Obama is effectively supporting the regime in Iran.
By Mona Charen:
President Obama likes to preen himself on his supposed moral superiority to his predecessor. He announced the closing of Guantanamo in his first week on the job (though, ten months on, it remains open) to advertise the new administration’s disdain for George Bush’s war-fighting tactics. And at every opportunity since, he has stressed that his policies — on taxes, on the Middle East, on health care, on “man-caused disasters,” and on “climate change” — reflect a more refined and elevated morality than has ever before held sway in Washington, D.C.
So you have to wonder how the president slept last Wednesday night.
He has known that critics in the United States regarded his posture toward the Iranian regime as weak. But on Wednesday, he heard this critique from a different quarter — one that will be more difficult to dismiss.
Every year, on November 4, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Iranian thugs took American diplomats hostage in Tehran, the government has organized a street demonstration outside the former American embassy. In the early days, the rallies may have engaged a certain number of spontaneous participants, but they have long since become utterly stage-managed government shows. The only people the regime could muster this year to chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” were non-Iranian members of Hezbollah and students bused in from the provinces for that purpose.
But that wasn’t the only demonstration in Tehran that day. Displaying awe-inspiring courage in light of the brutal tactics (including murder) the regime has used to quell opposition, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets again. Instead of “Death to America,” they shouted “Death to the Dictator,” referring to Ahmadinejad. And they trampled on photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Michael Ledeen, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, reports that demonstrations also erupted in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, and Rasht. As before, the regime used paramilitary goons on motorcycles to beat, tear-gas, and bludgeon protestors. And again the regime disrupted cell-phone service, text messaging, and the Internet to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their activities.
But this is what should awaken Obama’s conscience: The protestors chanted something new this time. As they dodged the blows of the militia they chorused: “Obama! Obama! Either you’re with them or you’re with us.”
This exquisitely moral White House was unmoved. Incredibly, President Obama released a statement that very day commemorating (!) the 30-year anniversary of the kidnapping of America’s diplomats, taking the opportunity once again to abase himself and us. “Thirty years ago today,” the president recalled, “the American embassy was seized” — he did not say by whom. But because some anonymous agent seized the embassy, it “set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation” that Obama is determined to reverse. He wants to move beyond the past and seek “a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”
By ostentatiously using the term “Islamic Republic,” Obama tips his hand. He could have expressed his hopes for good relations with the people of Iran. That would have left the door open to a new Iranian regime that might not be politically Islamic. Instead he has signaled his eagerness to placate and, yes, appease the current malevolent Iranian leaders. “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs,” he assured them. Asked about the demonstrations flaring around Iran, the president’s spokesman Robert Gibbs hoped that “the violence will not spread,” which sounds like something you’d say about rioters. In Iran, the violence is coming exclusively from the government, which is firing upon unarmed demonstrators.
Though the Obama administration has tripled the deficit in just ten months in office, it has found one program to cut — the $3 million to support the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The tiny research organization, which kept records of the disappearances, murders, and other human-rights abuses in Iran, was abruptly defunded last month, sending a clear message of contempt to the Iranians who are putting their lives on the line to resist this vicious regime.
A successful overthrow of the nearly nuclear mullahs in Iran would be the greatest boon to world peace and stability since the fall of the Berlin Wall. After this week’s events, it can no longer be said that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to support the opposition. The people on Tehran’s streets know the truth — he’s effectively supporting the regime.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
JIMMUH CARTER STARTED IT, JUDGE CARTER LET IT LIVE
GLOBAL DESTRUCTION OF OUR CIVILIZED WORLD
PREZ "the treasonous idiot" CARTER the architect of global terrorism
ON TO "caving judge" CARTER the fearful
ON TO narcissist OBA-HUSSEIN-Khomeini DESTROYER of the USA
From the archives of Iran Expert, Ramin Etebar MD., dating back to 2004.
These articles of mine were lost to me till Ramin resent me his site. They were written before I had my own site and was offering my articles to the Defense & Foreign Affairs
He has just sent me a good analysis on what should be the next regime in Iran and I wil post this once I do some spell checking for him, since Google has removed this capabiilty and Ramin is a very busy doctor.
It's the least I can do to return his favor.
PEANUT FARMER ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORISTS
BY MY FRIEND ALAN PETERS
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
More on this series:
When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.
Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.
As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.
The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.
Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.
And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arranged their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.
When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."
Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and intelligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.
According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."
In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.
If the Shah had remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.
Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Carter's Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.
And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."
Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.
The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.
Labels: Historical review of the 1979 Iranian Revolution
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Exclusive:
Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,(1) GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract; Previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent management fees a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carters friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the personal management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters as well as in some US minds at the time and later that Carters actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, megalomaniac projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in state and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources. Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carters reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carters 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to buy the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US most powerful ally in the Middle East; this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carters focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by students of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Velayat Faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.(2)
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man as he was and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian pope and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic green belt to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.
According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that Reagan’s successor, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name Alan Peters is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of Ayatollah Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.
PREZ "the treasonous idiot" CARTER the architect of global terrorism
ON TO "caving judge" CARTER the fearful
ON TO narcissist OBA-HUSSEIN-Khomeini DESTROYER of the USA
From the archives of Iran Expert, Ramin Etebar MD., dating back to 2004.
These articles of mine were lost to me till Ramin resent me his site. They were written before I had my own site and was offering my articles to the Defense & Foreign Affairs
He has just sent me a good analysis on what should be the next regime in Iran and I wil post this once I do some spell checking for him, since Google has removed this capabiilty and Ramin is a very busy doctor.
It's the least I can do to return his favor.
PEANUT FARMER ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORISTS
BY MY FRIEND ALAN PETERS
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.
Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.
As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.
The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.
Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.
And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arranged their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.
When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."
Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and intelligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.
According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."
In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.
If the Shah had remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.
Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Carter's Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.
And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."
Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.
The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.
Labels: Historical review of the 1979 Iranian Revolution
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Exclusive:
Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,(1) GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract; Previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent management fees a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carters friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the personal management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters as well as in some US minds at the time and later that Carters actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, megalomaniac projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in state and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources. Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carters reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carters 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to buy the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US most powerful ally in the Middle East; this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carters focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by students of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Velayat Faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.(2)
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man as he was and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian pope and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic green belt to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.
According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that Reagan’s successor, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name Alan Peters is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of Ayatollah Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.
OBA-HUSSEIN ANTI-ISRAEL PRO-ISLAM CHOICES STRIKE AGAIN
US President Obama has named retired Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) to co-chair the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.
Hagel, who will co-chair the board with former Sen. David Boren (D-Oklahoma) was considered a critic of Israel by many pro-Israel activists during his two terms in the Senate, which ended early this year.
He told an Arab-American group in 2007 that his support for Israel was not "automatic," and in an interview for Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller's book said that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" on Capitol Hill.
He also was one of a handful of senators who frequently didn't sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256799045938
Hagel, who will co-chair the board with former Sen. David Boren (D-Oklahoma) was considered a critic of Israel by many pro-Israel activists during his two terms in the Senate, which ended early this year.
He told an Arab-American group in 2007 that his support for Israel was not "automatic," and in an interview for Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller's book said that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" on Capitol Hill.
He also was one of a handful of senators who frequently didn't sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256799045938
Monday, October 26, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN TOO EMBARRASSED & INDIFFERENT FOR BERLIN
By Michael Barone
Michael Barone finds it odd that Barack Obama can go to Oslo and Copenhagen for mainly personal reasons, but somehow can’t find the time to travel to Berlin to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall — the climax of the Cold War and the West’s triumph.
Given the key role played by the US in the collapse of Soviet Communism, people have good cause to wonder why the leader of the free world can find time to pick up an award for himself and pitch his hometown to the International Olympic Committee, but not to say a few words in honor of the free world’s vindication in Berlin. Barone theorizes that an earlier Berlin speech may be haunting Obama:
In the Tiergarten, Obama spoke of “the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan” and of the need “to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda” there. That doesn’t mesh well with his recent reconsideration of the Afghanistan strategy he announced in March and reiterated in August or with the White House spin doctors’ suggestion that the Taliban and al Qaeda aren’t necessarily allies anymore.
In the Tiergarten, Obama asserted his “resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must and to seek a partnership that extends across this whole continent.” That doesn’t mesh very well with the “reset button” policy toward Russia that looks past its attacks on Georgia and Ukraine and propitiates the Putin regime with unilateral withdrawal of missile-defense installations from Poland and the Czech Republic.
In the Tiergarten, Obama said America must “stand with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” But that message, if sent, has evidently not had the intended effect on the mullah regime, which is drawing out negotiations while presumably continuing its nuclear program apace.
Is Obama too embarrassed to give people an opportunity to compare Obama’s actions to his summer 2008 rhetoric? That seems too generous a view.
Obama has had no difficulties in reversing himself publicly here in the US, where the media is only slightly less fawning than in Europe. Our friend Jim Geraghty created an axiom about expiration dates on Obama promises, and these examples from Tiergarten are more aspirations than commitments.
I think the answer is simpler: Berlin won’t be about Obama. It will honor previous generations of stalwarts against an evil empire that Academia defended for decades. Whether Obama joined them in that effort as a student is not material; after all, there is a time and a place for foolishness, and that’s college. It’s not (necessarily) that Obama doesn’t think that the fall of the wall is a good thing, but that it has nothing to do with him, and is therefore irrelevant.
Michael Barone finds it odd that Barack Obama can go to Oslo and Copenhagen for mainly personal reasons, but somehow can’t find the time to travel to Berlin to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall — the climax of the Cold War and the West’s triumph.
Given the key role played by the US in the collapse of Soviet Communism, people have good cause to wonder why the leader of the free world can find time to pick up an award for himself and pitch his hometown to the International Olympic Committee, but not to say a few words in honor of the free world’s vindication in Berlin. Barone theorizes that an earlier Berlin speech may be haunting Obama:
In the Tiergarten, Obama spoke of “the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan” and of the need “to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda” there. That doesn’t mesh well with his recent reconsideration of the Afghanistan strategy he announced in March and reiterated in August or with the White House spin doctors’ suggestion that the Taliban and al Qaeda aren’t necessarily allies anymore.
In the Tiergarten, Obama asserted his “resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must and to seek a partnership that extends across this whole continent.” That doesn’t mesh very well with the “reset button” policy toward Russia that looks past its attacks on Georgia and Ukraine and propitiates the Putin regime with unilateral withdrawal of missile-defense installations from Poland and the Czech Republic.
In the Tiergarten, Obama said America must “stand with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” But that message, if sent, has evidently not had the intended effect on the mullah regime, which is drawing out negotiations while presumably continuing its nuclear program apace.
Is Obama too embarrassed to give people an opportunity to compare Obama’s actions to his summer 2008 rhetoric? That seems too generous a view.
Obama has had no difficulties in reversing himself publicly here in the US, where the media is only slightly less fawning than in Europe. Our friend Jim Geraghty created an axiom about expiration dates on Obama promises, and these examples from Tiergarten are more aspirations than commitments.
I think the answer is simpler: Berlin won’t be about Obama. It will honor previous generations of stalwarts against an evil empire that Academia defended for decades. Whether Obama joined them in that effort as a student is not material; after all, there is a time and a place for foolishness, and that’s college. It’s not (necessarily) that Obama doesn’t think that the fall of the wall is a good thing, but that it has nothing to do with him, and is therefore irrelevant.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
EMPTY CHARISMA NOT WORKING
The Limits of Charisma
by Howard Fineman
If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore . But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix.. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota .
The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.
There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.
He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.
Members of Obama's own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington , the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care.
Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major "reform" bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its "leadership." It's not like Chicago , where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.
The model is a man whose political effectiveness Obama repeatedly says he admires: Ronald Reagan. There was never doubt about what he wanted. The Gipper made his simple, dramatic tax cuts the centerpiece not only of his campaign but also of the entire first year of his presidency. Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.
That may be starting to happen. Health-care legislation is still weeks, if not months, from passage, and the bill as it stands could well be a windfall for the very insurance and drug companies it was supposed to rein in. Climate-change legislation (a.k.a. cap-and-trade) is almost certainly dead for this year, which means that American negotiators will go empty-handed to the Copenhagen summit in December — pushing the goal of limiting carbon emissions even farther into the distance. In the spring Obama privately told the big banks that he was going to change the way they do business. It was going to be his way or the highway. But the complex legislation he wants to submit to Congress has little chance of passage this year.
Doing Letterman again won't help. It may boost the host's ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.
by Howard Fineman
If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore . But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix.. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota .
The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.
There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.
He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.
Members of Obama's own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington , the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care.
Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major "reform" bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its "leadership." It's not like Chicago , where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.
The model is a man whose political effectiveness Obama repeatedly says he admires: Ronald Reagan. There was never doubt about what he wanted. The Gipper made his simple, dramatic tax cuts the centerpiece not only of his campaign but also of the entire first year of his presidency. Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.
That may be starting to happen. Health-care legislation is still weeks, if not months, from passage, and the bill as it stands could well be a windfall for the very insurance and drug companies it was supposed to rein in. Climate-change legislation (a.k.a. cap-and-trade) is almost certainly dead for this year, which means that American negotiators will go empty-handed to the Copenhagen summit in December — pushing the goal of limiting carbon emissions even farther into the distance. In the spring Obama privately told the big banks that he was going to change the way they do business. It was going to be his way or the highway. But the complex legislation he wants to submit to Congress has little chance of passage this year.
Doing Letterman again won't help. It may boost the host's ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN TAXING US BACK TO STONE AGE
Obama's Middle Class Betrayal
By Howard Rich
As much as the Beltway chattering class refuses to admit it, Barack Obama's electoral victory last year had nothing to do with his oft-repeated, generic pledge to bring "hope and change" to Washington, D.C. Sure it sounded good at the time, but Americans have always voted based on their wallets and pocketbooks – not lofty-sounding campaign promises or rhetorical flourishes.
The real key to Obama's victory a year ago – indeed his "signature" issue – was his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Obama promised tens of millions of Americans making $250,000 or less. In fact, candidate Obama promised the middle class billions of dollars in tax cuts, part of his whole "spread the wealth around" plan.
"If you're a family that's making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes," Obama promised. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes."
Never mind the fact that Obama's plan would have hit income and payroll providers especially hard, rendering "middle class tax relief" irrelevant to the millions of workers heading toward already-crowded unemployment lines.
No matter how you look at it, though, what a difference a year makes.
As an unprecedented string of multibillion-dollar government bailouts and a viral explosion of new discretionary spending continues to wreak havoc on the deficit, does it really surprise anyone to learn that Obama's "middle class tax cut" was the very first thing to wind up on the cutting room floor?
Of course not. "Class warfare" may have succeeded in getting Obama elected, but it cannot pay for the political promises Obama has made with our borrowed billions.
But that is just the beginning of the great middle class betrayal. Not only are middle class American families getting no tax relief, Obama administration officials are refusing to rule out the possibility that taxes on middle class families will actually increase in an effort to help the government pay for all of this new spending.
So much for Obama's plan to "bleed the rich" in order to fund middle class tax relief – now everyone must bleed as the President and his Congressional allies scramble to pay for all that "hope and change" they've created.
Aside from the obvious demerits of "Robin Hood-style" tax policy (it's never a good idea to go after the people creating the jobs, is it?), the reality is that Obama's now-scrapped middle class "tax cut" would have barely made a dent when compared to costly new government mandates being forced upon American families.
For example, according to an unreleased report prepared by Obama's own Treasury Department, the cost of the administration's "cap and trade" energy tax on the typical American household came out to $1,761 a year. On top of that, we learned this week that the latest multibillion-dollar proposal to "reform" the health care industry would cost the typical American family of four over $4,000 a year by the time the plan is fully implemented.
Altogether, that's nearly $6,000 a year in additional energy and health care costs being heaped on American families struggling to make ends meet during one of the worst recessions in our nation's history – again, with no tax relief to offset the additional financial burden.
Based on these numbers, it seems clear that the American middle class was (and is) nothing but a means to an end for Obama.
It also seems clear that rich or poor, Obama's plan to "rescue" the American economy involves taxing all of us back to the Stone Age.
Howard Rich is chairman of Americans for Limited Government
By Howard Rich
As much as the Beltway chattering class refuses to admit it, Barack Obama's electoral victory last year had nothing to do with his oft-repeated, generic pledge to bring "hope and change" to Washington, D.C. Sure it sounded good at the time, but Americans have always voted based on their wallets and pocketbooks – not lofty-sounding campaign promises or rhetorical flourishes.
