New President, hopeful New Policies

Obama's Concentration on other conflicts

2009-04-19T15:23:00.000-07:00

Is he doing it all? or is he just IGNORING Middle Eastern conflicts?

It has become very odd for me to go through a whole week without hearing about a President's speech, actions, or major talks regarding Middle Eastern conflicts. After all, don't they account for the country's most controversial foreign issues?

This week, I've witnessed that our president has made comments, visits, and possible changes in many other foreign nations such as Cuba and Venezuela. It has been since last week, since the Turkey speech, that i've heard anything about Obama and the Middle East.

Speech on Turkey:

This could be a good and a bad approach, it could be a positive approach because the president is paying attention to other conflicts around the world rather than SPEND ALL HIS ENERGY on only the Middle East, spending more time to make proper decisions in that region, and it could be that he is asking for assistance from other nations in the world.

It could however be a negative approach because the President might be; ignoring these conflicts for them being TOO COMPLEX, adding more on his plate with other nations' problems, or delaying such conflicts as they get worse.

Over all, while I approve of many of his approaches that he says he will take, I and many other people waiting for actions get very anxious while waiting for the President to take actions of all these steps he only SAID he will do.... its the matter of the unknown that I hate to be in, time will eventually answer many of our questions though.

Grassroots - Disbelieving Obama

2009-04-19T14:49:00.000-07:00

The action of political resistance has always been deeply rooted into individuals coming together as masses and uniting their voices for remarkable impressions. Unity and freedom are key words in our American constitution, a constitution that's guided under "freedom, liberty, and justice for all."

Grassroots organizations, or political resistance groups in the U.S., take advantage of the First Amendment; which allows them the freedom to comment, organize, and speak against the political environment. However, remembering that these are grassroots organizations, they do not have the needed resources to spread their m

essage through EXPENSIVE MEDIA... and they therefore, rely solely on donations and volunteers to stand up against the powerful voice of the media.

If we date back to President Bush's presidency, we vision many of the rallies on the streets of Washington to have increased around that time. These gathered voices against the presidents' decisions were organized by grassroots organizations, and therefore, what these organizations think of the president makes a huge difference of other people's approach on presidents as well.

As of President Barack Obama, we can witness that many grassroots organizations who are in support of Middle Eastern conflicts are DISLIKING how the President is handling the following controversies:

1. Palestine-Israel - apparently, the President is made a major shift from pro-Palestine to pro-Israel dating his campaign.

2. Iraq - according to members in ANSWER Coalition, president is promising too many actions of withdrawing troops from Iraq, but they will not be going home and will instead transfer to Afghanistan.

3. Afghanistan and Pakistan - ANSWER members are also stating that while Obama might end the war in Iraq, he will be intensifying a different war in Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan.

Here is a list of some of the grassroots organizations in Washington D.C. for Middle Eastern conflicts:

To Date, since the President's Inauguration, ANSWER Coalition has already organized a massive Anti-war protest against America's interven

tion in the Middle East. Generally, the rally called to ending the occupations.

Response to Obama's

2009-04-12T19:05:00.000-07:00

As a response to Barack Obama's Nowruz message,

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Kahmenei dismissed these overtures and has said that Iran does not see any change in U.S. policy under Obama's administration.... Hmm, does not sound too hopeful!!!

He Talks the Talk, But Does He WALK THE WALK?

It was during a speech last Saturday that Khamenei stressed that relations with the U.S. and Iran will not change unless Obama puts an end to U.S. hostility towards Iran and brings real changes in U.S. foreign policies... How "impressive"; the quick judging and instant negativity from Iran that is.

In last Saturday's speech from Khamenei, we can conclude the following:

Iran is dissatisfied because they have yet to see any promised changes in U.S.'s relations with Iran. "They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," said Khamenei.
They say a change of U.S. words is not enough, "we will watch and we will judge. You change , our behavior will change," said Khamenei.
Iran is been dissatisfied with U.S.'s intervention since Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979... therefore, its not Bush they had a problem with, its all of America's policy in Iran.
Khamenei asks Obama how he could congratulate Iranians on the new year while they CONTINUE TO ACCUSE Iran of supporting terrorism and making nuclear weapons.

Khamenei's Speech:

In this matter, I agree with both Barack Obama's action to congratulate the Iranians on Nowruz and with Khamenei's response. First of all, through the message sent to the Iranians, I witness an honorable approach from our President to new beginnings with Iran... however, words of hope and sympathy aren't enough to do the job. But, instead of completely dismissing and mistrusting such wishful thinking, Khamenei is at fault by OVERREACTING and QUICK JUDGING of Obama's policies. After all, he has only been a president for about 5-months.

