Accordimg to CNN news Osama Bin Laden has been killed and USA has his body in possession.

US President Obama will be addressing the nation and the world very shortly.

As per CNN, his body is identified and a DNA Check confirms his identity. Osama Bin Laden, per CNN, he is dead.

The White House on Wednesday morning released the president’s long form birth certificate (pdf) in an attempt to put “birther” questions to rest.

“The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good T.V., but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.
To read more and see the Birth Certificate click below..
White House releases Obama birth Certificate
Source:yahoo news

Israel provoked both the US and the Palestinians today by announcing plans to build 238 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a move that throws into doubt already fragile peace negotiations.

Publication of the housing plans comes at a time when discussions between the Israelis and Palestinians being brokered by the US are stalled.

The Palestinians today accused the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, of putting settlements before peace.

A senior US administration official, responding to media reports of the new house plan, said: “We saw that story as well and we are working to confirm that it occurred.”

Barack Obama has been pushing Netanyahu to impose a complete freeze on settlements on the West Bank in an effort to create the groundwork for a peace deal.

Netanyahu agreed last year to a 10-month settlement freeze but that deadline expired last month and Netanyahu has since rebuffed US calls to extend it.

The 238 houses are in Pisgat Ze’ev and Ramot, both in East Jerusalem and both with predominantly Israeli residents. The Israeli government regards both as part of Israel but the Palestinians, and almost all of the international community, see them as illegal, built on Palestinian land occupied by Israeli in 1967.

Saeb Erekat, the main Palestinian peace negotiator, said today: “This is a severe blow to the efforts by the United States and the Arab League to prevent the peace process from collapsing.”

Netanyahu is facing pressure from the Obama administration to make meaningful concessions to the Palestinians in peace talks that began last month and from the rightwing of his coalition government that is opposed to concessions on settlement building.

To read more click:

‘Objective allies’

That the Israelis and Palestinians could reach agreement on a comprehensive two-state settlement under the current circumstances is hard to imagine. That they could actually implement such an agreement is impossible.

It is therefore significant that Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev has said that the current Israeli government hopes to “negotiate an agreement quickly,” but adds that it “would be implemented over a long time”.

Someday, enterprising graduate students will write theses – if indeed they have not done so already – describing how Netanyahu and the leadership of Hamas were “objective allies” in scuttling the Oslo peace process.

While the idea of any form of collaboration between them would be anathema to both, their de-facto cooperation in undermining implementation of the 1993 agreement was quite effective: Both Likud and Hamas had their own reasons for wishing the process to fail, and the actions of one greatly facilitated the efforts of the other.

Based on past performance, Netanyahu would have no difficulty manipulating a lengthy peace process to produce what he wants and, more importantly, to avoid what he does not.

A model for the region?

But in the meantime, there is lurking danger. Netanyahu is no doubt aware of the growing talk of a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. That may be why he is suddenly willing to countenance the possibility of a Palestinian state, at least in some truncated form, and at least in principle. And that may also be why he needs Palestinian recognition of the principle of Israel as a Jewish state. It is not clear that Mahmud Abbas, in his greatly diminished state, can provide the Israeli prime minister with the lasting commitment he wants, particularly in the absence of a fully-implemented peace agreement, but that does not make Netanyahu want it any less.

The fact of the matter, however, is that the idea of a two-state solution in Palestine is finished. Israeli settlements in the West Bank and their attendant infrastructure have made a viable and independent Palestinian state impossible. The settlements, moreover, cannot be undone. Their existence obviates the need for formal Israeli annexation: The de-facto annexation of the West Bank has already taken place. The only remaining solution is a single, unified, bi-national state.

The fact that a bi-national state is inevitable will not make its formation any easier; nor will the great difficulties involved in forging a truly bi-national state make its emergence any less inevitable. Such a state will, of necessity, eventually be fully democratic; and its character will of necessity be substantially – though by no means exclusively – Jewish.

Even with wise leadership on both sides, the creation of such a state would surely take a couple of generations. With the sort of leadership both sides we are likely to get, however, it may well take much longer. As the need for such a solution becomes more obvious, however, and as the violent struggle for Palestinian national rights becomes a peaceful struggle for Palestinian civil rights, the effort is likely to unite Arabs on both sides of the Green Line.