The real key to Obama's victory a year ago – indeed his "signature" issue – was his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Obama promised tens of millions of Americans making $250,000 or less. In fact, candidate Obama promised the middle class billions of dollars in tax cuts, part of his whole "spread the wealth around" plan.
"If you're a family that's making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes," Obama promised. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes."
Never mind the fact that Obama's plan would have hit income and payroll providers especially hard, rendering "middle class tax relief" irrelevant to the millions of workers heading toward already-crowded unemployment lines.
No matter how you look at it, though, what a difference a year makes.
As an unprecedented string of multibillion-dollar government bailouts and a viral explosion of new discretionary spending continues to wreak havoc on the deficit, does it really surprise anyone to learn that Obama's "middle class tax cut" was the very first thing to wind up on the cutting room floor?
Of course not. "Class warfare" may have succeeded in getting Obama elected, but it cannot pay for the political promises Obama has made with our borrowed billions.
But that is just the beginning of the great middle class betrayal. Not only are middle class American families getting no tax relief, Obama administration officials are refusing to rule out the possibility that taxes on middle class families will actually increase in an effort to help the government pay for all of this new spending.
So much for Obama's plan to "bleed the rich" in order to fund middle class tax relief – now everyone must bleed as the President and his Congressional allies scramble to pay for all that "hope and change" they've created.
Aside from the obvious demerits of "Robin Hood-style" tax policy (it's never a good idea to go after the people creating the jobs, is it?), the reality is that Obama's now-scrapped middle class "tax cut" would have barely made a dent when compared to costly new government mandates being forced upon American families.
For example, according to an unreleased report prepared by Obama's own Treasury Department, the cost of the administration's "cap and trade" energy tax on the typical American household came out to $1,761 a year. On top of that, we learned this week that the latest multibillion-dollar proposal to "reform" the health care industry would cost the typical American family of four over $4,000 a year by the time the plan is fully implemented.
Altogether, that's nearly $6,000 a year in additional energy and health care costs being heaped on American families struggling to make ends meet during one of the worst recessions in our nation's history – again, with no tax relief to offset the additional financial burden.
Based on these numbers, it seems clear that the American middle class was (and is) nothing but a means to an end for Obama.
It also seems clear that rich or poor, Obama's plan to "rescue" the American economy involves taxing all of us back to the Stone Age.
Howard Rich is chairman of Americans for Limited Government
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
REMOVAL OF ZELAYA (HONDURAS) WAS CONSTITUTIONAL
"Removal of Zelaya was constitutional": UN
13/10/2009
UN experts concluded that there was no coup in Honduras
WILL OBA-HUSSEIN, PAL OF COMMUNIST ZELAYA APOLOGIZE TO HONDURAS?
RESTORE USA ANTI-DRUG SMUGGLING FUNDS TO HODURAS HE CANCELLED BECAUSE OF ZELAYA, WHO WANTED TO BECOME PRESIDENT FOR LIFE?
AND BAN THE SALE OF THIS FLAG ON HIS MOSLEM PAL'S E-BAY?
The study of the crisis in Honduras coincided with that conducted by the Library of Congress *** The study of the political crisis in Honduras was endorsed with official information received by the UN experts in the country visit last week coincided with the foreign ministers of the OAS. Washington, USA. A study by the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Organization (UNO) on the causes of the crisis in Honduras, concluded that the removal of President Manuel Zelaya, "was constitutional under the laws of the country," confirmed officials of that agency.
This version was officially known today by senior UN officials, which also coincides with the study prepared by the Library of Congress, which looked at by his side, the situation that generated and maintained in a political crisis in Honduras.
The document of the study by the Department of Political Affairs of the UN, with other information base (another truth) received at the last visit to Honduras, where it converged with representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS) and took advantage to meet other scenarios that were unclear.
The information on this collegial resolution of these experts, was provided to hondudiario.com, official sources and pressures inferred strategies that promote the former foreign minister Patricia Rhodes and the permanent representative of Venezuela in the Permanent Council to seek more sanctions against Honduras and require the return of former President Zelaya, which warned of "an ultimatum" to this October 15.
"These gentlemen are pressing and have invoked a special assembly to the Security Council, but there has been no response to date, they were awaiting the results of their own studies on the situation in Honduras, which has remained divided Washington "spoke the interviewee.
"The conclusion of the report clearly says that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional. This confirms that there was no coup and strengthens the position of President Barack Obama, who never rushed to judge the situation in Honduras, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who rushed to condemn the Honduran people, pressed by foreign ministers the OAS, "he said.
The demands of the former chancellor Rhodes in Washington, according to experts, have been grounded in order "to the international community's sanctions against the de facto regime" and further claimed "strong" countries not to recognize the coup government under any circumstances.
"Most of the Member States of the United Nations, after meeting other settings and information now agree that they would not support any resolution of the UN General Assembly to seek penalties for Honduras," summarized by referring to this study by the Department of UN Political Affairs, which concluded that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional, the same study agrees in most points with the study prepared by the Library of Congress.
13/10/2009
UN experts concluded that there was no coup in Honduras
WILL OBA-HUSSEIN, PAL OF COMMUNIST ZELAYA APOLOGIZE TO HONDURAS?
RESTORE USA ANTI-DRUG SMUGGLING FUNDS TO HODURAS HE CANCELLED BECAUSE OF ZELAYA, WHO WANTED TO BECOME PRESIDENT FOR LIFE?
AND BAN THE SALE OF THIS FLAG ON HIS MOSLEM PAL'S E-BAY?
OUR TERRORIST IN CHIEF?
The study of the crisis in Honduras coincided with that conducted by the Library of Congress *** The study of the political crisis in Honduras was endorsed with official information received by the UN experts in the country visit last week coincided with the foreign ministers of the OAS. Washington, USA. A study by the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Organization (UNO) on the causes of the crisis in Honduras, concluded that the removal of President Manuel Zelaya, "was constitutional under the laws of the country," confirmed officials of that agency.
This version was officially known today by senior UN officials, which also coincides with the study prepared by the Library of Congress, which looked at by his side, the situation that generated and maintained in a political crisis in Honduras.
The document of the study by the Department of Political Affairs of the UN, with other information base (another truth) received at the last visit to Honduras, where it converged with representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS) and took advantage to meet other scenarios that were unclear.
The information on this collegial resolution of these experts, was provided to hondudiario.com, official sources and pressures inferred strategies that promote the former foreign minister Patricia Rhodes and the permanent representative of Venezuela in the Permanent Council to seek more sanctions against Honduras and require the return of former President Zelaya, which warned of "an ultimatum" to this October 15.
"These gentlemen are pressing and have invoked a special assembly to the Security Council, but there has been no response to date, they were awaiting the results of their own studies on the situation in Honduras, which has remained divided Washington "spoke the interviewee.
"The conclusion of the report clearly says that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional. This confirms that there was no coup and strengthens the position of President Barack Obama, who never rushed to judge the situation in Honduras, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who rushed to condemn the Honduran people, pressed by foreign ministers the OAS, "he said.
The demands of the former chancellor Rhodes in Washington, according to experts, have been grounded in order "to the international community's sanctions against the de facto regime" and further claimed "strong" countries not to recognize the coup government under any circumstances.
"Most of the Member States of the United Nations, after meeting other settings and information now agree that they would not support any resolution of the UN General Assembly to seek penalties for Honduras," summarized by referring to this study by the Department of UN Political Affairs, which concluded that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional, the same study agrees in most points with the study prepared by the Library of Congress.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Could Sen. Obama’s Dire Warnings Be President Obama’s Current Plan?
IS HE DESTROYING US ON PURPOSE TO ALLOW HIS GLOBAL GOVERNMENT VISION, AS HE SPOUTED RECENTLY AT THE UNITED NATIONS, WHICH A SUPER POWER LIKE THE USA PREVENTS FROM HAPPENING?
DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
OBAMA MANGLES HISTORY - ON ISLAMIC PURPOSE - OR SHEER IGNORANCE?
US President Barack Obama's "inspirational" speech at the UN included more than a few passages about the Middle East conflict. He expressed the hope for "a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world," a wish shared by all Israelis. Upon closer look at some of the president's statements, several question marks arise.
Obama addresses the 64th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters. The speech didn't, for instance, mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, the principal reasons for instability in the Middle East and beyond. Nor did it condemn the Arab world's refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of its own.
No less problematic, his reference to ending "the occupation that began in 1967" puts history on its head, as it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This clearly inverts cause and effect.
As the writer and historian Simon Schama wrote, history should endeavor "to disentangle fact from fable," also reminding us that one of America's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had said "Facts are stubborn things." Well, the facts regarding the conflict in the Holy Land, though often deliberately or inadvertently distorted or ignored , are indeed "stubborn." Terrorist activities against Israel had started years before the "occupation," and the PLO commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state was founded in 1964
Obama addresses the 64th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters. The speech didn't, for instance, mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, the principal reasons for instability in the Middle East and beyond. Nor did it condemn the Arab world's refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of its own.
No less problematic, his reference to ending "the occupation that began in 1967" puts history on its head, as it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This clearly inverts cause and effect.
As the writer and historian Simon Schama wrote, history should endeavor "to disentangle fact from fable," also reminding us that one of America's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had said "Facts are stubborn things." Well, the facts regarding the conflict in the Holy Land, though often deliberately or inadvertently distorted or ignored , are indeed "stubborn." Terrorist activities against Israel had started years before the "occupation," and the PLO commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state was founded in 1964
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
UNMASKING OBA-HUSSEIN
It is now abundantly clear that the image of Barack Obama sold to the American electorate was tightly edited, air-brushed, and exaggerated. He has worn a series of masks -- eloquent orator, brilliant scholar, centrist, and literary sensation. All of these masks are coming off as he copes with a job for which image will not suffice. For instance, hiding behind the eloquent orator mask is a guy who says "uhh" a lot when he is winging it,
and who makes lots of factual and grammatical mistakes. JUST HOW SMRT IS HE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/just_how_smart_is_obama.html
FULL ARTICLE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/unmasking_obama.html
and who makes lots of factual and grammatical mistakes. JUST HOW SMRT IS HE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/just_how_smart_is_obama.html
FULL ARTICLE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/unmasking_obama.html
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
WHY - APART FROM HITLER LOOK ALIKE AXELROD.......
AP Photo/Evan VucciAs appalled and outraged as I was to learn recently that a sitting U.S. president illegally ordered a private company to stop pointing out facts about his policies (facts confirmed by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office), such blatant assaults on dissent are nothing new for this president.
Of the many, many examples I have copiously documented of Obama giving liberty-minded citizens reasons to keep comparing him to Hitler, here are the top 10:
10. The fact that he enlisted law enforcement officials to "target" anyone who ran campaign ads against him that he didn't like.
9. The fact that he blacklists any news media outlet that actually bothers to question him.
8. The fact that he threatened the broadcasting license of a Pennsylvania station just for considering airing an ad on his extreme anti-gun record.
7. The fact that he has repeatedly branded dissenters as right-wing terrorists.
6. The fact that his administration was caught planting fake "experts" at health care town halls.
5. The fact that he keeps illegal enemies lists.
4. The fact that his administration repeatedly sent its hired union rent-a-mobs to shout down and intimidate dissent.
3. The fact that he tried to prosecute Bush attorneys for daring to write legal opinions that Democrats disagreed with.
2. The fact that he corrupted and politicized the Census Bureau for partisan gain.
1. His support for Card Check and the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Obama's Constitution-trampling war on dissent is why so many Americans are increasingly rejecting his scams for power and control (ObamaCare, Cap-and-Trade, etc.) as the sleazy partisan ploys they are. These actions are the signature of a Third World dictator, not an American president.
Of the many, many examples I have copiously documented of Obama giving liberty-minded citizens reasons to keep comparing him to Hitler, here are the top 10:
10. The fact that he enlisted law enforcement officials to "target" anyone who ran campaign ads against him that he didn't like.
9. The fact that he blacklists any news media outlet that actually bothers to question him.
8. The fact that he threatened the broadcasting license of a Pennsylvania station just for considering airing an ad on his extreme anti-gun record.
7. The fact that he has repeatedly branded dissenters as right-wing terrorists.
6. The fact that his administration was caught planting fake "experts" at health care town halls.
5. The fact that he keeps illegal enemies lists.
4. The fact that his administration repeatedly sent its hired union rent-a-mobs to shout down and intimidate dissent.
3. The fact that he tried to prosecute Bush attorneys for daring to write legal opinions that Democrats disagreed with.
2. The fact that he corrupted and politicized the Census Bureau for partisan gain.
1. His support for Card Check and the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Obama's Constitution-trampling war on dissent is why so many Americans are increasingly rejecting his scams for power and control (ObamaCare, Cap-and-Trade, etc.) as the sleazy partisan ploys they are. These actions are the signature of a Third World dictator, not an American president.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS
JAG HUNTER HERE with SERGEANT OF MARINES TIMOTHY JOSEPH HARRINGTON:
HEY!
LISTEN UP!
Do we need to tell you that a legitimate president of the United States can not during term of office collaterally hold any other government position under the constitution of a foreign sovereign state?
Do you need to be told--without recognizing for yourself--the president of the United States and U.S. commander in chief cannot be at the same time president of the United Nations Security Council?
SOETORO-OBAMA and his treasonous partners are subjecting Americans and the United States Constitution to death by a thousand cuts.
We must stop the knife sharpening and carving here and now as SOETORO and his ilk are very close to inflicting the terminal, fatal wound.
SOETORO-OBAMA the whore, SOEHO shall we call him, is scheduled to assume the title and duties of the principal officer of a principal "organ" of the United Nations in days.
Would that our United States Constitution be operative!
SOEHO would not hold the White House in occupation this moment, nor would he be in a position to surrender United States sovereignty to an ever emerging and ever strengthening modern day world government boasting as it promises to subject Americans to international sovereignty, international governance, and international jurisdiction.
As for TREASON: SOEHO IS THE ENEMY!
This devil of a man is a foreign agent who has infiltrated U.S. constitutional government with the very specific purpose of quietly, insistently, insidiously injuring the Constitution unto death giving way to the new international order.
Has it occurred to anyone that SOEHO'S appearance before the United Nations will set an international precedent that the United States chief executive can be a citizen of any country, let's say for example Britain, or Indonesia?
WE SAY AGAIN!: SOEHO's swearing in as president of the U.N. Security Council sets an international precedent that the United States chief executive and commander in chief can be a citizen of any county, leading a nation reduced to state status under the U.N. secretary general and U.N. constitution (charter).
You must comprehend, as it stands, we citizens of the United States must know SOEHO is a foreigner. No one can claim ignorance. Our silence as an American people--manifested in our impotence to oust SOEHO as a foreign born domestic enemy--is our agreement before the international community that the United States Constitution is formally decommissioned.
It is in this context that SOEHO is being allowed to swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign advancing SOEHO's commitment to bring Americans ever so carefully under the international constitution known as the United Nations Charter.
In discussions with Marine Sergeant Harrington, Tim pointed out that SOEHO's accepting a foreign government position under the United Nations flag perfectly demonstrates an act of TREASON legally defined as:"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
It must be offered as well a person can commit TREASON against the U.S. as either a U.S. citizen or as a foreigner otherwise owing allegiance to the United States of America.
SOEHO took an oath to the Constitution back in January 2009 as Tim and I both recall. Then there's SOEHO's former state and federal performances as a senator worthy of remembrance.
SOEHO's swearing an allegiance under the U.N. flag is yet another step in the process manifesting the treasonous purposes obsessing SOEHO and his criminal partners.
SOEHO and his band of treasoners are dedicated to replacing U.S. government as based upon the U.S. Constitutional with an international government subservient under and obedient to the United Nations Charter.
THE GRAVITY OF OUR SITUATION CANNOT BE MADE MORE CLEAR!
SOEHO AND HIS TREASONOUS PARTNERS ARE ABOUT THE "WHOLESALE TRANSFER OF UNITED STATES SOVREIGNTY TO THE UNITED NATIONS!"
SOEHO is a FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY and FOREIGN AGENT, who's infiltrated U.S. government at it's highest position and is subject to and must suffer the same fate as any other TRESONER-INFILTRATOR. SOEHO is a common variety street punk hooligan, a thug, a self-possessed career criminal!
HERE ENDETH THE LESSON!
WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?
HEY!
LISTEN UP!
Do we need to tell you that a legitimate president of the United States can not during term of office collaterally hold any other government position under the constitution of a foreign sovereign state?
Do you need to be told--without recognizing for yourself--the president of the United States and U.S. commander in chief cannot be at the same time president of the United Nations Security Council?
SOETORO-OBAMA and his treasonous partners are subjecting Americans and the United States Constitution to death by a thousand cuts.
