syriens se moquent de Paris une nouvelle fois, en « mangeant l’appât et en pissant sur l’hameçon ».
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 1:28 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Sarkosy ministre du terrorisme israelien
B'nai B'rith – The Jewish Secret Society that Dominates America
By Christopher Bollyn,
President Truman, a highest level Freemason, was forced to accept the dictates of a gang of Zionist Jewish Freemasons on crafting U.S. policy in the Middle East. What does this say about the real hierarchy of power among Freemasons? Truman, a Freemason since 1909, had established the Grandview Lodge No. 618 in Missouri and served as its first "Worshipful Master". In 1940, Brother Truman was elected the ninety-seventh Grand Master of Masons of Missouri. In 1945, President Truman was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, and Honorary Member at the Supreme Council of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite (A.A.S.R.) Southern Jurisdiction Headquarters in Washington D.C. The fact that Jewish Freemasons of the B'nai B'rith were able to meet secretly with the president in the Oval Office whenever they wanted and were able to direct the U.S. president, a highest level Mason, to follow their orders in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, shows the immense power this secret society of Zionist Jews has long had over the U.S. government and other Masonic orders. Barack Hussein Obama was created as a politician in Chicago and made President of the United States by the power of the B'nai B'rith. It's high time for these secret societies to be removed from the corridors of power where U.S. policy is crafted.
B'nai B'rith was instrumental in gaining U.S. support for the nascent Zionist state of Israel in the late 1940s. The Jewish secret society of Freemasons used President Harry Truman's friend - and their agent - Eddie Jacobson of Kansas City (standing behind Truman), to persuade the president to approve the Zionist land grab known as the U.N. Partition Plan for Palestine of 1947 and to recognize the state of Israel the next year following the Zionist ethnic cleansing of nearly 400 Palestinian villages and towns. When Truman extended de jure recognition of the Zionist state on January 31, 1949, the only guests invited to the signing ceremony in the Oval Office were members of B'nai B'rith: Eddie Jacobson, the B'nai B'rith executive vice president Maurice Bisgyer, and the secret society's president, Frank Goldman (sitting).
The first step to solving America's most serious problems requires that we identify the people who control the hidden hand behind the disastrous policies that are destroying our proud republic. This is the first article in a series about the B'nai B'rith, the Jewish secret society that created the state of Israel and made Barack Obama president.
After one year in office it is clear that the Obama administration, elected on a platform of "change", is actually maintaining the policies of the Bush administration. In some cases, such as the occupation of Afghanistan, President Barack Hussein Obama has actually added to the war effort by sending tens of thousands more troops.
The fact that the political change was only superficial and that the Obama administration intends to follow the basic policies of the previous administration can best be seen in the continuing cover up of the truth of what really happened on 9-11. The false-flag terrorism of 9-11 is the fundamental lie that needs to be protected. Upon this blatant lie the fraudulent "War on Terror" is based, and this illegal war policy has been embraced by Barack Obama.
When the Obama team sent Henry Kissinger to Moscow for early meetings with the Russian leadership, rather than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it was evident that the power brokers running the Obama White House were the same as those that ran the Bush and Clinton administrations – and those before them.
Rahm Emanuel, Chief-of-Staff of the Obama administration and son of an Israeli terrorist, and David Axelrod, the president's strategy chief and senior adviser, are two of the highest managers of Barack Obama. Axelrod, the son of a Communist Jew, has been managing Obama's political career since 1992. Emanuel, as a former senior adviser in the Clinton White House, was the person who pushed the disastrous NAFTA legislation through Congress in 1993. But who really manages Emanuel and Axelrod? Who tells them what policies to promote and which to discard?
Our politicians and policies are given to us today via television and the controlled media like the mysterious writing on the wall appeared to Babylon's King Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, in the Old Testament. But who controls the hand that creates the politicians and crafts the policies?
The election of Barack Obama has provided us with a glimpse of the hidden hand that controls the government of the United States. The politicians and policies of the U.S. government do not actually come from the people but are presented to the public through the controlled media. The two most influential papers in the United States, The New York Times and Washington Post, are both controlled by German Jewish families that are among the founding members of the Jewish secret society the B'nai B'rith. The B'nai B'rith, an order of Jewish Freemasonry, is closed to non-Jews which puts its Jewish members at the top of the Masonic hierarchy. The members of B'nai B'rith are able to join other Masonic orders but only Jews can belong to B'nai B'rith.