More war funding.. right? not?

2009-04-12T17:25:00.000-07:00

Like any matter, there is a side of opposition and a side of support. As of the matter of Barack Obama receiving and handling $83 billion more for U.S. wars, I could attribute more quotes of opposition.

Problems, concerns, and facts:

The Pentagon will now be set to receive a $142 billion in war funding for the budget year ending September 30 - the problem here is that the PROMISE of the Pentagon to receive more money, which many parties oppose, is now SET and DONE.
According to an Aljazeera article, while most Democrats and Republicans are likely to support this request, those who oppose the wars say that OBAMA NEEDS to take more actions to end the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
According to Lynn Woolsey, Democrat congresswoman from Califronia, "this funding will do two things: it will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinetly."
Woolsey said that Barack Obama's fundamental theories in those regions should be shifted towards promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts.
After this request, the cost of the two wars since the 9/11 will total to almost $1 trillion dollars, according to Congressional Research Service.
This action of money request is similar to many of those taken by President Bush. The problem here arises on whether President Obama will take similar actions as President Bush... He voted for war funding in 2006, before he announced his candidacy for president.
Funding for training of Iraqi Government will not be supported by Iran, Shia combats in Iraq. Thus, funding for training for the Afghanistan National Army will frustrate Al-Qaeda, and Taliban.

With all do respect to all these facts and oppositions, the war will not end without more funding. What many of the critics need to remember is that President Obama is not the person who got the U.S. into this mess. Quite evidently, we all know that he has entered this presidency announcing his willingness to "dust off our shoulders."

Like all problems, ending them takes a lot more effort than to start them. Throughout Obama's presidency, we are bound to experience him making many similar requests to those of President Bush... the difference is, we have a NEW MAN AT THE TASK and all we can place on him is hope. We cannot deprive and stand in the way of the President because of fear. Clearly, we only have on option towards peace; that option is to take action. Doing absolutely nothing will leave us at war, strengthen terrorism, and allow filth to continue on our reputation.

We got in this mess, and it is now our President's responsibility to lead us out of it.

Obama seeks MORE MONEY FOR WAR

2009-04-12T16:42:00.001-07:00

But wait,

I thought Obama is synonymous with ANTI-WAR... more money? more war? When is the end of this!!!

The U.S. President has asked congress on Thursday for $83.4 more for U.S. wars. According to Obama, 95 percent of the money requested will head for three regions:

1. Iraq: money will support U.S. military operations in the Iraqi basis.

2. Afghanistan and Pakistan: for diplomatic operations in effort to defeat al-Qaeda and Taliban.

As well, $3.6 billion will go for strengthening the Afghan National Army.

"Nearly 95 percent of these funds will be used to support our men and women in uniform as they help the people of Iraq to rake responsibility for their own future - and work to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Obama said in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

It is always a terrifying factor when Presidents request more money for war. It leaves you thinking: doesn't more money mean a more intensified war? isn't Obama hope the opposite of that? however, would we be able to reach an end to this war without intensifying some certain measures? well, maybe we do need additional funding and training.

As we've witnessed in the previous 8-years, blank checks for war given to President Bush have led him to irresponsible and reckless actions. Which in return, caused a FILTH for America's reputation and resulted in bloodshed of many innocent civilians.

However, the question here is, should Barack Obama be given the same opportunity President Bush had and just hope that he will act differently?

Approach to Shiasm

2009-04-04T18:17:00.000-07:00

President's beginning statements on Iran:

During the campaign, President Obama proclaimed that Iran DOES NOT pose a serious threat on the U.S. for reasons such as: the possibility of finding mutual interests with Iran, and the "seriousness" of this threat is weak.

While he said that Iran is not a "serious threat," he as well contradicted that statement to the CNN by saying that their NUCLEAR POWERS can be a great threat on our national security.

Drawing from these contradictory statements, Obama seems to believe that Iran HAS THE TOOLS to be a threat on our security. At the same time, he does not believe that they have the intentions on using these tools (even if they say they will).

2008, Obama on CNN:

The President's idea on resolving the conflict:

1. To begin with, the President believes that the "blank checks" given to former president George Bush allowed for the War in Iraq. Which then led, according to the president, to the strengthening of Shia regimes, which THEN ALSO LED to strengthening Iran... Overall, the President believes AMERICA UNINTENTIONALLY EMPOWERED IRAN through the Iraqi War.