If there is any linear progress in history, however, such a secular, democratic and bi-national state will eventually come. When it does, it will doubtlessly be a good thing – indeed, it could serve as a model for the region.

The likelihood of such an eventual outcome may become apparent sooner than many think. As it does, Netanyahu and the leaders of his generation may yet have occasion to contemplate, at their leisure, what will inevitably appear to them to be the unwanted consequences of their catastrophic success.

To read complete article click:
Former director of the CIA:Netanyahu’s ‘catastrophic success’

By Afshan Khan

A Muslim American Response…

In the wake of recent controversy which has been blown out of proportion by both republicans and democrats who are bent on exploiting this issue to fill up their vote banks in November elections ignoring the most pressing issue of jobs and economy which our country faces today.

when I look at the way the issue of Mosque and religion being exploited by these power hungry politicians by alienating the Muslim American community to further their political goals, I forget that I am in United State of America, the beacon of human rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech and all other basic rights. For a moment I find myself being in some third world theocratic state.

Here are 5 reasons to bulid/ not to build Mosque near Ground Zero…

1. Opponents  of Mosque near ground Zero give the example of building the Japanese shrine near Perl harbor, which they declare should never be allowed. I agree as we were attacked by Japan, a foreign country, of course we do not want any building associated to them build on Pearl harbor, but remember on 9/11, Muslim Americans were not the culprits, they did not attack the twin Towers, it was Al-qaeda. Then why American citizens who happen to be Muslims are denied the right to build their house of worship, why they their religion is being vilified day in and day out all over the mass media in an attempt to create Islamophobia.

Common people including our politicians need to distinguish between  a country and Islam, Islam is not a country and all Muslims do not belong to one particular country, and the fact is that  mosque is not being built by or for any foreign nation or foreigners, it is for American citizens build by Americans, who happen to be Muslims and who have equal right to build their place of worship as any of their Christian and Jews and Hindu fellow citizens.

2. Another important fact we common folks tend to forget and our politicians tend to cover up is that the 9/11 attacks were not in any part religiously motivated. The horrific act of war on our homeland was political in nature. Our homeland was attacked by the AL-Qaeda, a  group of political fanatics, who were getting safe heaven in Afghanistan, we waged war on Afghanistan rightfully so, but alas, after 9 years we failed to capture the culprit Bin Ladin. I never heard any of these terrorist calling Christianity or Judaism devil or devilish but I have heard them calling America and Israel devil.  If we Americans want to fight this war on terror we Americans have to get it right, it is not the vast majority who are truly religious Muslims, they are not  hell bent on harming us. The real enemy is still a small group of political fanatics, who have political motives, these are the ones we need to be after, not the innocent Muslim Americans, or common Muslims around the world, but by showing our prejudice and bias towards our own Muslim fellow citizens  we are emboldening these terrorists and giving them plenty of scoop for recruitment  to carry out their terror plots.

3. Newt Gingrich said that until we are allowed to build Churches in  Mecca till then we in America should not allow any Mosque building. Wow, I am petrified with this statement Mr Gingrich, and I feel ashamed for you.  You are putting Saudi Arabia and United State of America in same league, you have once again proved yourself to be a irrational demagogue. Saudi Arabia is  an undemocratic, theocratic state, which denies many rights to her own citizens, even the 9/11 terrorist are against it, and you Mr Gingrich put the greatest nation on the planet earth, the beacon of freedom, who has secular constitution, who prides herself on the equality, freedom and justice for all irrespective of their faith, color and creed. You Mr Gingrich put the beacon of freedom in the same league with Saudi Arabia.

So the fact remains that Islam or Muslims in general and particularly Muslim American did not attack on 9/11, it is the terrorist group  name al-quaida , which is a non-state entity. Another important fact, Mosque is not for foreign citizens, (General Knowledge is that – all Muslims are not Arabs and all Arabs are not Muslims) it is for Americans who are Muslims.

