On Thursday, the conservative-leaning undercover sting journalist is releasing a second video in a series that aims to portray Hollywood environmentalists as hypocrites.
Once again, O’Keefe’s evidence consists of edited video clips drawn from a meal with an industry figure that is surreptitiously recorded by the journalist’s accomplices. O’Keefe’s goal is to show that Hollywood figures will take financing for a proposed anti-fracking film even if they know that the money comes from a backer whose motive is to keep the U.S. dependent on the Middle East for supplying its energy needs.
This time around, O’Keefe zeroes in on Sarandon, primarily through an associate of hers, Chris Talbott, who is a producer and director who has known the actress at least since working postproduction on Dead Man Walking, the 1995 film that earned Sarandon an Oscar for best actress.
The actress is seen at a film event suggesting that a representative meet with “Muhammad” — an O’Keefe associate — in her stead. The scene switches to a lunch meeting with Talbott, who positions himself as a conduit between the phony “Muhammad” and Sarandon
Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, the general who ousted an elected president and is set to become Egypt’s next head of state, called on the United States to help fight terrorism to avoid the creation of new Afghanistans in the Middle East.
In his first interview with an international news organization in the run-up to the May 26-27 vote, Sisi called for the resumption of US military aid, worth $1.3 billion a year, which was partially frozen after a crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Asked what message he has for US President Barack Obama, Sisi said: “We are fighting a war against terrorism.”
“The Egyptian army is undertaking major operations in the Sinai so it is not transformed into a base for terrorism that will threaten its neighbors and make Egypt unstable. If Egypt is unstable then the entire region is unstable,” said a quietly spoken Sisi, wearing a dark civilian suit.
“We need American support to fight terrorism, we need American equipment to use to combat terrorism.”
It is possible, that Egypts actions in the last few years do not make it the most strident partner in this battle:
“The army could not have abandoned its people or there would have been a civil war and we don’t know where that would have taken us. We understand the American position. We hope that they understand ours.”
The Brotherhood was banned as a terrorist organization in December. Former president Mohamed Mursi, ousted in July after mass protests, is facing capital charges, while the group’s spiritual guide, Mohamed Badie, has been sentenced to death along with hundreds of supporters among the Brothers.
Secretary Kerry stands for those who support the destruction of Israel. He should not be speaking for this nation. He needs to stand down before he brings judgment against us.
Mark Levin joins Ted Cruz in stupidly demanding John Kerry’s resignation for using the word “apartheid” to describe what could happen if there is only a one state solution in the Middle East.
And in so doing, he reheats some old Swift Boat lies.
Did you know that John Kerry is an anti-Semite? Did you know that? The Democrat (sic) nominee in 2004? United States Senator from Massachusetts for all those terms? The man who lied to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 when he turned on all our brave men and women in uniform fighting in Vietnam, and gave aid and comfort to the Vietnamese-the Communist Vietnamese and the Vietcong? Oh, am I allowed to say these things? Well, it’s true. Now he’s giving and aid and comfort to the terrorists in the Middle East. Let there be no mistake about it - now he’s giving aid and comfort to the Jew haters and the Israel haters in the Middle East. AND NOT JUST THERE! This man is a disgrace, and he should resign, and he won’t resign.
And I don’s use this word “anti-Semite” frivolously. If somebody happens to disagree with me, that’s fine. But a pattern is evidence. And now Kerry warns that Israel risks becoming an apartheid state like South Africa. No Secretary of State has ever said that about our allies, Israel, ever.
There is no doubt that the main economic challenge before the new Lebanese government is the burden of the public debt, which has recently grown at an alarming pace. The lack of growth and the widening fiscal deficit are putting great pressure on public finances. This puts the central bank in front of serious risks, not least of which is the high inflation rate and what may happen at the monetary level if the appropriate monetary policy is not implemented to support the Lebanese pound.
By the end of January, Lebanon’s public debt had reached $64 billion and its debt-to-GDP ratio has reached 163.1%. It should be noted that the debt in Lebanese pounds reached the equivalent of $37.8 billion, up 12.6%, while foreign currency debt increased by 6.7% to reach $26.1 billion. The rate of growth of the public debt is worrisome because it has exceeded 10%, and gross domestic product (GDP) growth for 2012-13 didn’t exceed 2%. In other words, the debt is growing faster than the economy at a rate exceeding 500%. One doesn’t need to be well-versed in economics to see that the country is heading for bankruptcy.
President Barack Obama has an opportunity this month to lead from behind on women’s rights in Saudi Arabia - behind, that is, a woman driver.
The president is visiting the repressive Gulf kingdom this month. In a letter delivered to the White House, Amnesty International is calling on him to take a stand on women’s rights by meeting with the female leaders of a campaign to end the ban against women driving. We are also calling on him to have a woman Secret Service driver himself during his visit.