Decision of ending this conflict to the president seems quite SIMPLE to say, but complicated to act upon. Part of the plan is, pulling troops out of Iraq. This action should in return make Iran "happier." Because, obviously, whether the President sees it or NOT, leaving Iraq for its people to handle will empower Iran and result in its dominance of Iraq through the Shia Regimes. Hint: Iran is continuously providing support and fund to bodies of Shia regimes in Iraq.

2. In other efforts, the President portrayed his desire to resolve conflicts with Iran through a message directed to all those celebrating NOWRUZ - a holiday cheerfully celebrated by the Iranian people. Specifically though, the message was DIRECTED TO THE IRANIAN LEADERS. The thematic statement of this message is the understanding of the President's recognition of the two countries' GREAT differences and his great desire on resolving these differences.

Obama's Nowruz Message to Iran:

3. ACTIONS TAKEN FOR IRAN AND IRAQ. In February, despite his intentions to withdraw all troops, President Obama said to the CNN that troops will gradually leave Iraq, while about 35-000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq after . The remaining troops however, will be withdrawn gradually until all the forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

Irana Bama

2009-04-04T17:19:00.000-07:00

America's issue with Iran is based on the U.S.'s fear of possible terrorist acts Washington assumes Iran might take against the U.S. and or its closes ally Israel. Fear has revolved over witnessing actions and statements by Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad that raise threats of their withholds of NUCLEAR WEAPONS, Intentions to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, and disapproval of the U.S.'s existence in Iraq.

Conflict: Shia Revival: After invasion of Iraq, division of Islamic sects amongst Iraqi people became apparent. This division then resulted in daily civil violence and conflicts amongst mostly SUNNI IRAQIS and SHIA IRAQIS. Moreover, the group on the rise of power seemingly is Iraq Shia Muslims.

Iran, being led and powered by Shia Muslims, is a concern for both Sunni Iraqis and the U.S.

Lets keep in mind that the Shia revival was unintentionally fueled by the invasion of U.S. on Iraq. Iraq having been ruled and humiliated for decades by previous Sunni leader Saddam Hussein has left the Islamic Shia sect desperate for power and respect. Therefore, the U.S. invasion, and the prosecution of Hussein became an opportunity by groups of people previously humiliated in Iraq to finally rise and gain the power and respect they've always wished for.

Why the Fear of Shia Revival:

1. While the Iraq invasion played a big role on strengthening Iraqi Shia Muslims, neighboring country Iran's POPULATION MAJORITY is Shias, almost all government officials in Iran are Shias, and the President along with the government's members, are Shias.

2. Iran is a major powerful country in the Middle Eastern region and is in major support of all Shia parties. This support raises concern with the unlimited support Ahmedinejad is willing and has been giving to the Shia powers and the Shia revival in Iraq.

3. Major fear to U.S. security is been witnessed through growing ties between between Shia Iran and Shia Iraq. The U.S. repeatedly accuses Iranian-linked groups of attacking and killing U.S. troops in Iraq.

4. Sunni Iraqis also fear the link of the Shia powers of neighboring countries because it deters the Sunni powers. At the current situation of CIVIL CONFLICTS, Sunnis losing power resulted in their fear of losing many sunni lives... because of Shia revenge.

5. Final concern is of ISRAEL'S SECURITY. Rumor has it that Ahmedinejad said he desires to "wipe Israel off the map" while other critics have said he did not literally "mean to wipe Isreal off the map". But regardless, Iranian president dislikes the Israeli occupation as he sees it to "besiege our Muslims brothers and sisters of Palestine." Israel is a major ally of the U.S., and therefore, Israel's security from Iran is an issue the U.S. must handle with Iran.

Ahmedinejad and Israel/Palestine:

Guantanamo Bay

2009-03-23T23:57:00.000-07:00

One of the first promises President Obama laid in his presidency is to shut down the Guantanamo bay detention camp.

The Controversy of Gitmo Bay rose during Bush's Presidency, as the CIA's program of INTERROGATION enhanced, and the use of TORTURE on terrorist suspects serves as a violation of U.S. and international laws.

For example, the Bush administration proclaimed that suspects were not entitled of the protection of the Geneva Conventions, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Hamdan V. Rumsfeld stating that they are entitled to some of its protection.