We must stop the knife sharpening and carving here and now as SOETORO and his ilk are very close to inflicting the terminal, fatal wound.
SOETORO-OBAMA the whore, SOEHO shall we call him, is scheduled to assume the title and duties of the principal officer of a principal "organ" of the United Nations in days.
Would that our United States Constitution be operative!
SOEHO would not hold the White House in occupation this moment, nor would he be in a position to surrender United States sovereignty to an ever emerging and ever strengthening modern day world government boasting as it promises to subject Americans to international sovereignty, international governance, and international jurisdiction.
As for TREASON: SOEHO IS THE ENEMY!
This devil of a man is a foreign agent who has infiltrated U.S. constitutional government with the very specific purpose of quietly, insistently, insidiously injuring the Constitution unto death giving way to the new international order.
Has it occurred to anyone that SOEHO'S appearance before the United Nations will set an international precedent that the United States chief executive can be a citizen of any country, let's say for example Britain, or Indonesia?
WE SAY AGAIN!: SOEHO's swearing in as president of the U.N. Security Council sets an international precedent that the United States chief executive and commander in chief can be a citizen of any county, leading a nation reduced to state status under the U.N. secretary general and U.N. constitution (charter).
You must comprehend, as it stands, we citizens of the United States must know SOEHO is a foreigner. No one can claim ignorance. Our silence as an American people--manifested in our impotence to oust SOEHO as a foreign born domestic enemy--is our agreement before the international community that the United States Constitution is formally decommissioned.
It is in this context that SOEHO is being allowed to swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign advancing SOEHO's commitment to bring Americans ever so carefully under the international constitution known as the United Nations Charter.
In discussions with Marine Sergeant Harrington, Tim pointed out that SOEHO's accepting a foreign government position under the United Nations flag perfectly demonstrates an act of TREASON legally defined as:"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
It must be offered as well a person can commit TREASON against the U.S. as either a U.S. citizen or as a foreigner otherwise owing allegiance to the United States of America.
SOEHO took an oath to the Constitution back in January 2009 as Tim and I both recall. Then there's SOEHO's former state and federal performances as a senator worthy of remembrance.
SOEHO's swearing an allegiance under the U.N. flag is yet another step in the process manifesting the treasonous purposes obsessing SOEHO and his criminal partners.
SOEHO and his band of treasoners are dedicated to replacing U.S. government as based upon the U.S. Constitutional with an international government subservient under and obedient to the United Nations Charter.
THE GRAVITY OF OUR SITUATION CANNOT BE MADE MORE CLEAR!
SOEHO AND HIS TREASONOUS PARTNERS ARE ABOUT THE "WHOLESALE TRANSFER OF UNITED STATES SOVREIGNTY TO THE UNITED NATIONS!"
SOEHO is a FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY and FOREIGN AGENT, who's infiltrated U.S. government at it's highest position and is subject to and must suffer the same fate as any other TRESONER-INFILTRATOR. SOEHO is a common variety street punk hooligan, a thug, a self-possessed career criminal!
HERE ENDETH THE LESSON!
WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
NOT FRENCH BASHING - BASHING AMERICA BASHERS LIKE OBA-HUSSEIN
At a time when our president and other politicians tend to apologize for our country`s prior actions,here`s a refresher on how some of our former patriots handled negative comments about our country.
These are good
JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaule said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?
DeGaule did not respond.
You could have heard a pin drop
When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush..
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:
'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people;
they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities;
they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day;
they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day;
and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.
We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.
He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.
"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."
"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look.
Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are proud to be an American, pass this on! If not, delete it.
I am proud to be of this land, AMERICA
These are good
JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaule said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?
DeGaule did not respond.
You could have heard a pin drop
When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush..
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:
'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people;
they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities;
they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day;
they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day;
and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.
We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.
He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.
"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."
"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look.
Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are proud to be an American, pass this on! If not, delete it.
I am proud to be of this land, AMERICA
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Islam Is Fire to Burn You
By Amil Imani
The Islamic fire, fueled by immense oil income, is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and is ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, live and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture; a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down by Muhammad some 1400 years ago.
It is true that most religions are intended to attenuate human fears. They are based on natural fears, many of which are irrational...but natural nonetheless. For example, many pagan religious practices were focused on the seasonal cycles related to the harvest. Why? Because if the harvest was poor, their entire civilization could perish, or be weakened to the point where a neighboring tribe would kill them off. While they misunderstood the scientific basis for weather, they created natural (yet irrational) religious beliefs about weather and harvest. In this sense, religions were psychologically useful and inevitable in addressing natural conditions.
But some religions establish for themselves fears of things which do not exist...which the religion itself invented in order to create and perpetuate fear, and then artificially addressed it in order to establish a political regime. The political nature of Islam transcends personal spiritualism and becomes a cult of oppression. This is fraud. This is evil. This is Islam.
Islam essentially invents the idea that Christians, Jews, and pagans are abominations and offensive to Allah, and that their very existence represents an attack upon the self-defined Islamic right to reign over the world. Allah thus enlists Muslim believers to eradicate by force those who offend him and by disbelieving, prevent his rule. True Muslim believers therefore become the enforcers, hit men and mercenaries for their god, in order to establish a global Caliphate for their parasitic clergy. Their targets are artificially constructed adversaries. Believers are instructed to fear the “great Satan.” and are told that if they do not live up to Allah’s calls to Jihad, they are themselves offensive to Allah and to their families. It’s a “you’re either for me or against me” strategy.
Contrast this with say, Christian fears. Christians too fear offending God, because they believe that God will judge their lives when their bodies die. So their fears are reduced by atoning in personal alignment with the teachings of the Bible.
So, as a political religion, Islam creates artificial fear of alien groups, and then eliminates the fear through war and coercion. Islam pleases Allah with brutality and Jihad. Islam seeks to instill a political regime to enforce its provisions. When such a political doctrine declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to corporeal enforcement by people.
Personal religions acknowledge natural fears, and then use light, wisdom, and the capacity for human nobility to eliminate them through a positive, spiritual exercise. Other religions encourage voluntary, personal spiritual alignment. The only “coercion” in a religion based on personal spiritualism is the conveyance of the natural idea of a soul and judgment. If you believe in these things, you change and atone, perhaps out of fear. If you do not, you accuse the evangelizer of being fraudulent...but a fraud is a demonstrable deception not an opinion, and the one who disbelieves in a personal religion cannot prove his point of view, so fraud is not in play as a driver of personal spiritualism. When a personal religion declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to spiritual enforcement by God.
This is the difference between day and night, between good and evil. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shi’as. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.
Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam, through religious divines, controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.
Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraish, he was ridiculed as a crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.
Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom were men of power and influence, such as Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, except the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger. Then Allah’s messenger, Muhammad, set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.
The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable verses. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s way or the highway. This radicalism is very much in action today.
In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Sharia. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted. But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosives. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in fifty-four or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Iran threw off its oppressive theocratic rule and established a government “of the people”, with room for all beliefs? Iran could be a powerful nation and a peaceful one, an example for the rest of the developing world of how to thrive without Islamic politics. However, the road to freedom is perilous. Nothing as worthwhile as freedom can be purchased easily. But the cause is worth it.
While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general. I believe communism as an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man. To me, it is Satan’s “denial” play...that there is no God. But Satan and his minions work in multiple theaters simultaneously. Islam is Satan’s chief “deception” play. Rather than deny God exists, it asserts that God does in fact exist, but that God does not desire men worship out of love or free will, but through rote, fear, and guilt, and through the sins of pride, envy, and chauvinism.
It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam...“submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth. Atheism, materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same. Fascism is fascism.
We live in a society which worships “experts” and specialists. However, our distorted society of “experts” has continually failed us. Almost nothing they have told us has turned out to be true. Thus, I am a revisionist in that I believe much of what we believe is true is utterly false. I also believe in good and evil, a notion sadly obsolete in our nihilistic time. I don’t think Satan is any more a metaphor than is God.
Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.
Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as an instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.
To cut to the chase, we need to eliminate some disinformation and myths about the “war on terror”:
1) We are not fighting terrorism. We are engaging in an ideological battle between freedom, conservatism, democracy, individual rights, capitalism, “Christian” ethics and Islamofascism, communism-socialism, theocracy, and tyranny. There are also internationalist, dictatorial, globalist forces that seek to use the conflict to create an international government and a unification of all religions by the destruction of nationalism, patriotism, individual rights and sectarianism.
2) It is not “fanatical”, “radical”, or “extreme” Islam that we are fighting, but normal, orthodox, canonical, typical, accepted, traditional Islam, straight from the mouth of the Muhammad. Islam is violent in direct proportion to its mission and scripture. The so-called fanatics are only upholding the truth of their principles. There are those who do not openly engage in terrorism or warfare, but are in support of it, or are working in other ways to spread Islam by force or fraud.
3) Islam is evil, by any accepted definition of that word, and must be seen as such by all rational non-Islamists. There is no such thing as “peace” in Islam except the peace that comes after a successful war against infidels.
4) Islam can work by brute force and by the lengths to which the believers will go to perpetuate it. Its theology and practices make it inherently evil and dangerous to all of mankind. It has already spread and infected the world like a cancer. How do you nuke it out of existence? You can’t...in fact, they will nuke us first, and I guarantee it. When this happens, all hell will break loose, and most freedoms will be up in smoke. Ask yourself how the Palestinian problem can ever get resolved. There are only two ways; either they are gone for good or converted from Islam. Otherwise, the war will never end. The Israeli-Palestinian war is not about the land, it never has been. It is about the eradication of the Jews; right to the last one of them because Muhammad had prescribed it and is eternal.
We must begin to declare Islam evil, not from a sectarian perspective, but from a universal, humanist one. Every encroachment of Islam as a religion must be rejected, harassed and discouraged by all people everywhere. Any leftist attempts to give aid and comfort to this religion of hate must be denounced and frustrated at every turn. Otherwise, get used to your radioactive suit and your fallout shelter, a standard of living—and a level of freedom of 1/10th what of you have today.
Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you Take a Stand at denouncing the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system.
Islam is Fire
The Islamic fire, fueled by immense oil income, is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and is ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, live and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture; a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down by Muhammad some 1400 years ago.
It is true that most religions are intended to attenuate human fears. They are based on natural fears, many of which are irrational...but natural nonetheless. For example, many pagan religious practices were focused on the seasonal cycles related to the harvest. Why? Because if the harvest was poor, their entire civilization could perish, or be weakened to the point where a neighboring tribe would kill them off. While they misunderstood the scientific basis for weather, they created natural (yet irrational) religious beliefs about weather and harvest. In this sense, religions were psychologically useful and inevitable in addressing natural conditions.
But some religions establish for themselves fears of things which do not exist...which the religion itself invented in order to create and perpetuate fear, and then artificially addressed it in order to establish a political regime. The political nature of Islam transcends personal spiritualism and becomes a cult of oppression. This is fraud. This is evil. This is Islam.
Islam essentially invents the idea that Christians, Jews, and pagans are abominations and offensive to Allah, and that their very existence represents an attack upon the self-defined Islamic right to reign over the world. Allah thus enlists Muslim believers to eradicate by force those who offend him and by disbelieving, prevent his rule. True Muslim believers therefore become the enforcers, hit men and mercenaries for their god, in order to establish a global Caliphate for their parasitic clergy. Their targets are artificially constructed adversaries. Believers are instructed to fear the “great Satan.” and are told that if they do not live up to Allah’s calls to Jihad, they are themselves offensive to Allah and to their families. It’s a “you’re either for me or against me” strategy.
Contrast this with say, Christian fears. Christians too fear offending God, because they believe that God will judge their lives when their bodies die. So their fears are reduced by atoning in personal alignment with the teachings of the Bible.
So, as a political religion, Islam creates artificial fear of alien groups, and then eliminates the fear through war and coercion. Islam pleases Allah with brutality and Jihad. Islam seeks to instill a political regime to enforce its provisions. When such a political doctrine declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to corporeal enforcement by people.
Personal religions acknowledge natural fears, and then use light, wisdom, and the capacity for human nobility to eliminate them through a positive, spiritual exercise. Other religions encourage voluntary, personal spiritual alignment. The only “coercion” in a religion based on personal spiritualism is the conveyance of the natural idea of a soul and judgment. If you believe in these things, you change and atone, perhaps out of fear. If you do not, you accuse the evangelizer of being fraudulent...but a fraud is a demonstrable deception not an opinion, and the one who disbelieves in a personal religion cannot prove his point of view, so fraud is not in play as a driver of personal spiritualism. When a personal religion declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to spiritual enforcement by God.
This is the difference between day and night, between good and evil. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shi’as. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.
Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam, through religious divines, controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.
Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraish, he was ridiculed as a crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.
Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom were men of power and influence, such as Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, except the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger. Then Allah’s messenger, Muhammad, set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.
The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable verses. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s way or the highway. This radicalism is very much in action today.
In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Sharia. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted. But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosives. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in fifty-four or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Iran threw off its oppressive theocratic rule and established a government “of the people”, with room for all beliefs? Iran could be a powerful nation and a peaceful one, an example for the rest of the developing world of how to thrive without Islamic politics. However, the road to freedom is perilous. Nothing as worthwhile as freedom can be purchased easily. But the cause is worth it.
While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general. I believe communism as an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man. To me, it is Satan’s “denial” play...that there is no God. But Satan and his minions work in multiple theaters simultaneously. Islam is Satan’s chief “deception” play. Rather than deny God exists, it asserts that God does in fact exist, but that God does not desire men worship out of love or free will, but through rote, fear, and guilt, and through the sins of pride, envy, and chauvinism.
It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam...“submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth. Atheism, materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same. Fascism is fascism.
We live in a society which worships “experts” and specialists. However, our distorted society of “experts” has continually failed us. Almost nothing they have told us has turned out to be true. Thus, I am a revisionist in that I believe much of what we believe is true is utterly false. I also believe in good and evil, a notion sadly obsolete in our nihilistic time. I don’t think Satan is any more a metaphor than is God.
Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.
Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as an instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.
To cut to the chase, we need to eliminate some disinformation and myths about the “war on terror”:
1) We are not fighting terrorism. We are engaging in an ideological battle between freedom, conservatism, democracy, individual rights, capitalism, “Christian” ethics and Islamofascism, communism-socialism, theocracy, and tyranny. There are also internationalist, dictatorial, globalist forces that seek to use the conflict to create an international government and a unification of all religions by the destruction of nationalism, patriotism, individual rights and sectarianism.
2) It is not “fanatical”, “radical”, or “extreme” Islam that we are fighting, but normal, orthodox, canonical, typical, accepted, traditional Islam, straight from the mouth of the Muhammad. Islam is violent in direct proportion to its mission and scripture. The so-called fanatics are only upholding the truth of their principles. There are those who do not openly engage in terrorism or warfare, but are in support of it, or are working in other ways to spread Islam by force or fraud.
3) Islam is evil, by any accepted definition of that word, and must be seen as such by all rational non-Islamists. There is no such thing as “peace” in Islam except the peace that comes after a successful war against infidels.
4) Islam can work by brute force and by the lengths to which the believers will go to perpetuate it. Its theology and practices make it inherently evil and dangerous to all of mankind. It has already spread and infected the world like a cancer. How do you nuke it out of existence? You can’t...in fact, they will nuke us first, and I guarantee it. When this happens, all hell will break loose, and most freedoms will be up in smoke. Ask yourself how the Palestinian problem can ever get resolved. There are only two ways; either they are gone for good or converted from Islam. Otherwise, the war will never end. The Israeli-Palestinian war is not about the land, it never has been. It is about the eradication of the Jews; right to the last one of them because Muhammad had prescribed it and is eternal.
We must begin to declare Islam evil, not from a sectarian perspective, but from a universal, humanist one. Every encroachment of Islam as a religion must be rejected, harassed and discouraged by all people everywhere. Any leftist attempts to give aid and comfort to this religion of hate must be denounced and frustrated at every turn. Otherwise, get used to your radioactive suit and your fallout shelter, a standard of living—and a level of freedom of 1/10th what of you have today.
Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you Take a Stand at denouncing the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system.
Friday, September 11, 2009
BORROWED MONEY KILLLING AMERICANS?
Fiat (FIAT, borrowed, not Flat) Money: How Else You Gonna Kill 600,000 Americans?
Mises Daily by Robert P. Murphy Posted on 9/11/2009 12:00:00 AM
A few years ago on these pages, I harshly criticized an article urging New Yorkers to "eat local," and went so far as to dub the young lady's column, "The worst economics article ever." I am here to report that her record has been smashed. Floyd Norris's recent New York Times article on the greenback is hands down the worst economics article I have ever read. Not only is it jam-packed full of false history, but it uses the falsehoods to justify monstrous crimes, both in the past and present.