Take action to demand the president support women’s rights in Saudi Arabia.
There are five reasons why the president should hand over the car keys to a woman:
It is interesting that Hamas has been unable to prevent Islamic Jihad militants from operating along the border with Israel, in an area that is supposed to be off limits to them. This, despite having recently stationed its Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in the area to ensure that no rockets are fired from it. But what is actually stopping Hamas, a group that even Israel recognizes as the sovereign authority in the Gaza Strip, from disarming the Al-Quds Brigades? Who or what is preventing fighters from the al-Qassam Brigades, whose military strength is several orders of magnitude greater than Islamic Jihad’s military wing, the Al-Quds Brigades, to enforce their authority? And what made the Hamas slogan of “concentrating military power in one hand” so hollow and meaningless?
Right now, the leaders of Hamas are looking at Islamic Jihad and coming to the conclusion that the Al-Quds Brigades are capable of doing to them exactly what Hamas did to Fatah seven years earlier. They can achieve military superiority, thereby posing a threat to Hamas and especially to its position of seniority in the Gaza Strip.
Iran favors Islamic Jihad. Hamas realizes this, and is not trying to disarm it. For its part, Islamic Jihad now knows how to take advantage of the crisis facing Hamas and the movement’s weaknesses. This leaves the leaders of Hamas caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side they have Israel, which threatens them with a large scale military attack if the rocket fire doesn’t stop. On the other side is Iran, which will not stand silently by if Hamas causes any harm to the members of Islamic Jihad or to Iranian interests in Gaza.
The leaders of the Hamas movement are being forced to evaluate the options and choose between Israel or Iran. Which frightens them more? Which poses a greater threat, as far as they are concerned? Which threat has far-reaching implications for their future? From which threat will they emerge with damage they can tolerate? Hamas tends to choose Iran.
On March 4 in Adana province, a 22-year-old woman attempted to commit suicide because she had been unexpectedly denied an abortion at a government hospital
On March 11, a peculiar headline appeared in the press and on social media: “Turkish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Abortion is banned covertly.” Things get a bit tricky here, because the law has not changed. The head of the OB/GYN association, Dr. Cansun Demir, told Al-Monitor, “The option to click on ‘Abortion’ is removed from our Web page.” Hence, his doctors can no longer approve this procedure, and the government will not cover the expense.
Demir explained, “The right to choose to terminate a pregnancy based on the woman’s decision is legal, but we cannot provide the service. What is left to medical doctors is either classifying any abortion as a medical necessity or redirecting the woman to seek private care to terminate the pregnancy.” Demir said they cannot comprehend or explain the legal basis of this change to the patients, because it appears to be arbitrary.
“Changing the name of the square in Kiev, capital of Ukraine, from ‘independence’ to ‘euro’ is a clear sign that this movement, supported by the United States and Europe, is pushing Ukraine away from independence toward dependency,” said Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces.
Last week, Kayhan newspaper, which is managed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s representative, Hossein Shariatmadari, published an editorial in which the crisis in Ukraine was described as the conflict between the Kremlin and the “enemy” of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The editorial’s author, Sadollah Zarei, a theoretician who works for the Iran Revolutionary Guard, described the enemy as “the West,” but did not elaborate.
Inside Iran, however, some say that the recent events in Ukraine represent to the hard-liners more than just a disagreement between Russia and the West, and that it has reopened an old psychological wound.
“For the government, Ukraine is the symbol of the velvet revolution,” said a Green Movement activist to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. “A lot of people believe that the post-election demonstrations in Iran in 2009 were influenced by the Orange Revolution of 2005 in Ukraine.”
The activist said: “Certain groups in the establishment are worried that with the fall of the corrupt government in Ukraine, members of the Iranian social movement might think that if [President Hassan] Rouhani’s administration fails to push for a major improvements, they, too, can once again return to the streets.”
The conflict in Syria has taken on many shapes as it mutated from a popular mass movement for political change into a proxy civil war with sectarian undertones. Each region of this land, a diverse tapestry with intricately interwoven social, ethnic and religious ties bound together with the strings of a shared history, has experienced the conflict in distinct ways.
Aleppo is perhaps unique in this respect, deviating from the standard Syrian model in that the conflict here follows the stratification of society along class and clan lines, rather than the general sectarian rift that delineates the conflict elsewhere. A large number of Sunnis from all backgrounds, including the working and rural classes, fight alongside the regime in militias or as willing conscripts. In other provinces, however, the split could be more or less described as halves of a once coherent social order split along purely confessional lines.
In Aleppo, the splits are more blurred. Needless to say, the entirety of the rebel forces — except for the foreigners fighting with the al-Qaeda affiliates — fighting under Islamist or mainstream groups are composed of poorer Sunnis from the countryside.