HUMAN RIGHTS became a major controversy in the handling of these prisoners; because they are being sent to a different country to be tortured and are being prisoned without court hearings or being charged. The U.S.'s reputation as the nation that disciplines Human Rights laws is at sake for as long as these illegal actions continue at Guantanamo Bay.

The importance of the prison's status to MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS is that a major number of the detainees are of Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters, and plenty of other terrorist suspects are of Arab or Muslim heritages. Example: 40 percent of prisoners are from Yemen.

Furthermore, the handling of these prisoners affects the tangible relationship between the U.S. and the Middle East.

President Obama took a step in January 2009 to better the relationship with the muslim world and to better the U.S.'s reputation and ordered to ban tortures and to close Guantanamo within a year time.

While closing the prison might raise fear of return to those who intent on carrying on terrorist attacks, Obama has said that they are trying to come up with a process that follows the law but also does not release people with TERRORIST INTENTIONS.

How safe is this move towards America's security?

Barack Obama to TALK with Taliban in Afghanistan.

2009-03-09T21:18:00.000-07:00

Remember President Barack Obama's Inauguration speech? Specifically when he addressed the Muslim world to working towards "mutual benefits."

How about his approach towards Afghanistan? Where the real WAR OF TERROR need to be fought?

During an interview with the New York Post, President Obama has admitted that our nation is NOT WINNING THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN! However, losing to terror is not an option for the U.S. Well, not to worry, our President has come up with a MAGNIFICENT plan.

Here it is... The plan that SHOULD WIN the war in Afghanistan.

... identifying MODERN elements in Taliban and moving them towards peace talks...

In other words, President Obama's approach towards winning the War in Afghanistan is, I'm guessing, joining forces with some of the people he is trying to win the WAR AGAINST.

While witnessing some positive on the U.S.'s end in the Iraq situation after collaborating with modern fundamentalists (isn't it odd how modern and fundamentalists do not seem fit in one sentence), the President is hoping a similar approach would bring some success.

"If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us," Obama said.

However, a few obvious obstacles and questions keep me in doubt of the success of this approach:

1. Who are the controlling powers of the Taliban in Afghanistan? Modernists or extremists? Assuming they are a group based on fundamentalism and extremism, would their managerial powers who MAKE THE DECISIONS be the most controlling?

2. How is the U.S. going to easily trust those who may PORTRAY themselves as the MOST MODERN of Taliban?

3. Is there such a thing as a MODERN EXTREMIST?

While I believe negotiations can and will possibly be held to proceed into peaceful resolutions... I highly DOUBT that these talks are going to happen with "Modern Terrorists." Instead, it is going to be held with the most powerful members of the Taliban, simple because they are the characters who will lead to any possible peace and change in Afghanistan. While diplomatic matters is a much preferred alternative for all parties involved in this situation - the Afghani Government, the Afghan people, Taliban, and the U.S. - these talks are NOT GOING TO BE DISCUSSED WITH MODERN FUNDAMENTALISTS.

President Obama will negotiate, and he will be talking peace deals, but he sure cannot tell the world that he has accepted talking peace with terrorists. Therefore, to lessen judgments by his people, other governments, and the media, the President is going to use the approach of falsely selecting the most prominent Taliban leaders and labeling them "MODERN" to avoid a reputation of the PRESIDENT WHO SHOOK HANDS WITH A TERRORIST.

As of right now: Neighboring country Iran (who says Afghanistan's security is their security), President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, Vice President Joe Biden, the Taliban, and the Afghan people are all supportive of this approach. Probably because it is the only approach in the Afghan region that is synonymous with peace.

More troops, Hopeful less Civilian Casualties

2009-02-15T20:15:00.001-08:00

HE WASN'T LYING! POLITICIAN BARACK OBAMA WAS NOT LYING.

The White House confirmed that the President has approved the deployment of an extra 17,000 troops for Afghanistan after a request from U.S. secretary of defense, Robert Gates.

The president is aware that this process took a little longer than expected, but he said that the original strategy presented by the U.S. senior military leadership was dissatisfying and had asked them to come up with a better strategy to put use of the additional troops.

During Bush's presidency, tension and mistrust arose between the U.S. and Afghanistan after U.S. military operations led to a high number of civilian casualties - over 2100 - a 40 percent rise of those killed just in the past year.

Afghanistan's president Hamid Karzai addressed the issue of civilians casualties before and demanded President Obama that "there will be no civilian casualties in Afghanistan. We cannot win the war on terrorism with air-strikes." After Karzai congratulated Barack Obama and the Americans on the "courage" of electing him.