4. After arguing on bogus grounds, now the right wing conservatives  likes of Sarah Plain and others says that it is not that they (Muslims) don’t have right to build, but the question is, should they build? now it became the matter of sensitivities of majority in this nation, and these right wingers have been joined by some lefties, as their love for power and their need to grab on to their power trumps every principle our nation upholds. We Americans should be able to expect from our leaders both republicans and democrats that they should not forget the quint essential fact that our Constitution which clearly makes the right to practice religion above any sensitivities. In fact our nation was built upon the fact that pilgrims came to America in search of freedom to pray and practice their religion as they deem with out having to face prosecution from tyranny of majority. We can not go back on our own guaranteed fundamental rights while we need to practice at home what we preach to world.

5. Last but not least, our Constitution guarantees these rights and they are not subject to any public, whether majority or minority prejudice. When I hear Sara Palin, Newt Gingrich, Harry Reid and Howard Dean declaring that it is matter of public  sensitivities, or it is an affront,  I see  no difference between them and Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who had put a bounty on the head of Salman Rashdi, who they accused of blasphemy. And I also see no difference between them and the extremist groups who oppose the Danish cartoonist and South Park creators, on the basis of hurting the sensitivities of Muslims. We the new and young generation has to remember and remind our politicians that we are the nation which upholds the laws of the land and our first amendment rights trumps above all sensitivities, , including the conformity with majority opinions.

For the last 50 days why profit-driven Western media has been referring to the oil company responsible for committing serious crimes as Bee Pee, but never as British Petroleum?

On April 20, British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oilrig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded. The resultant oil spill, now the size of the state of Connecticut, is spreading along the coast of Louisiana and on to coastal Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.

Efforts to stop the flow of oil have so far been unsuccessful, and the next effort can only be made after a couple months’ preparation.

In the meantime, wetlands, fish, turtles, birds and other fauna are endangered, and fumes from the spill and the dispersant sprayed on it are also causing respiratory and skin problems.

The immediate cause of the explosion may have been a methane gas bubble, but beyond the methane there are other factors.

At one level we have the American thirst for energy, which to a large extent has been quenched by oil.

The U.S. uses 21 million barrels a day but produces only six. The cry from the political right is “Drill, Baby, Drill!” That cry is somewhat muted now.

Another factor is the lack of oversight.

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service gave BP a “categorical exclusion” from the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.

This exemption was given in spite of BP’s history of violations in its Gulf of Mexico drilling, and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) finding that BP has “a systematic safety problem.”

A staffer from one congressman’s office said that the number of violations by BP on the outer continental shelf was not unusual for major oil companies, yet The New York Times reported that BP has a poorer safety record than other oil companies.

According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, BP was fined $555,000 from 2001 to 2007.

This leads to the question of whether we can expect more of the same from other companies, but let’s get more specific.

University of California engineering professor Robert Bea charges that important testing to ensure that the well was properly plugged was not done.

This bit of nonfeasance was apparently a cost-cutting measure. One surviving worker from the rig explosion reports that drilling exceeded 22,000 feet, whereas the federal permit did not allow drilling below 20,000 feet.

Daniel Becnel, a lawyer representing surviving rig workers, charges that BP failed to notify Halliburton, which was pouring the cement cap, that they were down below 18,000 feet.

As a result, Halliburton did not pour enough cement on to allow for the additional water pressure.

BP also ordered Halliburton and Transocean, the other company involved, to remove drilling mud, which also lessened the holding pressure. A lawyer for fishermen charges that BP also skimped by not installing a deep-water valve.

It is tempting to use this disaster to argue for reducing our dependence on oil for energy, but that require a basic change of lifestyle, something that is very difficult to imagine.

Nuclear energy has a host of problems, and renewable energies are expensive, and require a good deal more research and development to make them a viable alternative.

Thus, we are likely to have oil in our future for some time, so what can we do to prevent further disasters?

A key element is regulation. Mary Kendall, acting inspector general of the Department of the Interior, found a culture of closeness between personnel of the Minerals Management Service and the industry, including movement from the service to positions with oil companies.

Receiving gifts from the corporations regulated by the Service is common. With such loose oversight and self-regulation, the United States has a system in which the foxes guard the hen house.

Don’t think that this kind of scenario can’t be repeated here.

What could happen in the Beaufort Sea and off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?

To read more click below…
Why it’s Bee Pee not British Petroleum?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/10/world/10prexyspan-cnd/10prexyspan-cnd-articleLarge.jpg

WASHINGTON — President Obama promised a $400 million aid package for the West Bank and Gaza on Wednesday, as the United States scrambled to come up with a way out of the stalemate in the Middle East exacerbated by the Gaza flotilla incident last week.