Read full article with graphs at:
http://mises.org/story/3701
The reader with a strong stomach will have to click the above link to appreciate the full enormity of Norris's accomplishment, but for those with limited attention spans I'll detail some of its biggest problems below.
Mises Daily by Robert P. Murphy Posted on 9/11/2009 12:00:00 AM
A few years ago on these pages, I harshly criticized an article urging New Yorkers to "eat local," and went so far as to dub the young lady's column, "The worst economics article ever." I am here to report that her record has been smashed. Floyd Norris's recent New York Times article on the greenback is hands down the worst economics article I have ever read. Not only is it jam-packed full of false history, but it uses the falsehoods to justify monstrous crimes, both in the past and present.
Read full article with graphs at:
http://mises.org/story/3701
The reader with a strong stomach will have to click the above link to appreciate the full enormity of Norris's accomplishment, but for those with limited attention spans I'll detail some of its biggest problems below.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ANTI-ISLAMIC REGIME OF IRAN CASE OPENED AT THE HAGUE
The IRI file number at Hague court was issued. Complaints against the IRI will be kept under this number: OTP-CR-777/09 .
PLEASE PASS THIS NEWS AROUND SO ALL CAN BEGIN SHARING THEIR COMPLAINTS WITH THE HAGUE. THIS IS A MAJOR COUP FOR US. DARFUR, THE CONGO, SLOBODAN MILOSEVICH... ALL GO THROUGH THIS PATH SO THE FACT THAT WE GOT THIS CASE APPROVED, AND AGAINST THE REGIME ITSELF... IS GOING TO HELP US IN OUR LONG TERM VISION OF OBTAINING JUSTICE.
Secular News reports: On August 18th a press conference featuring hundreds of personalities and thousands of individuals who were known to have withstood brutal torture, took place in front of the International Criminal Courts in The Hague (ICC).
Farshad Hosseini, Mina Ahadi, Shiva Mahboubi, Fareed Arman, Akram Beeronvand, Saeed Partow and Fereshteh Moradi participated in the press conference and discussed at length, the most recent as well as thirty years of crimes committed by the Islamic regime; those crimes include torture, rape, execution of minors and children, assassination of regime opposition members inside and outside Iran.
Demonstrators who turned up at 2 p.m. braving the rainy weather, carried placards of images of those who lost their lives; they gathered to represent all the deceased, those who were tortured and raped by the regimes criminal officials, as well as the families of the victims and whose loved ones blood was spilled for the freedom of Iran, and finally the millions of Iranians whose wish is to prosecute the heads of the Islamic regime. A manifesto was also read by Hosseini, Ahadi, Moradi, Partow and Arman in Farsi, English and Dutch.
During the demonstration Mina Ahadi and Farshad Hosseini who represented the International Committee Against Stoning and International Committee Against Execution met and held discussions and deliberated with officials from the ICC prosecution unit. Other than the presentation of a detailed report of the crimes committed by the Islamic Republic during the last thirty years, a request for an investigation of said crimes as crimes against humanity, by the ICC was also made. A separate report based on the recent crimes which consisted of a list of one hundred names of those who are known to have been killed during the recent months as well as the illegal and secret burials in mass graves was also presented to said ICC officials. The issue of the tortures performed on detainees in prisons, rapes of political prisoners were mentioned as well. Ms. Ahadi and Mr. Hosseini also reitereated the nature and severity of the crimes perpetrated by the Islamic regime against humanity and explained that any delay or compromise in this matter, where a concrete and effective international action plan for halting this course of genocide, whatever the reason, will lead to the continuation of these crimes. Every day the ICC delays the investigation of these crimes, will be another day will be an extension for the criminals perpetrating said crimes. Today international organizations who head up the ICC’s role is to stand as a buffer and is duty-bound to prosecute criminals and as such they must act swiftly in taking action against those responsible for such atrocities. The request to prosecute the heads of that Islamic regime is the request of millions of Iranian and hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, in either a personal, political or public form.
The officials from the prosecution unit of the ICC responded with diligence and readiness in accepting the reports presented to them; therefore based on the presented information a file for the investigation of the leaders of the Islamic regime was opened and the case number will be provided on August 31st which will then be distributed. The officials from the prosecution unit also explained the legal methodology of the complaint process and in response stated that the accelerated steps taken against the Islamic regime was as a result of the large and continued complaints against the government of Iran and as such immediate action will be taken to examine the evidence. The officials from the prosecution unit also added that additionally they are currently addressing four cases of crimes against humanity in countries such as Uganda, The Congo, Sudan and Central Africa.
The International Committee Against Execution continues its activities to inform public opinion on the topic of the executions and the general crimes committed by the Islamic Republic. For more information or assisting us regarding this case, please contact us.
Mina Ahadi
minaahadi@aol.com
0049 177 569 24 13
Farshad Hoseini
farshadhoseini@yahoo.com
0031-633602627
The International Committee Against Execution
29 August 2009
PLEASE PASS THIS NEWS AROUND SO ALL CAN BEGIN SHARING THEIR COMPLAINTS WITH THE HAGUE. THIS IS A MAJOR COUP FOR US. DARFUR, THE CONGO, SLOBODAN MILOSEVICH... ALL GO THROUGH THIS PATH SO THE FACT THAT WE GOT THIS CASE APPROVED, AND AGAINST THE REGIME ITSELF... IS GOING TO HELP US IN OUR LONG TERM VISION OF OBTAINING JUSTICE.
Secular News reports: On August 18th a press conference featuring hundreds of personalities and thousands of individuals who were known to have withstood brutal torture, took place in front of the International Criminal Courts in The Hague (ICC).
Farshad Hosseini, Mina Ahadi, Shiva Mahboubi, Fareed Arman, Akram Beeronvand, Saeed Partow and Fereshteh Moradi participated in the press conference and discussed at length, the most recent as well as thirty years of crimes committed by the Islamic regime; those crimes include torture, rape, execution of minors and children, assassination of regime opposition members inside and outside Iran.
Demonstrators who turned up at 2 p.m. braving the rainy weather, carried placards of images of those who lost their lives; they gathered to represent all the deceased, those who were tortured and raped by the regimes criminal officials, as well as the families of the victims and whose loved ones blood was spilled for the freedom of Iran, and finally the millions of Iranians whose wish is to prosecute the heads of the Islamic regime. A manifesto was also read by Hosseini, Ahadi, Moradi, Partow and Arman in Farsi, English and Dutch.
During the demonstration Mina Ahadi and Farshad Hosseini who represented the International Committee Against Stoning and International Committee Against Execution met and held discussions and deliberated with officials from the ICC prosecution unit. Other than the presentation of a detailed report of the crimes committed by the Islamic Republic during the last thirty years, a request for an investigation of said crimes as crimes against humanity, by the ICC was also made. A separate report based on the recent crimes which consisted of a list of one hundred names of those who are known to have been killed during the recent months as well as the illegal and secret burials in mass graves was also presented to said ICC officials. The issue of the tortures performed on detainees in prisons, rapes of political prisoners were mentioned as well. Ms. Ahadi and Mr. Hosseini also reitereated the nature and severity of the crimes perpetrated by the Islamic regime against humanity and explained that any delay or compromise in this matter, where a concrete and effective international action plan for halting this course of genocide, whatever the reason, will lead to the continuation of these crimes. Every day the ICC delays the investigation of these crimes, will be another day will be an extension for the criminals perpetrating said crimes. Today international organizations who head up the ICC’s role is to stand as a buffer and is duty-bound to prosecute criminals and as such they must act swiftly in taking action against those responsible for such atrocities. The request to prosecute the heads of that Islamic regime is the request of millions of Iranian and hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, in either a personal, political or public form.
The officials from the prosecution unit of the ICC responded with diligence and readiness in accepting the reports presented to them; therefore based on the presented information a file for the investigation of the leaders of the Islamic regime was opened and the case number will be provided on August 31st which will then be distributed. The officials from the prosecution unit also explained the legal methodology of the complaint process and in response stated that the accelerated steps taken against the Islamic regime was as a result of the large and continued complaints against the government of Iran and as such immediate action will be taken to examine the evidence. The officials from the prosecution unit also added that additionally they are currently addressing four cases of crimes against humanity in countries such as Uganda, The Congo, Sudan and Central Africa.
The International Committee Against Execution continues its activities to inform public opinion on the topic of the executions and the general crimes committed by the Islamic Republic. For more information or assisting us regarding this case, please contact us.
Mina Ahadi
minaahadi@aol.com
0049 177 569 24 13
Farshad Hoseini
farshadhoseini@yahoo.com
0031-633602627
The International Committee Against Execution
29 August 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
ALL OBAMA KNOWS HOW TO DO IS TALK AND WE ARE SICK OF IT
By Jonah Goldberg
ABC News reports that Barack Obama has returned to Washington, only to step off the plane and "into his next domestic crisis." He "planned to leave the details of health care reform to Congress, but today the White House says he'll play a much stronger role." The Associated Press says Obama is "backing away" from his "'it's-all-on-the-table' approach" and is "prepared to get louder and more involved in the details of a health care overhaul." "This weekend," NBC Nightly News explained in its lead story, "the president signaled an aggressive stance to put his personal stamp on the sweeping legislation."
There's only one problem. These stories were all reported nearly three months ago upon Obama's return from his largely failed European mission. And yet, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Obama's planned address to a joint session of Congress next week "will insert the president into the heated debate in a way he has avoided all summer." The Washington Post informed readers that the "White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines." A "senior aide" to Obama says the president will be "much more prescriptive."
Why the White House press corps didn't just change the date on their old copy and run it again is beyond me. And I'll leave it to others to ponder the media's seemingly infinite capacity to give Obama as many do-overs as he might need.
Why the Obama administration is determined to do the time warp again is easier to decipher. Obama's advisors think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by "cowbell" you mean "Obama." It's like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the "Saturday Night Live" skit about Blue Oyster Cult (if you don't know the reference, Google "cowbell").
Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, "No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription ... is more Obama!"
But is that really what the doctor ordered?
Obama's address next week will be his third prime-time appeal in three months and the fifth in his 7-month-old presidency. The networks are chagrined about this, not least because the ratings half-life of these events is severe. (Fox's broadcast network beat out the other networks by running "So You Think You Can Dance" instead of his last prime-time press conference.) More relevant, they haven't done Obama much good.
His July 22 press conference was billed as perhaps Obama's last chance to save health care reform. It tanked (partly because Obama's attack on the Cambridge police dominated the press). Afterward, public support for ObamaCare dropped significantly. A Pew poll taken that week found that more people opposed the proposals being considered by Congress than supported them, and that Obama's overall approval had dropped 7 points from the previous month. Other polls showed similar declines.
Now, more than a month later, things look even worse. The obvious solution? Even more cowbell.
But what is lacking is not cowbell, it's substance the American people can support. Obama will reportedly be "more specific," but he won't commit himself to any particular piece of legislation. This suggests that the White House still thinks it has a communication problem, and if only it dispels the cloud of "lies" belched up by the opposition, there will be nothing but blue skies ahead.
Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.
And so, rather than change the substance of the message, they're grabbing an even bigger megaphone: an address to a joint session of Congress. Three out of the last four presidents gave just one address to a joint session of Congress, and all but one of them reserved such occasions for major international events, like a war or, in Ronald Reagan's case, a breakthrough with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Only Bill Clinton used such a venue for a domestic priority: health care reform.
That didn't work out so well either.
Just seven months into Obama's presidency, the White House is turning up the speakers on the cowbell as loud as they will go. And, heck, if you love cowbell, it's going to be a real treat. But in all the ways that matter, it may just end up being more noise.
ABC News reports that Barack Obama has returned to Washington, only to step off the plane and "into his next domestic crisis." He "planned to leave the details of health care reform to Congress, but today the White House says he'll play a much stronger role." The Associated Press says Obama is "backing away" from his "'it's-all-on-the-table' approach" and is "prepared to get louder and more involved in the details of a health care overhaul." "This weekend," NBC Nightly News explained in its lead story, "the president signaled an aggressive stance to put his personal stamp on the sweeping legislation."
There's only one problem. These stories were all reported nearly three months ago upon Obama's return from his largely failed European mission. And yet, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Obama's planned address to a joint session of Congress next week "will insert the president into the heated debate in a way he has avoided all summer." The Washington Post informed readers that the "White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines." A "senior aide" to Obama says the president will be "much more prescriptive."
Why the White House press corps didn't just change the date on their old copy and run it again is beyond me. And I'll leave it to others to ponder the media's seemingly infinite capacity to give Obama as many do-overs as he might need.
Why the Obama administration is determined to do the time warp again is easier to decipher. Obama's advisors think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by "cowbell" you mean "Obama." It's like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the "Saturday Night Live" skit about Blue Oyster Cult (if you don't know the reference, Google "cowbell").
Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, "No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription ... is more Obama!"
But is that really what the doctor ordered?
Obama's address next week will be his third prime-time appeal in three months and the fifth in his 7-month-old presidency. The networks are chagrined about this, not least because the ratings half-life of these events is severe. (Fox's broadcast network beat out the other networks by running "So You Think You Can Dance" instead of his last prime-time press conference.) More relevant, they haven't done Obama much good.
His July 22 press conference was billed as perhaps Obama's last chance to save health care reform. It tanked (partly because Obama's attack on the Cambridge police dominated the press). Afterward, public support for ObamaCare dropped significantly. A Pew poll taken that week found that more people opposed the proposals being considered by Congress than supported them, and that Obama's overall approval had dropped 7 points from the previous month. Other polls showed similar declines.
Now, more than a month later, things look even worse. The obvious solution? Even more cowbell.
But what is lacking is not cowbell, it's substance the American people can support. Obama will reportedly be "more specific," but he won't commit himself to any particular piece of legislation. This suggests that the White House still thinks it has a communication problem, and if only it dispels the cloud of "lies" belched up by the opposition, there will be nothing but blue skies ahead.
Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.
And so, rather than change the substance of the message, they're grabbing an even bigger megaphone: an address to a joint session of Congress. Three out of the last four presidents gave just one address to a joint session of Congress, and all but one of them reserved such occasions for major international events, like a war or, in Ronald Reagan's case, a breakthrough with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Only Bill Clinton used such a venue for a domestic priority: health care reform.
That didn't work out so well either.
Just seven months into Obama's presidency, the White House is turning up the speakers on the cowbell as loud as they will go. And, heck, if you love cowbell, it's going to be a real treat. But in all the ways that matter, it may just end up being more noise.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
THE REAL TEDDY KENNEDY?
Alexander's Essay August 27, 2009
Lion of the Left (or Hyena)
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." --John Adams
Teddy Kennedy
Have you ever attended a funeral service out of respect for a friend or colleague, and left perplexed as to whom the eulogy was referring? Just once, I would like to go to a service for some disreputable rogue and have a clergyman deliver a eulogy that was faithful to the facts rather than full of fiction. (Hopefully, that won't be my own!)
I am certainly not suggesting that we should stand in judgment of any man, for that is the exclusive domain of our Creator. However, we should never abandon our responsibility to discern right from wrong.
On that note, Edward "Teddy" Kennedy (22 February 1932 -- 25 August 2009) died this week at age 77.
Kennedy spent the last 47 of his years as a senator, having been perpetually re-elected by the people of Massachusetts. This made him the third-longest serving senator -- behind Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) -- in that chamber's august history.
Of course, a fawning Leftmedia will inundate us with non-stop coverage of Kennedy's life, featuring interviews with his political sycophants up to, and probably well after, his interment at National Cemetery. The airways and printed pages are already sodden with accolades, mostly framing the senator's life as one of great personal tragedy but great public success.
Let's take a look at both.
Kennedy was born into great wealth, privilege and political influence, the fourth son and ninth child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. He never worked a day in a private-sector job, and like his brothers before him, he owed his political career to his father's considerable political machinations.
But, the mainstream media's reference to TK's life as one punctuated by personal tragedy is an understatement.
Before the age of 16, he had suffered through the death of his brother Joseph Kennedy Jr. (his father's heir apparent), who died when his B-24 bomber exploded over Surrey, England, during World War II, and the death of his sister Kathleen Agnes Kennedy, who died in an airplane crash in France.
In 1941 his father ordered a lobotomy for Ted's sister, Rosemary Kennedy, then age 23, because of "mood swings that the family found difficult to handle at home." The procedure failed and left Rose mentally incapacitated until her death in January 2005 at age 87.