Obama has consistently showed concerns of Afghanistan's security and the urgency of winning the war on terrorism for the sake of the WORLD and believes that with new strategies there will be less civilian casualties in Afghanistan and that it is a winnable war. Regardless of his concerns, the president hopes that the Afghan government will also put accountable efforts on the war on terror.

Less than a month in office, and we are witnessing considerable actions. Lets hope that we will hear UN officials saying next year that Afghanistan lost NO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES in comparison to the recent UN rating of "Worse Year" for Afghan deaths.

President Obama is indeed different than President Bush with his policies. Obama actually believes that diplomacy is needed alongside weapons if we want to win this war. Yes, Obama wants to use diplomatic strategies with Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

With a recent photo portraying former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan Mullah Zaif in Kabul, Afghanistan using an IPHONE, I am assuming they might understand what diplomatic matters means... after all, they did modernize their technologies to "better communicate".. or PLOT ATTACKS! so maybe they have also modernized their diplomatic ways.. or at least, the president hopes so.

How welcoming do you think the Taliban are of Barack Obama??? Watch Below.

Fundamentalism

2009-02-15T19:38:00.000-08:00

In Obama's inaugural speech, we witness he has sent a message to the Muslim world addressing that policies in muslim world is a matter he is concerned about and wants to change. We might come to a surprise that the president attacked for his lack of knowledge in foreign policies does actually have plans and is ready to implement them.

Pakistan and Afghanistan

President Obama vowed previously that the war of terror we need to fight is one in Afghanistan and Pakistan against Al-Qaeda and Taliban. During his campaign the president has said that we need to deploy more troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq; because our war of terror is not Iraq.

The issue in that part of the world is based on a struggle for power. When addressing that region in the Muslim world we must remember two groups: Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Both groups have been targeted by western societies as they witness them to be a great threat on modernism, security, and the western civilization.

Who are these groups?

Al-Qaeda and Taliban are considered to be radical Islamic terrorist groups of which believe that the western civilization MUST COME to a complete end and that the way of rule is solely the SHARIA LAW.

Why were they created?

Radical Muslims believe that the western civilization is immoral and a great threat on the Muslim world by witnessing the U.S.'s extreme involvement in Muslim regions such as Palestine and how such involvements led to the destruction and loss of Muslim lives. Their main objective evolved from "protecting" Islam from the west into complete destruction of the west. Most believe that the west must be destroyed before they destroy all Muslim nations.

To their unfortunate, they consider many nations of Islam immoral and believe that they must change their way of government. Therefore, these terrorist groups consider themselves to be the RESCUERS OF THE ISLAMIC NATIONS.

Why do they hate the west so much?

U.S. and other western nations aid's to Israel allows for the radicals and non-radicals to witness that the west's intrusion is indeed dangerous for Muslim societies.
The presence of western military bases in Muslim nations such as Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Qatar, Bahrain, Omar, Kuwait, etc raise questions and fear of massive western control in the Islamic Nations.

If all they want to do is protect their faith and religion then why promote the hate of other religions and cultures instead of raising awareness through knowledge?

Weakness. Though terrorist groups have dramatically grown in power and support, they bitter towards their military weakness in comparison to the West and Israel.
Lack of knowledge and eduction. Al-Qaeda and Al-Taliban are both terrorist organizations who claim to fight "immoral" religions of the west in the name of God; they allow themselves to portray to the world that God has given them a duty to kill anyone that threatens preserving Islam and WHY? because they distinctly believe that they are protecting themselves and other Muslims from the "immoral" "murderous" "evil" WEST.

Take a second to think about this situation, this is a group of people who decided to represent Islam through their believes and ideas. But why should their words be trusted when a great number of members of these groups have not received an education passed 4th grade or even been outside the borders of their countries. Ignorance.

Have they not taken a moment to recall actions by Prophet Muhammad of which they claim they follow. Have they not recalled that Prophet Muhammad has dined with Jews, has prayed in churches? Have they forgotten the fundamentals of Islam that call on respect and TOLERANCE of all holy religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?

Why fight in the name of Islam?

Simply because a group of oppressed, angry, ignorant people have come together believing that their way of life and that their purpose in this world will preserve Islam and wipe Israel off the map.

Quite frankly, the opposite is happening, their false spread of Islam as a religion of war and hate is fueling the fire and drawing more negative/false views on the reality of Islam and its purpose of existence.

Your probably thinking. If there is a great threat on the Islamic nations from the West, then how do you protect it?