Mr. Obama, meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, said that the money would go to housing and schools. White House officials said that the money also would help increase access to drinking water and to help address health and infrastructure needs.

The exact details of how such aid would be used in Gaza remained unclear. Nor was it immediately clear how Mr. Abbas, who has authority in the West Bank but no authority in Gaza, would be able to administer it.

Gaza has been subjected to an Israeli blockade since 2007; an Israeli raid that thwarted a Turkish-led flotilla carrying aid supplies toward Gaza last week led to international protests over the blockade, which Mr. Obama has called “unsustainable.”

Israel contends the blockade is necessary to prevent arms smuggling to Hamas, the militant group that governs Gaza and opposes Israel’s existence.

Administration officials and their European allies have been pressing the Israeli government to come up with some kind of agreement to partly lift the blockade.

“The president has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable, and it demands a significant change in strategy,” the White House said in a statement.

“While we work with our partners in the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, and the international community to put such a strategy in place, these projects represent a down payment on the United States’ commitment to Palestinians in Gaza, who deserve a better life and expanded opportunities, and the chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank.”
To read more click below…
Obama, Meeting Abbas, Pledges New Aid for Palestinians

Israel’s actions drew condemnations or requests for explanation across Europe, the Arab world and the rest of the globe on Monday:

Britain: Foreign Secretary William Hague deplored the killings and called for an end to the Gaza blockade. In London, demonstrators protested the Israeli action.

China: A member of its permanent mission to the U.N. told an emergency Security Council meeting China was “shocked” by the attack on “a multinational convoy carrying international aid to Gaza which resulted in heavy casualties,” and called for Security Council action.

Egypt: President Hosni Mubarak condemned Israel’s “excessive and unjustified use of force against innocent civilians,” state news agency MENA said. The government summoned Israel’s ambassador, demanding an explanation for the violence.

European Union: Foreign-affairs chief Catherine Ashton called on Israel to carry out an inquiry.

France: President Nicolas Sarkozy said he “condemns a disproportionate use of force.” Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said “nothing could justify the use of such violence.” Riot police drove back hundreds of protesters demonstrating outside the Israeli Embassy in Paris.

Gaza: Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the Hamas government in Gaza, condemned the “brutal” Israeli attack and called on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to intervene.

Germany: Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called for an immediate investigation by a neutral party. He said the German Embassy was seeking information on six German citizens believed to have been aboard the ships.

Greece: Prime Minister George Papandreou condemned the military intervention. The government suspended a military exercise with Israel and postponed a visit by Israel’s air force chief. In Athens, one of 20 Greek cities reporting protests, riot police used tear gas and stun grenades to disperse an estimated 2,500 Greeks and Arabs protesting outside the Israeli Embassy.

Iran: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the raid “an inhuman act.” Dozens of angry students pelted the United Nations offices in Tehran with stones and eggs, burning Israeli flags and chanting, “death to Israel” and “down with the U.S.”

Jordan: Hundreds of demonstrators urged the government to cut ties with Israel.

Lebanon: Several hundred Palestinian and Lebanese activists protested in front of the U.N. headquarters in Beirut, setting Israeli flags on fire.

Saudi Arabia: The cabinet called on the international community to hold Israel responsible for its “barbaric” policies.

Spain: Summoned Israel’s ambassador, demanding an explanation for the violence, and condemned what it called the disproportionate use of force.

Switzerland: Called for an international inquiry and summoned Israel’s ambassador.

Syria: Called for an Arab League meeting; the League condemned what it called a “terrorist act.”

Turkey: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Israel of “state terrorism.” The Turkish government said it was withdrawing its ambassador to Israel, canceling three joint military drills and bringing home a Turkish youth soccer team currently in Israel. In Istanbul, a crowd tried to storm the Israeli consulate.

United Nations: Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the violence and called for a thorough investigation. The Security Council held an emergency meeting.

U.S.: President Barack Obama voiced “deep regret,” and the White House said he urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to quickly collect all the facts about the incident.

West Bank: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the “massacre” and declared three days of mourning across the West Bank.

Source: wsj.com