Ted, like his brother John, developed a reputation as a serial womanizer in college. Unlike his Ivy League brothers, however, Ted was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, though allowed to return a few years later to complete his undergraduate degree.
Thanks to some election-night manipulation of returns by Old Joe, JFK was elected president in the closest race of the 20th century (49.7 percent to Richard Nixon's 49.5 percent). That paved the way for TK's victory in a 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts.
The thrill of victory was brief, however. On 22 November 1963, during a political visit to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
In June 1964, Ted Kennedy was flying with friends on a private plane that crashed on a landing approach, killing the pilot and a Kennedy staffer. Kennedy survived but suffered severe injuries.
On 4 June 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a candidate for the Democrat Party's nomination for president, was assassinated after a Los Angeles political event. The political baton then went to Teddy, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, but his alcohol abuse and philandering would keep the presidency out of reach.
In 1969, on one of his infamous junkets to "the island" (Martha's Vineyard and Chappaquiddick), Kennedy's moral lapse would cost a young staffer her life, and would cost him any chance of becoming president.
On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note: I drove across this bridge in a large 4x4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water -- but then, I was not intoxicated.)
Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water's edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.
Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne's body had already been discovered.
With the help of Father Joe's connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, "I almost tossed and turned... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car." He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail -- sentence suspended.
With Joan, his pregnant wife of 10 years, and their three children by his side, he claimed that charges of "immoral conduct and drunk driving" were false and he was promptly re-elected to his second full Senate term with a landslide 62 percent of the vote. However, his responsibility for the death of Kopechne would all but disqualify him from ever holding national office. Indeed, the moral composure of the nation differs significantly from that of his Massachusetts supporters and defenders.
Kennedy's political advocacy swung evermore to the left in the years that followed, and his personal conduct led the way.
In January 1981, Joan announced she had had enough, and they divorced.
Two Senate terms later, Kennedy was partying at the family's Palm Beach compound with his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was charged with the rape of Patricia Bowman during that evening. The Kennedy machine was able to undermine Bowman's charges by assassinating her character ahead of the trial.
Not surprisingly, Kennedy was an ardent backer of his friend Bill Clinton after the latter lied about sexual encounters with a subordinate White House intern in 1998.
In turn, Clinton awarded Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which, along with the Congressional Gold Medal, is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is designated for individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."
Setting aside all of his personal tragedies, what about the tributes and rave reviews of Kennedy's public life, his success as a legislator?
According to Barack Obama, "Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists, "No one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors and ensure equality for all Americans. Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, "Ted Kennedy's dream was the one for which the Founding Fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The Liberal Lion's mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die."
Oh, really?
Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath "to support and defend."
Kennedy's long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.
For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy's advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.
In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought."
Who can forget Kennedy's outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy's vote was among the Senate's unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy's vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito's character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, "If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right."
Of course, Kennedy was an expert at "borking" judicial nominees. Indeed, he is responsible for the coining of the term. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated an exceptional jurist, Robert Bork, to the Supreme Court. During Bork's confirmation hearings, Kennedy proclaimed, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens." Despicable.
No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the "Despotic Branch" stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called "Living Constitution".
But among ber-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label "Inheritance Welfare Liberalism, or "rich guilt" if you will.)
And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.
Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, "[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. ...[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area..."
How did that one turn out?
Kennedy also had some dangerous dalliances with the Soviets in 1983, endeavoring to undermine Ronald Reagan's hard line with the USSR. Fortunately, his efforts did not prevail.
But Kennedy did have one thing in common with his older brothers: He had powerful oratorical skills.
At the 2004 Democrat Convention to elect his lap dog, John Kerry, Kennedy, who wrote the book on political disunity, declared to delegates, "There are those who seek to divide us. ... America needs a genuine uniter -- not a divider. [Republicans] divide and try to conquer."
Fortunately, the American people weren't buying his rhetoric -- at least not until the 2008 convention, when Kennedy joined Barack Obama's "hope 'n' change" chorus: "I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America.... For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope. And this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- north, south, east, west, young, old -- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege."
Predictably, and before the man has even been laid to rest, there is already a rallying cry from Ted Kennedy's grave: The Left and their mainstream media talkingheads are exhorting us to fulfill the late senator's misguided mission to nationalize health care. (I checked, and the Constitution doesn't authorize this either.)
As I contemplate the life of Ted Kennedy, I am left with two primary conclusions.
First, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.
In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you," and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end.
Second, a man who can't govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.
One of our most astute Founders, Noah Webster, wrote, "The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. ... In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look to his character."
In Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the first use of "government" is defined in terms of self-government, not the body of those who govern.
Despite the Left's insistence that private virtue and morality should not be a consideration when assessing those in "public service" (unless, of course, they are Republicans), the fact is that the two are irrevocably linked.
Finally, in 1968, when Ted Kennedy delivered the eulogy for his brother, Robert, he said, "My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life..."
I would hope that whoever is slated to deliver Ted Kennedy's eulogy follows that advice because we do a disservice to him and our country to suggest Kennedy was anything more than he was.
I do not know who will bestow his final tribute, but I do know it will not be Mary Jo Kopechne.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Lion of the Left (or Hyena)
"The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families. ... Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics." --John Adams
Teddy Kennedy
Have you ever attended a funeral service out of respect for a friend or colleague, and left perplexed as to whom the eulogy was referring? Just once, I would like to go to a service for some disreputable rogue and have a clergyman deliver a eulogy that was faithful to the facts rather than full of fiction. (Hopefully, that won't be my own!)
I am certainly not suggesting that we should stand in judgment of any man, for that is the exclusive domain of our Creator. However, we should never abandon our responsibility to discern right from wrong.
On that note, Edward "Teddy" Kennedy (22 February 1932 -- 25 August 2009) died this week at age 77.
Kennedy spent the last 47 of his years as a senator, having been perpetually re-elected by the people of Massachusetts. This made him the third-longest serving senator -- behind Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (R-SC) -- in that chamber's august history.
Of course, a fawning Leftmedia will inundate us with non-stop coverage of Kennedy's life, featuring interviews with his political sycophants up to, and probably well after, his interment at National Cemetery. The airways and printed pages are already sodden with accolades, mostly framing the senator's life as one of great personal tragedy but great public success.
Let's take a look at both.
Kennedy was born into great wealth, privilege and political influence, the fourth son and ninth child of Joseph and Rose Kennedy. He never worked a day in a private-sector job, and like his brothers before him, he owed his political career to his father's considerable political machinations.
But, the mainstream media's reference to TK's life as one punctuated by personal tragedy is an understatement.
Before the age of 16, he had suffered through the death of his brother Joseph Kennedy Jr. (his father's heir apparent), who died when his B-24 bomber exploded over Surrey, England, during World War II, and the death of his sister Kathleen Agnes Kennedy, who died in an airplane crash in France.
In 1941 his father ordered a lobotomy for Ted's sister, Rosemary Kennedy, then age 23, because of "mood swings that the family found difficult to handle at home." The procedure failed and left Rose mentally incapacitated until her death in January 2005 at age 87.
Ted, like his brother John, developed a reputation as a serial womanizer in college. Unlike his Ivy League brothers, however, Ted was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, though allowed to return a few years later to complete his undergraduate degree.
Thanks to some election-night manipulation of returns by Old Joe, JFK was elected president in the closest race of the 20th century (49.7 percent to Richard Nixon's 49.5 percent). That paved the way for TK's victory in a 1962 U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts.
The thrill of victory was brief, however. On 22 November 1963, during a political visit to Dallas, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
In June 1964, Ted Kennedy was flying with friends on a private plane that crashed on a landing approach, killing the pilot and a Kennedy staffer. Kennedy survived but suffered severe injuries.
On 4 June 1968, Robert Kennedy, then a candidate for the Democrat Party's nomination for president, was assassinated after a Los Angeles political event. The political baton then went to Teddy, the last of the four Kennedy brothers, but his alcohol abuse and philandering would keep the presidency out of reach.
In 1969, on one of his infamous junkets to "the island" (Martha's Vineyard and Chappaquiddick), Kennedy's moral lapse would cost a young staffer her life, and would cost him any chance of becoming president.
On the night of 18 July, Kennedy left a party with an attractive young intern en route to a private secluded beach on the far side of Dike Bridge. Kennedy lost control on the single-lane bridge and his vehicle overturned in the shallow tidal water. (Note: I drove across this bridge in a large 4x4 truck a few years after this incident, and it was not difficult to keep it out of the water -- but then, I was not intoxicated.)
Kennedy freed himself from the vehicle leaving his passenger, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate in an air pocket inside the overturned car. After resting at the water's edge, he walked back to the party house, and one of his political hacks took him back to his hotel.
Nine hours later, after sobering up and conferring with political advisors and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. Kopechne's body had already been discovered.
With the help of Father Joe's connections, Kennedy was charged only with leaving the scene of an accident. In his testimony, he claimed, "I almost tossed and turned... I had not given up hope all night long that, by some miracle, Mary Jo would have escaped from the car." He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve two months in jail -- sentence suspended.
With Joan, his pregnant wife of 10 years, and their three children by his side, he claimed that charges of "immoral conduct and drunk driving" were false and he was promptly re-elected to his second full Senate term with a landslide 62 percent of the vote. However, his responsibility for the death of Kopechne would all but disqualify him from ever holding national office. Indeed, the moral composure of the nation differs significantly from that of his Massachusetts supporters and defenders.
Kennedy's political advocacy swung evermore to the left in the years that followed, and his personal conduct led the way.
In January 1981, Joan announced she had had enough, and they divorced.
Two Senate terms later, Kennedy was partying at the family's Palm Beach compound with his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was charged with the rape of Patricia Bowman during that evening. The Kennedy machine was able to undermine Bowman's charges by assassinating her character ahead of the trial.
Not surprisingly, Kennedy was an ardent backer of his friend Bill Clinton after the latter lied about sexual encounters with a subordinate White House intern in 1998.
In turn, Clinton awarded Kennedy the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which, along with the Congressional Gold Medal, is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is designated for individuals who have made "an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."
Setting aside all of his personal tragedies, what about the tributes and rave reviews of Kennedy's public life, his success as a legislator?
According to Barack Obama, "Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists, "No one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors and ensure equality for all Americans. Ted Kennedy's dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid adds, "Ted Kennedy's dream was the one for which the Founding Fathers fought and for which his brothers sought to realize. The Liberal Lion's mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die."
Oh, really?
Kennedy has a very long legacy of legislative accomplishments, but not one of them is expressly authorized by our Constitution, that venerable old document he has repeatedly pledged by oath "to support and defend."
Kennedy's long Senate tenure was, in fact, defined by hypocrisy.
For example, consider that this fine Catholic boy's advocacy for abortion and homosexuality was second to none.
In regard to Operation Iraqi Freedom, consider his claim during the Clinton years: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." A few years later, with his cadre of traitorous leftists at his side, Kennedy claimed, "The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought."
Who can forget Kennedy's outrageous 2006 inquisition into the integrity of then Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito? In 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Alito to be a U.S. District Attorney, Kennedy's vote was among the Senate's unanimous consent. And when Sam Alito was nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990, he again received Kennedy's vote and unanimous consent from the Senate. But after impugning Alito's character in his Supreme Court hearings, Kennedy blustered, "If confirmed, Alito could very well fundamentally alter the balance of the court and push it dangerously to the right."
Of course, Kennedy was an expert at "borking" judicial nominees. Indeed, he is responsible for the coining of the term. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated an exceptional jurist, Robert Bork, to the Supreme Court. During Bork's confirmation hearings, Kennedy proclaimed, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens." Despicable.
No agenda was more sacred to Kennedy than opposing Constitutional Constructionists in order to convert the Judiciary into what Thomas Jefferson called the "Despotic Branch" stacked with jurists who subscribe to the notion of a so-called "Living Constitution".
But among ber-leftists like Kennedy, there is perhaps no greater hypocrisy than the fact that they are among the wealthiest of Americans but pretend to be advocates for the poor. Of course, they never give up their opulent trappings and lifestyles while pontificating what is best for the masses. (I have written on the pathology associated with this hypocrisy under the label "Inheritance Welfare Liberalism, or "rich guilt" if you will.)
And there is a long list of Kennedy legislation that has proven disastrous.
Second only to the looming disaster of his pet nationalized health care promotion, Kennedy led the charge for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, ending quotas based on national origin. He argued, "[O]ur cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. The ethnic mix of our country will not be upset. ...[T]he bill will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area..."
How did that one turn out?
Kennedy also had some dangerous dalliances with the Soviets in 1983, endeavoring to undermine Ronald Reagan's hard line with the USSR. Fortunately, his efforts did not prevail.
But Kennedy did have one thing in common with his older brothers: He had powerful oratorical skills.
At the 2004 Democrat Convention to elect his lap dog, John Kerry, Kennedy, who wrote the book on political disunity, declared to delegates, "There are those who seek to divide us. ... America needs a genuine uniter -- not a divider. [Republicans] divide and try to conquer."
Fortunately, the American people weren't buying his rhetoric -- at least not until the 2008 convention, when Kennedy joined Barack Obama's "hope 'n' change" chorus: "I have come here tonight to stand with you to change America.... For me this is a season of hope -- new hope for a justice and fair prosperity for the many, and not just for the few -- new hope. And this is the cause of my life -- new hope that we will break the old gridlock and guarantee that every American -- north, south, east, west, young, old -- will have decent, quality health care as a fundamental right and not a privilege."
Predictably, and before the man has even been laid to rest, there is already a rallying cry from Ted Kennedy's grave: The Left and their mainstream media talkingheads are exhorting us to fulfill the late senator's misguided mission to nationalize health care. (I checked, and the Constitution doesn't authorize this either.)
As I contemplate the life of Ted Kennedy, I am left with two primary conclusions.
First, Ted Kennedy was no JFK.
In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you," and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end.
Second, a man who can't govern his own life should never be entrusted with the government of others.
One of our most astute Founders, Noah Webster, wrote, "The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. ... In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look to his character."
In Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the first use of "government" is defined in terms of self-government, not the body of those who govern.
Despite the Left's insistence that private virtue and morality should not be a consideration when assessing those in "public service" (unless, of course, they are Republicans), the fact is that the two are irrevocably linked.
Finally, in 1968, when Ted Kennedy delivered the eulogy for his brother, Robert, he said, "My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life..."
I would hope that whoever is slated to deliver Ted Kennedy's eulogy follows that advice because we do a disservice to him and our country to suggest Kennedy was anything more than he was.
I do not know who will bestow his final tribute, but I do know it will not be Mary Jo Kopechne.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Monday, August 24, 2009
CATCH BAG OF NEWS AND THOUGHTS
ALSO WATCH FOR AN IRAN CATCH BAG OF RECENT TURMOIL ROILING UNDER THE SURFACE AMONG THE MULLAHS
More American soldiers are dying since Obama changed the rules of engagement which includes orders to Marisnes not to shoot back if fired upon by the Taleban to avoid hitting civilians around them. Our troops become sitting ducks. As do Co-alition Forces under US command.
AND
Dr. Yuri N. Maltsev is an economist who teaches at Carthage College, Kenosha, Wisconsin. Prior to that, for many years, he was an economist for Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform team. In 1989, he defected to the United States of America. Dr. Maltsev is now among the most articulate living defenders of laissez-faire capitalism.
Just recently, Dr. Maltsev wrote a searing essay on socialized medicine, Soviet style. He saw it firsthand for many years. His essay is en eye-popping read that’s liable to make you sick to your stomach.
Read his commentary here:Fact of the Day: Dr. Yuri N. Maltsev and Socialized Medicine in Soviet Russia
AND
The program, known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), would operate out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under direct White House oversight. It will be overseen by the National Security Council. Good for interrogating "domestic terrorists" like Vets, all Obama's opponents, Opponents of ACORN, Opponents of Obamacare.
President Barack Obama approved the elite unit last week, which will be made up of intelligence and law enforcement officials.
Traditionally the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has taken the lead interrogating suspected terrorists, but its practices have come under scrutiny because of allegations of widespread prisoner abuse.
“What does the White House have against Leon Panetta? This bizarre move is a vote of no confidence in not only the terror-fighters who have kept us safe since 9-11 but their very own CIA director,” Bond said in a statement.
“Chrysler and Citigroup apparently weren’t enough: now the White House is taking over the CIA and how we interrogate Usama bin Laden.”
Amid reports that Panetta had threatened to quit just seven months after taking over at the spy agency, other insiders tell ABCNews.com that senior White House staff members are already discussing a possible shake-up of top national security officials. "You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year," a senior adviser to Obama said.