Barack Obama has been created as a political candidate since 1992 by David Axelrod and Bettylu Saltzman, the daughter of Philip M. Klutznick, the former head of B'nai B'rith International, the supreme body of the B'nai B'rith. This is the secret society of Zionist Jews that controls the White House and the policies of the U.S. government.
The first Chicago newspaper report from the 1860s that revealed that a secret organization of "Israelites" had existed in Chicago for some 20 years.
'Do you really think that criminals are clever, good people, Thrasymachus?'
'Yes, if their criminality is able to manifest in a perfect form and they are capable of dominating countries and nations.'
- Socrates in Plato's Republic
Secret societies like the Freemasons and B'nai B'rith are like the black holes of astronomy. We cannot see black holes but we know they exist because we can see their profound effects on light and other bodies. So is it with the Jewish B'nai B'rith and other Freemasonic secret societies, which we know very little about but that pervade every level of our society and affect everything around us.
Great nations, like the United States, France, and Germany, once had anti-Masonic and anti-Semitic political parties that acted to challenge the pervasive influence of secret Masonic and Jewish organizations. Today we no longer have such political parties and find our societies dominated by the B'nai B'rith and Jewish Freemasons.
In the United States in 1828, the Anti-Masonic Party was the original third party to be active on the national scene. Popular opinion in America was naturally opposed to secret organizations and people feared the Freemasons, believing they were a powerful secret society that undermined republican principles. The Anti-Masonic Party was right. A democratic republic cannot allow its government, courts, and media to be run by the members of secret societies.
In 1843, a German Jew who called himself Henry Jones founded a Jewish secret society called the “Bundes-Brueder” (League of brothers) in the Sinsheimer Café near Wall Street in New York. Jones recruited his co-founders from the synagogue where he was in charge. At least four of its founders were Freemasons. The order, which was later re-named the “B’nai B’rith,” was closed to all non-Jews and to any Jew who fraternized with Christians.
The power of the B'nai B'rith has grown immensely during the past 166 years. As an independent journalist who has investigated the evidence of Israeli involvement in the false-flag terror of 9-11, I have seen how this secret society of Jewish Freemasons is able to corrupt every aspect of American society. It is the force behind the media and government cover-up of the truth of what happened on 9-11. It is also the secret organization behind the brutal attack on me at my house in August 2006 and the malicious prosecution and corrupt court process that followed.
Christopher Bollyn the day after being brutally assaulted by a three-man undercover tactical police squad at his home in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, in August 2006.
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 1:15 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Zionism Deception
Thursday, November 19, 2009
ARE BLACKWATER MERCENARIES RESPONSIBLE FOR FALSE FLAG BOMBINGS IN ORDER TO UNLEASH CIVIL WAR IN PAKISTAN?
ISLAMIC RESISTANCE CONFIRMS THAT ISRAELIS, BRITISH, AMERICAN, INDIAN, ISI AND BLACKWATER, XE ARE BEHIND TERRORISM in Afghanistan and Pakistan, targeting only innocents to unleash civil wars
Bombes dans les marchés ? BLACKWATER !
Uploaded by As-Sahab_FR. - News videos from around the world.
Yesterday I wrote of media reports saying that the Obama administration had written to Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, ‘saying he expects the Pakistani leader to rally political and national security institutions in a united campaign against extremists’. It now seems that Blackwater, the US mercenary company, may well have been responsible for a series of bombings aimed specifically at civilians in an effort to alienate the Pakistani people from the Taliban.
In a recent video, Taliban spokesman, Azam Tariq, denied that the Taliban were responsible for a suicide bombing at the International Islamic University in Islamabad on 20 October 2009, and the massive car-bombing that indiscriminately killed scores of civilians at a market in Peshawar, a bombing that coincided with a visit by Hillary Clinton to Pakistan, on 28 October 2009.
What gives Tariq’s statement credibility is the fact that, first, the Taliban, as can be seen in the video, are quite happy to claim responsibility for those bombings that were against police and security facilities which they see as legitimate targets. Second, it would not at all be in the Taliban’s interest to indiscriminately murder the very people, particularly in Peshawar where most of the people are Pashtun, that offer the Taliban most support and from whom the Taliban draw new recruits.Tariq claims that Blackwater mercenaries working in conjunction with Pakistani security, the ISI, are responsible for the bombings.