I hereby argue that what such nations need is not additional bombs, wars, or forcible actions. The money spent on all these warrior actions (the west too) needs to

be transfered to healthcare, food, and most importantly education. If the high literacy rate in the Islamic nations of 35% is lowered and a better educational system on the teachings of Islam becomes more realistic then we might see a better generation of well-taught people who will defend their religion and nations with KNOWLEDGE not a gun.

Stay alert for my next blog to learn of Obama's plans in the region.

Controlled Policies

2009-02-08T20:27:00.000-08:00

Biased policies

President Obama said, "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security." Has he once mentioned the importance of the Palestinian's security? The answer is NO. In another AIPAC meeting, he said "I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran." Sounds like a true hero. How about ensuring that Iraq and Palestine can also defend themselves? Does a 23-day war in Gaza leading the death of more than 1300 Palestinian lives call for an immediate protection of the Palestinians as well?

Many wonder what makes Israel deserve complete support and protection from the U.S., others probably wonder if the policies of the Muslim world are really restricted towards Israel and Jewish benefits is because the U.S. is Zionist controlled.

The following points are important to understand while analyzing the US's domestic relationship with the Jews.

Many of Hollywood and the media's key people are Jewish.
AIPAC - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - is one of the most influential lobbies whose goal is to ensure America's support for Israel remains strong.
The Federal Reserve - the central bank of the US - is also largely operated by Jews.

Ben S. Bernanke - Chairman of the FR.
Randall S. Kroszner - Governor of the FR.
Kevin M. Warsh - Governor of the FR.

Generally, President Obama's policies in the Middle East will not be fairly implemented because of the mutual interests the U.S. shares with the Jewish community. Not to say that previous presidents and President Obama are biased by nature. To simply put it, the U.S. benefits from supporting Israel's cause in the Middle East by winning the support of the powerful Jewish community in the U.S.

Due to these powers, objective policies in the Muslim world - Israel's obstacle to its dreams - cannot be easily implemented because they share much less mutual interest with our Government.

Imagine how the U.S.'s foreign policies in the Middle East would be if Arabs or Muslims controlled the economy and obtained a powerful lobby such as AIPAC.

A Handful of problems.

2009-02-06T23:16:00.000-08:00

Can he really handle it all? It is quite evident that the president is expecting a pile of unsolved controversies waiting for him at the White House; a great deal of hope and expectation is also piled up as people from all angles of the world have undoubtedly directed all their hopes on the change-advocate president of the strongest power of the world.

MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS!!!

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Oil, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the list can go on... forever.

Arab and Muslim Americans illustrated their support of Barack HUSSEIN Obama during the 2008 presidency campaign. Why I wonder? Is it because his middle name is Hussein? Or is it because he was once a courageous supporter of the Palestinian cause? Maybe for the reason that President Obama is not a WAR advocate and the Middle Easterners are FED UP with war. Whatever the reasoning behind this support is, I would like to URGENTLY announce to the Middle Easterners of world that America's new Hopeful President is only a sympathizer to your hopes and dreams of PEACE. Hint: President Obama's views on the Palestinian/Israeli controversy have dramatically shifted.

Due to the recent Israeli attacks on the Gaza strip, I would like to first and foremost discuss President Obama's views on the controversial Palestinian/Israeli issue.

The question is, is the President a Palestinian or an Israeli advocat? or is he a supporter of both parties? I doubt the possibility after witnessing the failure of any balanced peace-agreements prompted by previous presidents that they have the capability of supporting both parties without one side feeling neglected.

Previous to the campaign, actions and words by Senator Obama at the time drew a picture that he is a supporter of the Palestinian cause and their people. Obama was seen attending fundraisers in Chicago, Ill. and have shown his compassion of the Palestinians suffrage at various pro-Palestinian events. As well, he was known to have been an opposer to the Israeli cause. Watch below:

According to Palestinian Democracy advocate Mustafa Barghouti, President Obama's comfort of discussing the Palestinian-Israeli cause has changed for the campaign. Watch below:

Obama REFUSED to comment on the Gaza crises explaining he is not yet a president and only one president at a time should speak on behalf of America. Perhaps he was still not courageous enough to comment on the controversial issue.

On a final note: I believe that President Obama's dramatic change of political views on the Palestinian/Israeli controversy is not a result of personal believes but instead Presidents of the United States are almost crippled in making fair decisions when it comes to this controversy.

Why? Stay alert for my next blog as I discuss that in greater details.