ALSO
Al Qaeda, Marxist, to supervise 9/11 observance!!
http://alanpetersroundup.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-appoints-al-qaeda-sympathzer-to.html
AND
Calculations show it would need 34,000 YEARS to repay the Obama DEBT
AND
Proposed federal legislation aimed at curbing global warming would drastically reduce domestic fuel production, according to a new study commissioned by the oil industry as part of its campaign to oppose new restrictions.
The report's findings, which are expected to be released Monday, project that by 2030, U.S. refining production could drop 17% from today's levels if the climate bill is passed as currently proposed. The drop would have to be made up by foreign imports, the study says, meaning the U.S. could end up relying on other countries for 19.4% of its refined fuel -- nearly twice the amount it imports today.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
NOTE: Obama has funded Brazilian Oil Exploration and Extraction which belongs to one his major supporters. so look agt this scenario:
He reduces our production and increases oil purchases from Saudi Arabi (to whose king he bows) then he starts buying lots of oil from Brazil - INSTEAD of allowing us to access or even develop our own huge oil reserves.
AND
But whose sovereignty is he really respecting? When a free democratic society protects the individual sovereignty of each member, the sovereignties of all citizens add up to the entire nation’s collective sovereignty. But in a dictatorship where individual sovereignty is non-existent, where no one is safe from the government’s arbitrary powers, collective sovereignty adds up to exactly nothing. The only sovereignty Obama’s approach protects is that of the tyrant, who is the single sovereign individual in the entire nation.
Obama's policy on Iran and Honduras is to respect the sovereignty of the dictator, not the people. (This is part four of a series. Read parts one, two, and three.)
AND
Mandatory adult circumcisions envisaged by Obamacare to reduce HIV would be a tough sell for those obamabots
AND
The eye-opener here concerns Obama's first job out of college. In his autobiography, "Dreams from My Fathers", Barack Obama writes of taking a job after graduating from Columbia University in 1983.
He describes his employer as:
A consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer"
In fact he was recruited by Business International Corporation that was continuously being accused of as a CIA front company. Wikipedia, an independent source, supports this,
The company has been identified as cover organization for the Central Intelligence Agency, e.g. see Lobster Magazine, and issue 14 in 1987. According to a lengthy article in the New York Times in 1977, the co-founder of the company told the newspaper that "Eldridge Haynes [the other founder] had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960"
Oddly Obama's book doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. In his book, he doesn't mention his employer's name nor does he say when he worked there, or why he left.
Researcher and blogger Joseph Cannon points out, Obama's bios are as important for what they leave out as for what they reveal. I first became suspicious of his now-infamous trip to Pakistan (which he took in the summer between Occidental and Columbia) because he refused to mention this adventure in his books.”
Cannon further adds,
Think of it: We are talking about a man who compiled not one but two autobiographical works before the age of 46. We are talking about an ambitious politician intent on establishing his foreign policy cred.
Yet he refused to mention a dangerous trip to Pakistan which he made at a time when travel to that country was discouraged by the State Department. That country was then the focus of the CIA's largest covert operation, the supplying of the Afghan mujahedeen.
While there, this callow college kid met with one of the most powerful men in Pakistan -- a meeting arranged by an unnamed personage with the American Embassy. (Spook-watchers know what that means.)”
If the Pakistan trip was a pleasure jaunt, why did Obama keep it a secret? He wrote in his autobiography that he was broke and on food stamps which leads to the question how did he pay for this expensive trip. Or as a drug running mule for his druggie freinds and their dealers?
28 year old Jesse Kelly of Tucson Ariz., a Republican seeking to boot Democrat Gabrielle Giffords from the U.S. House of Representatives. "If you're not going to get anyone's attention, you might as well not waste your time or money."
“I'm tired of President Obama and the liberals who control Congress insulting us, calling us racist, and calling us a mob. I'm tired of their double-talk. I'm tired of their bait-and-switch shell games. I'm tired of being avoided by my public servants. They have forgotten that they work for us. ... “
Ronald Reagan once famously said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." We are that generation! Either we stand now and fight for our country, or the great United States of America may be but a fading memory.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107417
More American soldiers are dying since Obama changed the rules of engagement which includes orders to Marisnes not to shoot back if fired upon by the Taleban to avoid hitting civilians around them. Our troops become sitting ducks. As do Co-alition Forces under US command.
AND
Dr. Yuri N. Maltsev is an economist who teaches at Carthage College, Kenosha, Wisconsin. Prior to that, for many years, he was an economist for Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform team. In 1989, he defected to the United States of America. Dr. Maltsev is now among the most articulate living defenders of laissez-faire capitalism.
Just recently, Dr. Maltsev wrote a searing essay on socialized medicine, Soviet style. He saw it firsthand for many years. His essay is en eye-popping read that’s liable to make you sick to your stomach.
Read his commentary here:Fact of the Day: Dr. Yuri N. Maltsev and Socialized Medicine in Soviet Russia
AND
The program, known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), would operate out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under direct White House oversight. It will be overseen by the National Security Council. Good for interrogating "domestic terrorists" like Vets, all Obama's opponents, Opponents of ACORN, Opponents of Obamacare.
President Barack Obama approved the elite unit last week, which will be made up of intelligence and law enforcement officials.
Traditionally the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has taken the lead interrogating suspected terrorists, but its practices have come under scrutiny because of allegations of widespread prisoner abuse.
“What does the White House have against Leon Panetta? This bizarre move is a vote of no confidence in not only the terror-fighters who have kept us safe since 9-11 but their very own CIA director,” Bond said in a statement.
“Chrysler and Citigroup apparently weren’t enough: now the White House is taking over the CIA and how we interrogate Usama bin Laden.”
Amid reports that Panetta had threatened to quit just seven months after taking over at the spy agency, other insiders tell ABCNews.com that senior White House staff members are already discussing a possible shake-up of top national security officials. "You can expect a larger than normal turnover in the next year," a senior adviser to Obama said.
ALSO
Al Qaeda, Marxist, to supervise 9/11 observance!!
http://alanpetersroundup.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-appoints-al-qaeda-sympathzer-to.html
AND
Calculations show it would need 34,000 YEARS to repay the Obama DEBT
AND
Proposed federal legislation aimed at curbing global warming would drastically reduce domestic fuel production, according to a new study commissioned by the oil industry as part of its campaign to oppose new restrictions.
The report's findings, which are expected to be released Monday, project that by 2030, U.S. refining production could drop 17% from today's levels if the climate bill is passed as currently proposed. The drop would have to be made up by foreign imports, the study says, meaning the U.S. could end up relying on other countries for 19.4% of its refined fuel -- nearly twice the amount it imports today.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
NOTE: Obama has funded Brazilian Oil Exploration and Extraction which belongs to one his major supporters. so look agt this scenario:
He reduces our production and increases oil purchases from Saudi Arabi (to whose king he bows) then he starts buying lots of oil from Brazil - INSTEAD of allowing us to access or even develop our own huge oil reserves.
AND
But whose sovereignty is he really respecting? When a free democratic society protects the individual sovereignty of each member, the sovereignties of all citizens add up to the entire nation’s collective sovereignty. But in a dictatorship where individual sovereignty is non-existent, where no one is safe from the government’s arbitrary powers, collective sovereignty adds up to exactly nothing. The only sovereignty Obama’s approach protects is that of the tyrant, who is the single sovereign individual in the entire nation.
Obama's policy on Iran and Honduras is to respect the sovereignty of the dictator, not the people. (This is part four of a series. Read parts one, two, and three.)
AND
Mandatory adult circumcisions envisaged by Obamacare to reduce HIV would be a tough sell for those obamabots
AND
The eye-opener here concerns Obama's first job out of college. In his autobiography, "Dreams from My Fathers", Barack Obama writes of taking a job after graduating from Columbia University in 1983.
He describes his employer as:
A consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer"
In fact he was recruited by Business International Corporation that was continuously being accused of as a CIA front company. Wikipedia, an independent source, supports this,
The company has been identified as cover organization for the Central Intelligence Agency, e.g. see Lobster Magazine, and issue 14 in 1987. According to a lengthy article in the New York Times in 1977, the co-founder of the company told the newspaper that "Eldridge Haynes [the other founder] had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960"
Oddly Obama's book doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. In his book, he doesn't mention his employer's name nor does he say when he worked there, or why he left.
Researcher and blogger Joseph Cannon points out, Obama's bios are as important for what they leave out as for what they reveal. I first became suspicious of his now-infamous trip to Pakistan (which he took in the summer between Occidental and Columbia) because he refused to mention this adventure in his books.”
Cannon further adds,
Think of it: We are talking about a man who compiled not one but two autobiographical works before the age of 46. We are talking about an ambitious politician intent on establishing his foreign policy cred.
Yet he refused to mention a dangerous trip to Pakistan which he made at a time when travel to that country was discouraged by the State Department. That country was then the focus of the CIA's largest covert operation, the supplying of the Afghan mujahedeen.
While there, this callow college kid met with one of the most powerful men in Pakistan -- a meeting arranged by an unnamed personage with the American Embassy. (Spook-watchers know what that means.)”
If the Pakistan trip was a pleasure jaunt, why did Obama keep it a secret? He wrote in his autobiography that he was broke and on food stamps which leads to the question how did he pay for this expensive trip. Or as a drug running mule for his druggie freinds and their dealers?
28 year old Jesse Kelly of Tucson Ariz., a Republican seeking to boot Democrat Gabrielle Giffords from the U.S. House of Representatives. "If you're not going to get anyone's attention, you might as well not waste your time or money."
“I'm tired of President Obama and the liberals who control Congress insulting us, calling us racist, and calling us a mob. I'm tired of their double-talk. I'm tired of their bait-and-switch shell games. I'm tired of being avoided by my public servants. They have forgotten that they work for us. ... “
Ronald Reagan once famously said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." We are that generation! Either we stand now and fight for our country, or the great United States of America may be but a fading memory.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107417
Monday, August 17, 2009
SHARIA BURKINIS ARE THE CAMEL'S NOSE POKING INTO YOUR TENT - THE REST FOLLOWS SOON AFTER - SEGREGATION RETURNING - COMING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU
Remember how intense the fight against segregation for African-American used to be? Islam insists on bringing it back worldwide and deleting non-Moslem freedoms.
British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.
Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.
Instead they are told that they must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.
The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.
The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.
Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: "We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre." BUT NOT FOR OTHER RELIGIONS LIKE HINDUS, ETC.
British swimming pools are imposing Muslim dress codes in a move described as divisive by Labour MPs.
Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.
Instead they are told that they must comply with the "modest" code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.
The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.
The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.
Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: "We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre." BUT NOT FOR OTHER RELIGIONS LIKE HINDUS, ETC.
AND MORE BRUTAL ASPECTS COME IN WITH THE CAMEL'S NOSE
NO ONE knows just how many Muslim girls and women are murdered each year in the name of family "honor," since their deaths frequently go unreported and unpunished. The cases that do come to light are ghastly. "Women and young girls are set ablaze, strangled, shot at, clubbed, stabbed, tortured, axed, or stoned to death," a United Nations report noted in 2004. "Their bodies are found mutilated with their throat slit, or they are chopped into pieces and thrown in a ditch."
The report singled out as especially horrifying the honor killing in Pakistan of "a 16-year-old girl who was reportedly electrocuted to death after being drugged with sleeping pills and being tied to a wooden bed with iron chains." Her offense: marrying a boy from the wrong community. Countless others have lost their lives for refusing an arranged marriage, wearing Western-style clothing, having a boyfriend, or even being raped.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
I'M TIRED AND FED UP
A lot of us can identify with this.
"I'm Tired" by Robert A. Hall
I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when
jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but
job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some
health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick
in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job
or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no
retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth
around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the
government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it
to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to
"keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm
willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of
our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the
leftwing Congress critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community
Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing
millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who
live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years,
if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and
women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the
press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay
people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won't
multiculturalism be beautiful?
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace,"
when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their
sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting
over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because
they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims
stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating
the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur`an
and Shari`a law tells them to.
I believe a man should be judged by the content of his
character, not by the color of his skin. I'm tired of being told that "race
doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all
that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and
graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government
contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and
fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the
appointment of US Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and
inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost,
were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of
presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to
control weight and stress. That picked over every line of Bush's military
records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with
two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama
with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.
Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or
switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the
media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other
cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and
madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group
is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia
to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to
fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live
in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We
also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live.
Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're 95% greener
than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease,
and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did
a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up
their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people
choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And
I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I
tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented
workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare
or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"?
And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been
a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm
willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak
English, doesn't have a criminal record, and who is self-supporting without
family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.
Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never
wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their
entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our
military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make
split-second d ecisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth
better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our
troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that
were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not
even close.
So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the
humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo,
and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims
who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who
tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the
Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found
in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia,
because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and
American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for
help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner
on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the
papers-bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need
bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the " Illinois Combine" of
Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for 20 years. And I notice that the tax
cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and
politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes
or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was
getting caught.
I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with
air-conditioned homes, color TVs, and two cars called poor. The majority of
Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The
poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the
dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for
their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or
discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because,
mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm
just sorry for my granddaughter.
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five
terms in the Massachusetts state senate.
He blogs at www.tartanmarine.blogspot..com
"I'm Tired" by Robert A. Hall
I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when
jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but
job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some
health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick
in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job
or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no
retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth
around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the
government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it
to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to
"keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm
willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of
our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the
leftwing Congress critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community
Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them-with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing
millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who
live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years,
if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and
women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the
press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay
people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won't
multiculturalism be beautiful?
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace,"
when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their
sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor;" of Muslims rioting
over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because
they aren't "believers;" of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims
stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery;" of Muslims mutilating
the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur`an
and Shari`a law tells them to.
I believe a man should be judged by the content of his
character, not by the color of his skin. I'm tired of being told that "race
doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all
that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and
graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government
contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and
fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the
appointment of US Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and
inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's, at triple the cost,
were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of
presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to
control weight and stress. That picked over every line of Bush's military
records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with
two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama
with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.
Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or
switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the
media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other
cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and
madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group
is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia
to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to
fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live
in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We
also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live.
Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're 95% greener
than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease,
and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did
a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up
their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people
choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And
I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I
tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented
workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare
or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"?
And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been
a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm
willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak
English, doesn't have a criminal record, and who is self-supporting without
family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.
Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never
wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their
entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our
military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make
split-second d ecisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth
better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our
troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that
were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not
even close.
So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the
humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo,
and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims
who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who
tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the
Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found
in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia,
because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and
American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for
help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner
on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the
papers-bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need
bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the " Illinois Combine" of
Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for 20 years. And I notice that the tax
cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and
politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes
or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was
getting caught.
I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with
air-conditioned homes, color TVs, and two cars called poor. The majority of
Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The
poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the
dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for
their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or
discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because,
mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm
just sorry for my granddaughter.
Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five
terms in the Massachusetts state senate.
He blogs at www.tartanmarine.blogspot..com
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
RAPED BY MOSLEM MEN, THREATS SHAME RAPED MOSLEM GIRLS IN DENMARK INTO SILENCE
Denmark: Honor used to silence sexually abused Muslim girls
Two points regarding this article:
1. This article breaks with the stereotype that Muslim boys don't rape Muslim girls. The 'honor' concept could encourage those boys to rape non-Muslim girls specifically, but at the same time, it could be used as a weapon and makes raping Muslim girls much easier.
2. The media had no problems mentioning the victim's religion (Muslim girls), but they're quite careful to note that the perpetrators are "immigrant" boys and men. The only consequence that I see is that they fix the "immigrant = Muslim" concept quite firmly into every reader's mind.
----------
Young immigrant girls are subjected to rape and other sexual assault by immigrant boys and men who threaten them into silence by saying the girls will being shame on their families because they willingly met with the boy or man.
Social mediator Birgitte Karlsson, who runs a day institution for youth of immigrant background in Høje Taastrup, says that in a period of three months she met about 15 immigrant girls who were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by immigrant boys.
"Often the girls chatted with the boys on the internet, after which they set to meet. But the boys in these cases abused the girls and left them with threats that they will tell the girls' parents that the girls themselves agreed to have sex with them. And in some immigrant families, having sex before marriage is the worst thing a girl can do. Therefore the girls don't dare tell about the attack," says Birgitte Karlsson.
Nurse Kristina Aamand has for three months worked with sexually abused immigrant girls at the Center for Rape Victims at the Danish national hospital in Copenhagen. Today she has a private consultancy "Ny mødom" (New Hymen), where every month she support one or more immigrant girls who've been sexually assaulted by immigrant boys. She herself comes from a Muslim family.