According to a report in the Pakistani online newspaper ‘The Nation’, some 202 Blackwater mercenaries arrived in Pakistan on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 on a flight out of Heathrow, London, though the report did not mention the purpose of their being in Pakistan saying only that authorities at Islamabad airport had allowed the men into Pakistan without any of the normal checks for visas, etc. The same report also noted that ex-Army Chief of Staff, Mirza Aslam Beg, had claimed “that former President Pervez Musharraf had given Blackwater the green signal to carry out its terrorist operations in the cities of Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Quetta”.
Many Blackwater employees are currently accommodated at the Pearl Continental luxury hotel in Peshawar, a building which has been earmarked for purchase by the US government for use as a future US consulate. They are in Peshawar “to provide security for a US-backed aid project in the area”, though what kind of ’aid’ they are providing ‘security’ for has not been specified.As well as bombings, it seems Blackwater operatives have also recently been involved in the targeted killings of several Pakistani military officers; presumably these were officers who had been discovered to have had sympathies or ties with the Taliban.
Looking at the broader picture, one might ask; what would be the purpose of pushing Pakistan toward civil war? The answer is simple: Once having pushed Pakistan to the brink of such a crisis, the situation would be so critical that it would provide an ideal opportunity for the US to step in to support a pro-US government in Pakistan and also to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
I would also provide the opportunity for the US to overtly fight the Taliban on Pakistani soil.Obviously, the US military are unable to undertake any of these tasks – yet, but Blackwater mercenaries, already in Pakistan providing security to a ‘US-backed aid project’, are already in a position to ruthlessly and covertly exploit an already potentially lethal political situation between the Pakistan government and the Taliban.A very senior Australian defence public servant who I spoke to about the situation between the Taliban and Pakistan told me that ‘in a year or so Pakistan will be Australia’s, and the West’s, biggest headache but that there were plans to deal with it’.That was in October of last year.
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 8:14 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Israel infiltration and control of Westminster
TV documentary exposes Britain's Israel lobby
Channel 4 Dispatches: "Inside Britain's Israel lobby", broadcast on 16 November 2009. The video can also be viewed here.
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 6:09 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: War on Islaam in UK
Monday, November 16, 2009
Terror Risk High as Obama Ponders Afghan Fiasco
Earlier images of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
The person said to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind of 9-11," may arrive in New York City before Christmas.
By Christopher Bollyn,
The risk of another false-flag terror attack like the terror atrocities of 9-11 is currently very high. This is not a prediction but a warning based on my analysis of 9-11 and the predicament that the U.S. and NATO find themselves in as they try to occupy Afghanistan, a nation of fighting men who have always resisted foreign occupiers.
An Afghan fighting man at a funeral of a fallen comrade. The men of Afghanistan, mainly Pashtuns of Aryan stock, are fighting the U.S.-led occupation of their nation. What would you do if your country were occupied? Would you take up arms and fight to free your nation from occupation or would you submit to the occupying power? This question is much more pertinent than most Americans realize.
As President Barack Hussein Obama ponders what to do about the fiasco in Afghanistan, the risk of a false-flag terror attack that forces his hand is greatly increased. An Israeli-designed terror attack that is seen by the public as having been committed by Al Qaida would serve as an effective decision maker for Obama and swing public opinion behind sending more troops to the eight-year-old war of occupation in Afghanistan.
This is why I consider the chances of another terror attack to be blamed on Al Qaida to be very high at the moment.Why has Obama waited so long to decide what to do in Afghanistan? The Zionist-controlled president obviously does not intend to bring the troops home and the status quo is clearly not working. Obama, who will soon receive the Nobel Peace Prize, and his Zionist handlers are obviously reluctant to send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to a war of occupation that is very unpopular with Americans. Fearing defeat and "mission failure", the U.S. military, NATO, and the Zionist-controlled media are clamoring for more troops to be sent as soon as possible, but if Obama were to send more troops he would lose even more support among his political base, which is really quite weak.The administration's plan to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind of 9-11," to New York City to stand trial may be part of this plan. Why has it taken the Obama administration one year to come to this decision? If Obama were truly serious about closing Guantanamo and seeing justice served, he would have made these moves last spring. A trial for the person said to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would provide an ideal possibility for another false-flag terror attack in New York City. One that killed the 9-11 terror suspects before they had a chance to be thoroughly interrogated in an open trial would probably be the desired outcome for the planners of the terror attack.