"As a Muslim immigrant girl you're raised that if you have sex before marriage, you're punished by Allah. Sex before marriage is according to Islam the greatest shame. There are some boys who you this honor-concept against the girls, since the girls will be considered the guilty ones."
According to Kristina Aaman the ban against having sex before marriage, which regular immigrant girls are exposed to, is a bigger integration problem than individual dramatic cases of so-called honor-murder and forced-marriages. She says that if an immigrant gir can't decide over her own body, she's unlikely to be a dentist. "Integrated in Denmark, in any case, she's not."
She calls for acute help and counseling for immigrant girls as well as preventive sexual education on personal limits. Additionally she think that it's necessary to break with honor-concepts and attitudes to sex before marriage in immigrant families. But, she says, that would come from the youth themselves.
Source: JP (Danish)
Two points regarding this article:
1. This article breaks with the stereotype that Muslim boys don't rape Muslim girls. The 'honor' concept could encourage those boys to rape non-Muslim girls specifically, but at the same time, it could be used as a weapon and makes raping Muslim girls much easier.
2. The media had no problems mentioning the victim's religion (Muslim girls), but they're quite careful to note that the perpetrators are "immigrant" boys and men. The only consequence that I see is that they fix the "immigrant = Muslim" concept quite firmly into every reader's mind.
----------
Young immigrant girls are subjected to rape and other sexual assault by immigrant boys and men who threaten them into silence by saying the girls will being shame on their families because they willingly met with the boy or man.
Social mediator Birgitte Karlsson, who runs a day institution for youth of immigrant background in Høje Taastrup, says that in a period of three months she met about 15 immigrant girls who were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted by immigrant boys.
"Often the girls chatted with the boys on the internet, after which they set to meet. But the boys in these cases abused the girls and left them with threats that they will tell the girls' parents that the girls themselves agreed to have sex with them. And in some immigrant families, having sex before marriage is the worst thing a girl can do. Therefore the girls don't dare tell about the attack," says Birgitte Karlsson.
Nurse Kristina Aamand has for three months worked with sexually abused immigrant girls at the Center for Rape Victims at the Danish national hospital in Copenhagen. Today she has a private consultancy "Ny mødom" (New Hymen), where every month she support one or more immigrant girls who've been sexually assaulted by immigrant boys. She herself comes from a Muslim family.
"As a Muslim immigrant girl you're raised that if you have sex before marriage, you're punished by Allah. Sex before marriage is according to Islam the greatest shame. There are some boys who you this honor-concept against the girls, since the girls will be considered the guilty ones."
According to Kristina Aaman the ban against having sex before marriage, which regular immigrant girls are exposed to, is a bigger integration problem than individual dramatic cases of so-called honor-murder and forced-marriages. She says that if an immigrant gir can't decide over her own body, she's unlikely to be a dentist. "Integrated in Denmark, in any case, she's not."
She calls for acute help and counseling for immigrant girls as well as preventive sexual education on personal limits. Additionally she think that it's necessary to break with honor-concepts and attitudes to sex before marriage in immigrant families. But, she says, that would come from the youth themselves.
Source: JP (Danish)
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN BLACKMAILED TO PROTECT/SUPPORT THE MULLAHS?
Pierre Omidya, eBay founder, brief background summary:
Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar's politics have become the subject of blog
commentary because the web auction site over the last week repeatedly
scrubbed an offering of an allegedly genuine copy of President Barack Obama
s birth certificate – from Mombasa, Kenya.
But the company said it wouldn't get involved in any discussion of Omidyar's
activities or political statements.
Spokeswoman Evonne Gomez said, "We certainly wouldn't comment on our founder s political concessions or beliefs. He is not involved in the day-to-day
operations of the company."
She said if a question was submitted in writing, she would consult on
whether it would be answered. A question submitted by WND didn't, however,
produce a response.
"I will coordinate with colleagues on the corporate side," she said. "We
wouldn't comment on his political views or associations."
Omidyar, a billionaire, former CEO and current chairman of eBay, earlier
this month was appointed by Barack Obama to serve on the 28-member President
s Commission on White House Fellowships.
According to a White House press release from June 17, Omidyar joins former
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, General Wesley Clark, former NBC anchor
Tom Brokaw, and several others on the committee, which recommends candidates
to the president for selection as White House Fellows. The release calls the
White House Fellowship "America's most prestigious program for leadership
and public service, providing young individuals with experience working at
the highest levels of the federal government."
Omidyar further serves as a trustee of the Punahou School in Hawaii, the
elite private high school that Obama graduated from in 1979, and endorsed
Obama's candidacy for president on his blog in March 2008.
WND reported has reported that over the last week eBay has scrubbed at least
five auctions offered by a seller known to the public only as
colmado_naranja."
The sale was for a document that purportedly was a Kenyan birth certificate
for Obama.
Gomez told WND any items that are removed are being of company policy.
The "birth certificate" seller allegedly obtained Obama's document while
traveling in Africa. The seller explained that the Kenyan natives boasted
that Barack Obama II was born in the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa at
7:24 p.m. On Aug. 4, 1961, which correlates with speculation that has
existed over President Obama's birthplace since even prior to his election.
WND also reported that the seller, colmado_naranja, then tried to sell a
dissertation" on Obama's birth, including the "supporting documents" – which
presumably includes the Kenyan birth certificate advertised on the seller's
original auction page.
Nonetheless, like the four previous auction pages posted by the seller, the
fifth sale for the "dissertation" was scrubbed by eBay administrators.
Further, an alert notice was sent to eBay members who had been in contact
with colmado_naranja, warning them that the seller may be fraudulent and
attempting to extract private information from prospective buyers.
Previously, colmado_naranja claimed, the auction pages were removed because
of an eBay policy prohibiting the sale of government documents, even though
WND discovered several foreign birth certificates and even a driver's
license – albeit all from 1935 or older – for sale on the auction site.
An eBay help desk representative said the fifth auction auction for "the
dissertation" was removed because the company believed, "a third party had
accessed the [seller's] account."
The latest offering from colmado_naranja is an auction for a photograph of
several people who reportedly helped in the hunt for the "birth certificate,
and a promise that more information would be unveiled in a planned YouTube
video.
President Obama's place of birth, however, remains only one of several
questions and possible avenues for answers that remain in determining
whether or not Obama is a "natural born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution
and eligible to serve as president.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a
natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No
Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he
insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the
suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American
citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a
Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his
birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the
Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth
certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama
includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his
Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia
thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his
scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical
records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois
State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder
Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post
billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected almost 400,000
signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard
signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable
magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The eBay birth certificate seller is a self-proclaimed "collector of old
Dominican and Cuban money" and has worked in the Congo.
"This spring I traveled through Kenya and its capital Nairobi. I was
overwhelmed by the 'iconicized' face of U.S. President Barack Obama that
displays itself throughout the country. I had lunch at a small eatery and
noticed that the club sandwich with fried plantains was now known as 'Obama
s Plate of the Day,'" the seller wrote on the initial auction page. "As an
American I was bombarded with questions in English (English is national
language of Kenya) on my feelings and opinions of a Kenyan governing the
United States of America.
The first several times I responded in saying that
not enough time had elapsed since Barack Obama's appointment as president of
the U.S.A., and that I'd have to hold my official opinion until at least
January 2010, a year in office might be sufficient for me to judge his
ability to govern the U.S.A.
"Naturally I thought that by 'Kenyan' they were referring to Barack Obama's
blood, being that his father Barack Obama Sr. was a native of Kenya. After a
day and a half of my being in Nairobi I learned that they were literally
referring to President Barack Obama Jr. as being born in Kenya, a native of
Kenya."
The seller also cited the fact that Obama has not release his "Hawaiian"
birth certificate. His administration, the seller says, "in an attempt to
put the birth certificate issue to a rest, has presented the American public
with a fake, forged, fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate."
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama
s birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since
the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in
Hawaii.
The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information
such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only
document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not
permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen.
John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born
citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim
to a Hawaiian birth.
Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar's politics have become the subject of blog
commentary because the web auction site over the last week repeatedly
scrubbed an offering of an allegedly genuine copy of President Barack Obama
s birth certificate – from Mombasa, Kenya.
But the company said it wouldn't get involved in any discussion of Omidyar's
activities or political statements.
Spokeswoman Evonne Gomez said, "We certainly wouldn't comment on our founder s political concessions or beliefs. He is not involved in the day-to-day
operations of the company."
She said if a question was submitted in writing, she would consult on
whether it would be answered. A question submitted by WND didn't, however,
produce a response.
"I will coordinate with colleagues on the corporate side," she said. "We
wouldn't comment on his political views or associations."
Omidyar, a billionaire, former CEO and current chairman of eBay, earlier
this month was appointed by Barack Obama to serve on the 28-member President
s Commission on White House Fellowships.
According to a White House press release from June 17, Omidyar joins former
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, General Wesley Clark, former NBC anchor
Tom Brokaw, and several others on the committee, which recommends candidates
to the president for selection as White House Fellows. The release calls the
White House Fellowship "America's most prestigious program for leadership
and public service, providing young individuals with experience working at
the highest levels of the federal government."
Omidyar further serves as a trustee of the Punahou School in Hawaii, the
elite private high school that Obama graduated from in 1979, and endorsed
Obama's candidacy for president on his blog in March 2008.
WND reported has reported that over the last week eBay has scrubbed at least
five auctions offered by a seller known to the public only as
colmado_naranja."
The sale was for a document that purportedly was a Kenyan birth certificate
for Obama.
Gomez told WND any items that are removed are being of company policy.
The "birth certificate" seller allegedly obtained Obama's document while
traveling in Africa. The seller explained that the Kenyan natives boasted
that Barack Obama II was born in the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa at
7:24 p.m. On Aug. 4, 1961, which correlates with speculation that has
existed over President Obama's birthplace since even prior to his election.
WND also reported that the seller, colmado_naranja, then tried to sell a
dissertation" on Obama's birth, including the "supporting documents" – which
presumably includes the Kenyan birth certificate advertised on the seller's
original auction page.
Nonetheless, like the four previous auction pages posted by the seller, the
fifth sale for the "dissertation" was scrubbed by eBay administrators.
Further, an alert notice was sent to eBay members who had been in contact
with colmado_naranja, warning them that the seller may be fraudulent and
attempting to extract private information from prospective buyers.
Previously, colmado_naranja claimed, the auction pages were removed because
of an eBay policy prohibiting the sale of government documents, even though
WND discovered several foreign birth certificates and even a driver's
license – albeit all from 1935 or older – for sale on the auction site.
An eBay help desk representative said the fifth auction auction for "the
dissertation" was removed because the company believed, "a third party had
accessed the [seller's] account."
The latest offering from colmado_naranja is an auction for a photograph of
several people who reportedly helped in the hunt for the "birth certificate,
and a promise that more information would be unveiled in a planned YouTube
video.
President Obama's place of birth, however, remains only one of several
questions and possible avenues for answers that remain in determining
whether or not Obama is a "natural born citizen" under the U.S. Constitution
and eligible to serve as president.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a
natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No
Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he
insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the
suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American
citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a
Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his
birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the
Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth
certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama
includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his
Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia
thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his
scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical
records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois
State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder
Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post
billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected almost 400,000
signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard
signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable
magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The eBay birth certificate seller is a self-proclaimed "collector of old
Dominican and Cuban money" and has worked in the Congo.
"This spring I traveled through Kenya and its capital Nairobi. I was
overwhelmed by the 'iconicized' face of U.S. President Barack Obama that
displays itself throughout the country. I had lunch at a small eatery and
noticed that the club sandwich with fried plantains was now known as 'Obama
s Plate of the Day,'" the seller wrote on the initial auction page. "As an
American I was bombarded with questions in English (English is national
language of Kenya) on my feelings and opinions of a Kenyan governing the
United States of America.
The first several times I responded in saying that
not enough time had elapsed since Barack Obama's appointment as president of
the U.S.A., and that I'd have to hold my official opinion until at least
January 2010, a year in office might be sufficient for me to judge his
ability to govern the U.S.A.
"Naturally I thought that by 'Kenyan' they were referring to Barack Obama's
blood, being that his father Barack Obama Sr. was a native of Kenya. After a
day and a half of my being in Nairobi I learned that they were literally
referring to President Barack Obama Jr. as being born in Kenya, a native of
Kenya."
The seller also cited the fact that Obama has not release his "Hawaiian"
birth certificate. His administration, the seller says, "in an attempt to
put the birth certificate issue to a rest, has presented the American public
with a fake, forged, fraudulent Hawaiian birth certificate."
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama
s birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since
the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in
Hawaii.
The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information
such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only
document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not
permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen.
John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born
citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim
to a Hawaiian birth.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
CANADIAN PRESS & OBAMA
"A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head"
The Canadian Press
http://www.thecanadianpress.com/about_cp.aspx?id=104
Obama's White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
Ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries
While the press is still chewing over Obama's Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama's endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America 's traditional allies. Those who aren't being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, "Let's put on a show." Thus far Obama has put on "shows" across America , Europe and the Middle East . And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama's shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America 's traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America 's enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran . While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament's swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world's richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama's entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state's rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama's tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn't just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama's White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who's too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor , trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American's diplomatic reconstruction with Russia , or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public's patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn't play too well outside Detroit . And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren't there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama's White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
The Canadian Press
http://www.thecanadianpress.com/about_cp.aspx?id=104
Obama's White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield
In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.
Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.
Ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries
While the press is still chewing over Obama's Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama's endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America 's traditional allies. Those who aren't being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.
While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, "Let's put on a show." Thus far Obama has put on "shows" across America , Europe and the Middle East . And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama's shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.
Neither alienating America 's traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America 's enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran . While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.
At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.
The European Union Parliament's swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world's richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama's entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state's rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.
That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.
Obama's tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.
His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn't just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama's White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who's too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.
Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor , trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American's diplomatic reconstruction with Russia , or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.
The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW
Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public's patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn't play too well outside Detroit . And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.
With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren't there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.
In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.
A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head
Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama's White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
WHAT IS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
From ThisNation.com:
What is an Executive Order?
From time to time I hear that President Bush has issued an Executive Order establishing this policy or that. What is an Executive Order? Where does the President get the authority to issue them? Is there any way to reverse an Executive Order?
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.”
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
“We’ve switched the rules of the game. We’re not trying to do anything legislatively.”
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed “Presidential Decision Directives.”
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
A Brief History and Examples
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).
Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.
President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.
Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution — that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.
Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation’s “Chief Diplomat.” In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.
In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.
Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College
Additional Resources
The ultimate criticism of Executive Orders is that the runaway use of EOs could result in a President becoming a virtual dictator, capable of making major policy decisions without any congressional or judicial input. The following web sites contain articles arguing against the liberal use of Executive Orders by the President.
The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking? William Olsen, Cato Institute
Executive Orders A Blueprint for Dictatorship? Tanya L. Green, J.D., Concerned Women for America
For What Purposes Have Presidents Used Executive Orders?
The best way to get a feel for the types of “laws” that are made by Executive Order is to access them online. Executive Orders are available through multiple government publications and on the Internet (except those classified in the name of national security). You can read the text of these orders daily in the Federal Register and also under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations. All EOs have been numbered and published since 1936.
Sites Providing Access to Executive Orders
The White House
Executive Orders Disposition Tables (Federal Register)
Fedlaw
Executive Orders in the States
The use of Executive Orders is not just a presidential activity. They are also used by most state governors, who are the chief executives of their states. The following links will give you a feel for the types of Executive Orders used in a few states:
Florida
Pennsylvania
Utah
What is an Executive Order?
From time to time I hear that President Bush has issued an Executive Order establishing this policy or that. What is an Executive Order? Where does the President get the authority to issue them? Is there any way to reverse an Executive Order?
“Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool.”
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor, The New York Times, July 5, 1998
“We’ve switched the rules of the game. We’re not trying to do anything legislatively.”
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, The Washington Times, June 14, 1999
Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.
Not all EOs are created equal. Proclamations, for example, are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day. Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed “Presidential Decision Directives.”
Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President’s source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the “executive Power.” Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.
A Brief History and Examples
Executive Orders have been used by every chief executive since the time of George Washington. Most of these directives were unpublished and were only seen by the agencies involved. In the early 1900s, the State Department began numbering them; there are now over 13,000 numbered orders. Orders were retroactively numbered going back to 1862 when President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Executive Order. There are also many other Executive Orders that have not been numbered because they have been lost due to bad record-keeping. Such is not the problem today. All new Executive Orders are easily accessible (see below).