The person said to be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "mastermind of 9-11," may arrive in New York City before Christmas.
Earlier images of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
One has to remember that the real goal of the war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with democracy or the terrorism of 9-11. The U.S.-led invasion and occupation is meant to occupy and pacify the country to allow for the construction of the TAPI pipeline to transport the Mossad-owned gas of Turkmenistan to India and China. When this pipeline is built, the Mossadnik Yosef Maiman and his Israeli partners will become tremendously wealthy selling the gas resources of Turkmenistan, which they own and control. The Israelis certainly have not shelved this plan because of the high casualties being suffered by U.S. and NATO forces. The Israeli terrorists who masterminded 9-11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the utterly fraudulent "War on Terror" (e.g. Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak) are at the top of their game -- and running the Israeli government.
The Zionist Terror Troika - Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak
The current Israeli government is very close to the Obama administration. With Rahm Emanuel, the son of a Zionist terrorist, running the White House, one might think that the Israeli government is calling the shots in the Oval Office. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Lally Weymouth, senior editor of Newsweek and The Washington Post (which her family owns), in late October 2009:
There is much greater cooperation and transparency between the Obama administration and my government than people know. We speak openly and I greatly appreciate steps taken by the Obama administration against the distorted Goldstone report and their pressure on Iran to stop its military nuclear program as well as the ongoing efforts we are making to re-launch the peace negotiations between us and the Palestinians.
Rahm Emanuel, the son of a Zionist terrorist from the Stern Gang, runs the Obama White House. The president is kept in an information bubble and handled like a puppet by his Zionist handlers who have managed him since 1992.
David Axelrod, Obama's adviser since 1992, made the candidate by making his political decisions and writing his speeches. He still does.
Lally Weymouth is the daughter of Katharine (Meyer) Graham and grandaughter of Eugene Isaac Meyer, the Zionist Jew banker of Lazard Freres who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933 and who bought The Washington Post at a bankruptcy auction in 1933. Like most U.S. news outlets, both the New York Times and Washington Post are owned by Zionist Jewish families.
Sources and Recommended Reading:
Christopher Bollyn, "Why Afghanistan?" September 28, 2009 http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11438
Bollyn, "The Great Game - The War For Caspian Oil And Gas," October 14, 2001http://www.bollyn.com/the-great-game-14-oct-2001
Bollyn, "Gitmo Gulag Process Falls into Chaos," July 16, 2009http://www.bollyn.com/gitmo-gulag-process-falls-into-chaos
Bollyn, "Terror Mastermind KSM is an Imposter - The Confession is Fake," March 16, 2007http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Ahmed-Abdul-Qadus.html
Bollyn, "The Absence of Justice for 9/11 Victims," March 20, 2007http://www.bollyn.com/index.php?id=10665
Bollyn, "When and Where was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Captured - or Killed?" March 16, 2007http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Bollyn-Ahmed-Abdul-Qadus-arrest.html
Posted by Abu-Suleyman at 12:00 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: ISRAELI FALSE FLAG TERRORISM
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Obama, the Biggest Threat to Al-Aqsa in 90 Years?
By Shaykh Riyad Nadwi, PhD
11th November 2009
وَمَكَرُوا مَكْرًا كُبَّارًا
"And they have devised a tremendous plot..." (Quran, 71:22)
:الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسوله وآله وصحبه أجمعين
The Obama Pro-Muslim Smoke Screen
Owing to the fog of multiple and conflicting pictures painted to depict Barack Obama, confusion remains in the minds of many as to what the new President of America really represents and where exactly his loyalties lie. As the weeks and months of his presidency pass by, inconsistent messages and contradictory positions on major issues have become a standard feature of the regime. An executive order is signed to close Guantanamo Bay and end the military trials of its inmates, but then the military trials are revived and Guantanamo remains open. Renditions are ruled out in public, but then ruled in by stealth. The war in Iraq was to be ended in 2009, but instead of any substantial withdrawal of troops, we have the construction of the "small-city-larger-than-the-Vatican" sized US Embassy in Baghdad. Indeed, war continues, as in the previous administration, to feature at the top of the White House agenda, with thousands more troops committed to war in Afghanistan - but then Obama receives the Nobel Peace Prize. An insightful young Muslim sent me her reaction to the prize in these words:
"The Nobel Peace Prize has always seemed in danger of being more ridiculous than sublime. Who can forget such former laureates as that bastion of realpolitik Henry Kissinger or Yitzak 'Break their bones' Rabin? Despite this, I listened with a mixture of astonishment and disbelief when I heard the news that Barack Hussein Obama was this year's recipient. It seems strange indeed that aside from his desk job in the White House this year's recipient is also the Commander in Chief of the world's largest army, which is currently fighting wars in two separate countries, and presides over the largest defense budget in the world, which is estimated to total somewhere between $925 billion and $1.14 trillion in 2009. This is not to mention the 40,000 extra US troops he has pledged to send into Afghanistan or the tacit support he has given the despicable practice of secret rendition. This award seems all the more astonishing when one takes into account the type of individual that Alfred Nobel had in mind for the recipient of the award, namely it should be awarded to 'the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.' It seems that in 2009 we are closer than ever to 1984: 'Then the face of Big Brother faded away again and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.'"
The sense of confusion is widespread among large swathes of people from diverse backgrounds, including even some from his own black community (e.g. Rev. Jesse Jackson who had to apologise publicly after being caught on camera saying that he wanted to castrate Obama). However, the Obama confusion is most profound among Muslims. While some Muslims insist, against all the evidence to the contrary, that he is a Muslim, others see him as a saviour of sorts and a messiah of peace. This, of course, is a picture Obama himself has sought to project to the Muslim world through a variety of means. He ensured that, as president, the first phone call he made was to Mahmoud Abbas, his first television interview was on the Dubai-based channel Al-Arabiyya (extending a "hand of friendship" to the Muslim world), and he also made sure that his first major overseas speech was to a Muslim audience in a Muslim country.
These gestures of friendly intent towards Muslims are further reinforced when Muslims remember the highly-publicised anecdotes of antagonism towards Obama from the American Right and its media outlets during the early stages of the presidential campaign. Most notably among these was the "madrasa graduate" accusation from Fox News and, of course, the famous emails warning the Jewish electorate that he was a closet Muslim.
Seeing that the pro-Israel Fox News and members of the US Jewish community were antagonistic towards Obama reinforced the idea among many Muslims that "the man is probably on their side".
The frequent bouts of petty conflict between Fox News and Obama did not damage either party. In fact, these conflicts serve, as we can see in the latest round, to boost audience figures while simultaneously increasing the president's credibility, depicting him as someone who can stand up to the right wing media.
What most people do not realise is that the Fox Network played a larger role in creating acceptability for a black president in the minds of the US electorate that any other network in the US. The high profile Fox TV drama series 24 did not only serve to soften the public attitude towards torture by portraying it as a necessary evil, but it also played a major role in promoting something (i.e. a black US president) that was until then considered, even among blacks, as absurd. This phenomenon was dubbed "The Palmer Effect" by commentators such as Lucia Bozzala. In her article of early 2007 "The Palmer Effect: Has '24' Made the US Safe for President Obama?" she wrote:
"In 24, the Palmers are elected. Fancy that. In those off years and months between terrorist crises, David Palmer wins elections, and Wayne Palmer wins because he has the right last name.... The point, though, is that they win because they got enough votes. They don't enter the office on a technicality. They are president because people like them. They really really like them. In other words, the minds behind 24 (right wing or not) were able to conceive of the idea of a black man being elected by the general public, and not toss it out as patently absurd i.e. if Jack Bauer has no fear of a black president, then maybe we won't either." (The Palmer Effect: Has "24" Made the U.S. Safe for President Obama? Lucia Bozzola, 30 Jan 2007.)
The Fox Network controversy is not the only example of one story in public and another in private. There is a pattern of projecting public conflict while maintaining private friendship. In the public arena, the Right and the Neocons were criticising Obama but then it was revealed that a week before his swearing in, he was attending secret dinners with George Will and William Kristol. The news shocked his many supporters. A Washington Times reporter, describing the reaction when the news of the secret dinner emerged, wrote "The lefties are mystified. So are a few of the righties."
The same pattern is visible in Obama's choice of individuals to hold key positions in his administration. Some commentators have gone as far as labelling those Right and Neocon activists who suddenly switched their support to Obama's candidacy as "Obamacons". Here is a brief list of them:
Andrew Sullivan in his Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters - The Atlantic.Douglas Kmiec, Endorsing Obama - Slate.The Endorsement Follows the Covenant—Why I Endorse Sen. Obama - Slate.David Friedman (son of Milton