Many important policy changes have occurred through Executive Orders. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under Executive Order. President Eisenhower used an EO to desegregate schools. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used them to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring, and contracting. President Reagan used an EO to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Clinton reversed this order when he came into office.
President Clinton has come under fire for using the EO as a way to make policy without consulting the Republican Congress (see the quotes at the beginning of this article). Clinton has signed over 300 EOs since 1992. In one case, he designated 1.7 million acres of Southern Utah as the Grant Staircase - Escalante National Monument. He also designated a system of American Heritage Rivers and even fought a war with Yugoslavia under Executive Order.
Controversy
Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution — that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.
Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.
Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation’s “Chief Diplomat.” In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.
In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from “congressional intent” or exceeds the President’s constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.
Contributing Author: Jeffrey C. Fox, Catawba College
Additional Resources
The ultimate criticism of Executive Orders is that the runaway use of EOs could result in a President becoming a virtual dictator, capable of making major policy decisions without any congressional or judicial input. The following web sites contain articles arguing against the liberal use of Executive Orders by the President.
The Impact of Executive Orders on the Legislative Process: Executive Lawmaking? William Olsen, Cato Institute
Executive Orders A Blueprint for Dictatorship? Tanya L. Green, J.D., Concerned Women for America
For What Purposes Have Presidents Used Executive Orders?
The best way to get a feel for the types of “laws” that are made by Executive Order is to access them online. Executive Orders are available through multiple government publications and on the Internet (except those classified in the name of national security). You can read the text of these orders daily in the Federal Register and also under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations. All EOs have been numbered and published since 1936.
Sites Providing Access to Executive Orders
The White House
Executive Orders Disposition Tables (Federal Register)
Fedlaw
Executive Orders in the States
The use of Executive Orders is not just a presidential activity. They are also used by most state governors, who are the chief executives of their states. The following links will give you a feel for the types of Executive Orders used in a few states:
Florida
Pennsylvania
Utah
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
NOKIA & SIEMENS BEING BOYCOTTED INSIDE ISLAMIC IRAN AND SLOWLY BY THE PERSIAN DIASPORA WORLDWIDE
The mobile phone company Nokia is being hit by a growing economic boycott in Iran as consumers sympathetic to the post-election protest movement begin targeting a string of companies deemed to be collaborating with the regime.
Wholesale vendors in the capital report that demand for Nokia handsets has fallen by as much as half in the wake of calls to boycott Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN) for selling communications monitoring systems to Iran.
There are signs that the boycott is spreading: consumers are shunning SMS messaging in protest at the perceived complicity with the regime by the state telecoms company, TCI. Iran's state-run broadcaster has been hit by a collapse in advertising as companies fear being blacklisted in a Facebook petition. There is also anecdotal evidence that people are moving money out of state banks and into private banks.
Nokia is the most prominent western company to suffer from its dealings with the Iranian authorities. Its NSN joint venture with Siemens provided Iran with a monitoring system as it expanded a mobile network last year. NSN says the technology is standard issue to dozens of countries, but protesters believe the company could have provided the network without the monitoring function.
Siemens is also accused of providing Iran with an internet filtering system called Webwasher.
"Iranians' first choice has been Nokia cellphones for several years, partly because Nokia has installed the facility in the country. But in the past weeks, customers' priority has changed," said Reza, a mobile phone seller in Tehran's Big Bazaar.
"Since the news spread that NSN had sold electronic surveillance systems to the Iranian government, people have decided to buy other company's products although they know that Nokia cellphones function better with network coverage in Iran."
Some Tehran shops have removed Nokia phones from their window displays. Hashem, another mobile phone vendor, said: "I don't like to lose my customers and now people don't feel happy seeing Nokia's products. We even had customers who wanted to refund their new Nokia cellphones or change them with just another cellphone from any other companies.
"It's not just a limited case to my shop – I'm also a wholesaler to small shops in provincial markets, and I can say that there is half the demand for Nokia's product these days in comparison with just one month ago, and it's really unprecedented. People feel ashamed of having Nokia cellphones," he added.
News of the boycott has appeared on the front page of Iranian pro-reform papers such as Etemad-e Melli, owned by the reformist candidate Mehdi Karroubi. Hadi Heidari, a prominent Iranian cartoonist, has published an image of a Nokia phone on a No Entry traffic sign.
A Nokia spokeswoman refused to comment on the company's sales in Iran.
The Iranian authorities are believed to have used Nokia's mobile phone monitoring system to target dissidents. Released prisoners have revealed that the authorities were keeping them in custody on the basis of their SMS and phone calls archive, which was at officials' disposal.
One Iranian journalist who has just been released from detention said: "I always had this impression that monitoring calls is just a rumour for threatening us from continuing our job properly, but the nightmare became real when they had my phone calls – conversations in my case.
"And the most unbelievable thing for me is that Nokia sold this system to our government. It would be a reasonable excuse for Nokia if they had sold the monitoring technology to a democratic country for controlling child abuse or other uses, but selling it to the Iranian government with a very clear background of human rights violence and suppression of dissent, it's just inexcusable for me. I'd like to tell Nokia that I'm tortured because they had sold this damn technology to our government."
NSN spokesman Ben Roome said: "As in every other country, telecoms networks in Iran require the capability to lawfully intercept voice calls. In the last two years, the number of mobile subscribers in Iran has grown from 12 million to over 53 million, so to expand the network in the second half of 2008 we were required to provide the facility to intercept voice calls on this network."
In other sectors, state-run TV has also been targeted by protesters who have listed products advertised on its channels and urged supporters to join a boycott. Companies are running scared, and viewers have noticed the number of commercials plummet.
"We don't have many choices to show and continue our protests. They don't let us go out, they have killed many, we are threatened to text people or distribute emails, they have summoned people who shout Allahu Akbar ['God is great'] on rooftops at nights, so we need to look for new ways," said Shahla, a 26-year-old Iranian student.
"I can obviously see on the TV that they are facing an [advertising] crisis. This at least shows them how angry people are," she added.
The SMS boycott, meanwhile, has apparently forced TCI into drastic price hikes. The cost of an SMS has doubled in recent days. Protesters view the move as a victory.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
ISLAMIC SHARIA BEING ENFORCED BY TERRORISTS IN GAZA
JERUSALEM (AP) — An attempt by Hamas police to detain a young woman walking with a man along the Gaza beach has raised alarms that the Islamic militant group is seeking to match its political control of the coastal territory with a strict enforcement of Islamic law.
The man she walked with and two of his peers were detained, beaten and ordered to sign statements promising not to engage in immoral activities, said the woman and one of the men.
The incident was the first known case of Hamas openly trying to punish a woman for behaving in a way it views as un-Islamic since seizing power two years ago. But it follows months of quiet pressure on Gaza's overwhelmingly conservative 1.4 million residents to abide by its strict religious mores.
Hamas officials in Gaza have publicly urged shopkeepers to take down foreign advertisements showing the shape of women's bodies and to stash away lingerie often displayed in windows. Officials search electronic shops to check if they are selling pornography on tiny flash drives.
"There's an open, public program to preserve public morals in Gaza," said local rights activist Isam Younis. "In reality that means trying to restrict freedoms."
Hamas denies any crackdown is under way. Since taking power, it has said it would only try to lead by example and not impose its views on anyone.
However, the group has taken no public action against small, shadowy groups that have attacked perceived hotbeds of Western immorality, such as hairdressers and Internet cafes, fueling criticism that it has not been tough enough on hard-line Muslim groups.
Freelance journalist Asma al-Ghoul says a group of Hamas police sent a clear message that certain behavior would not be tolerated when she went to the beach one evening in late June.
Al-Ghoul, 26, said she was spending time with a group of friends — two women and three men — on the northern Gaza shore.
Al-Ghoul is fairly exceptional in Gaza because she does not wear a Muslim headscarf. On that evening she wore jeans and a T-shirt — dress that is considered fairly provocative in Gaza's conservative society and which could have easily attracted the attention of the plain-clothed Hamas vice police who patrol the beaches.
Al-Ghoul swam, fully dressed, with a girlfriend, and then asked a male friend to walk her over to a nearby beach house rented by another couple she knew to shower and change.
Three policemen showed up and waited for al-Ghoul in the beach house garden, said an eyewitness who asked to remain anonymous because of security concerns. They took her identity card and demanded she accompany them to a nearby station — an order she refused.
An argument ensued and she was able to avoid detention and get her identity card back only after the homeowner contacted a senior Hamas official who intervened and spoke to the officers by telephone. The official, Taher Nunu, was not immediately available for comment.
The eyewitness said the police did not say why they wanted to detain al-Ghoul, but were insinuating that her behavior was unbecoming. Under Hamas' strict interpretation of Islamic law, a woman should not go out in public with men who are not related to her.
However, al-Ghoul said her male friends were subsequently beaten by Hamas police, detained for several hours and asked to sign statements saying they would not "violate public moral standards again," she said.
Al-Ghoul said she mostly felt angry that the police made her feel like she had done something wrong.
"I'm not provocative and my dress isn't provocative, and I'm not scandalous either," she said.
Her story only became public after rights groups published excerpts on their Web sites. Her version of events was confirmed by two other witnesses, including Adham Khalil, one of the men who was detained. Khalil said he was beaten.
Hamas police spokesman Islam Shahwan denied the incident took place but said Gaza residents "must preserve our customs and Islamic traditions."
The man she walked with and two of his peers were detained, beaten and ordered to sign statements promising not to engage in immoral activities, said the woman and one of the men.
The incident was the first known case of Hamas openly trying to punish a woman for behaving in a way it views as un-Islamic since seizing power two years ago. But it follows months of quiet pressure on Gaza's overwhelmingly conservative 1.4 million residents to abide by its strict religious mores.
Hamas officials in Gaza have publicly urged shopkeepers to take down foreign advertisements showing the shape of women's bodies and to stash away lingerie often displayed in windows. Officials search electronic shops to check if they are selling pornography on tiny flash drives.
"There's an open, public program to preserve public morals in Gaza," said local rights activist Isam Younis. "In reality that means trying to restrict freedoms."
Hamas denies any crackdown is under way. Since taking power, it has said it would only try to lead by example and not impose its views on anyone.
However, the group has taken no public action against small, shadowy groups that have attacked perceived hotbeds of Western immorality, such as hairdressers and Internet cafes, fueling criticism that it has not been tough enough on hard-line Muslim groups.
Freelance journalist Asma al-Ghoul says a group of Hamas police sent a clear message that certain behavior would not be tolerated when she went to the beach one evening in late June.
Al-Ghoul, 26, said she was spending time with a group of friends — two women and three men — on the northern Gaza shore.
Al-Ghoul is fairly exceptional in Gaza because she does not wear a Muslim headscarf. On that evening she wore jeans and a T-shirt — dress that is considered fairly provocative in Gaza's conservative society and which could have easily attracted the attention of the plain-clothed Hamas vice police who patrol the beaches.
Al-Ghoul swam, fully dressed, with a girlfriend, and then asked a male friend to walk her over to a nearby beach house rented by another couple she knew to shower and change.
Three policemen showed up and waited for al-Ghoul in the beach house garden, said an eyewitness who asked to remain anonymous because of security concerns. They took her identity card and demanded she accompany them to a nearby station — an order she refused.
An argument ensued and she was able to avoid detention and get her identity card back only after the homeowner contacted a senior Hamas official who intervened and spoke to the officers by telephone. The official, Taher Nunu, was not immediately available for comment.
The eyewitness said the police did not say why they wanted to detain al-Ghoul, but were insinuating that her behavior was unbecoming. Under Hamas' strict interpretation of Islamic law, a woman should not go out in public with men who are not related to her.
However, al-Ghoul said her male friends were subsequently beaten by Hamas police, detained for several hours and asked to sign statements saying they would not "violate public moral standards again," she said.
Al-Ghoul said she mostly felt angry that the police made her feel like she had done something wrong.
"I'm not provocative and my dress isn't provocative, and I'm not scandalous either," she said.
Her story only became public after rights groups published excerpts on their Web sites. Her version of events was confirmed by two other witnesses, including Adham Khalil, one of the men who was detained. Khalil said he was beaten.
Hamas police spokesman Islam Shahwan denied the incident took place but said Gaza residents "must preserve our customs and Islamic traditions."
Saturday, July 4, 2009
OBAMA MISLEADING NUMBERS AND REAL NUMBERS
OBAMA CLAIMS IN RED - REALITY STATISTICS IN BLUE
Today's June Employment Numbers
===============================
The updated Official and Alternate Employment
data are displayed here:
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data
John Williams' full analysis of the reports is available
only to paid SGS Newsletter subscribers, but we are
providing you with the bullet points and the introductory
paragraphs, for your interest.
- June Jobs Loss Was 513,000 Net of
Concurrent Seasonal Factor Bias
Likely Topped 700,000 with Birth-Death Machinations
- Payroll Employment Growth Overstatement
Could Top 2.5 Million Per Year with Birth-Death Modeling
- Annual Payroll Decline Deepened to 4.2%
Equal to 1958 Trough and Near 1949 Trough
- SGS-Alternate Unemployment at 20.6%
"June Employment Reporting Showed Ongoing Economic Deterioration.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released ongoing indications of deteriorating U.S. employment/unemployment conditions in June, with a worse-than-expected 467,000 drop in June payrolls, but a narrower-than-expected rise in unemployment to 9.5%.
Net of the Concurrent Seasonal Factor Bias (discussed below) and net of distortions built into the reporting by the Birth-Death Model (discussed below), the June jobs loss likely exceeded 700,000.
"The severe recession continues to deepen.
My broad outlook has not changed; the worst of the financial and economic crises remain ahead of us.
Best regards,
The ShadowStats Team
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
THE CULT OF INSANITY
Obama's pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at expense of allies has failed
Our World: Ideologue-in-chief
By Caroline Glick Jun. 29, 2009
For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.
Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."
While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for - most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.
Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates - presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice - to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.
After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.
Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."
No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.
IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.
So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.
Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.
Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.
While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.
Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.
TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.
Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.
And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."
His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.
Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."
But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.
FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.
While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed - as it has in North Korea - or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.
Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.
So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?
The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.
For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.
Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.
And then they will sink him.
Our World: Ideologue-in-chief
By Caroline Glick Jun. 29, 2009
For a brief moment it seemed that US President Barack Obama was moved by the recent events in Iran. On Friday, he issued his harshest statement yet on the mullocracy's barbaric clampdown against its brave citizens who dared to demand freedom in the aftermath of June 12's stolen presidential elections.
Speaking of the protesters Obama said, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."
While some noted the oddity of Obama's attribution of the protesters' struggle to the "pursuit of justice," rather than the pursuit of freedom - which is what they are actually fighting for - most Iran watchers in Washington and beyond were satisfied with his statement.
Alas, it was a false alarm. On Sunday Obama dispatched his surrogates - presidential adviser David Axelrod and UN Ambassador Susan Rice - to the morning talk shows to make clear that he has not allowed mere events to influence his policies.
After paying lip service to the Iranian dissidents, Rice and Axelrod quickly cut to the chase. The Obama administration does not care about the Iranian people or their struggle with the theocratic totalitarians who repress them. Whether Iran is an Islamic revolutionary state dedicated to the overthrow of the world order or a liberal democracy dedicated to strengthening it, is none of the administration's business.
Obama's emissaries wouldn't even admit that after stealing the election and killing hundreds of its own citizens, the regime is illegitimate. As Rice put it, "Legitimacy obviously is in the eyes of the people. And obviously the government's legitimacy has been called into question by the protests in the streets. But that's not the critical issue in terms of our dealings with Iran."
No, whether an America-hating regime is legitimate or not is completely insignificant to the White House. All the Obama administration wants to do is go back to its plan to appease the mullahs into reaching an agreement about their nuclear aspirations. And for some yet-to-be-explained reason, Obama and his associates believe they can make this regime -- which as recently as Friday called for the mass murder of its own citizens, and as recently as Saturday blamed the US for the Iranian people's decision to rise up against the mullahs -- reach such an agreement.
IN STAKING out a seemingly hard-nosed, unsentimental position on Iran, Obama and his advisers would have us believe that unlike their predecessors, they are foreign policy "realists." Unlike Jimmy Carter, who supported the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting shah 30 years ago in the name of his moralistic post-Vietnam War aversion to American exceptionalism, Obama supports the America-hating mullahs against the America-supporting freedom protesters because all he cares about are "real" American interests.
So too, unlike George W. Bush, who openly supported Iran's pro-American democratic dissidents against the mullahs due to his belief that the advance of freedom in Iran and throughout the world promoted US national interests, Obama supports the anti-American mullahs who butcher these dissidents in the streets and abduct and imprison them by the thousands due to his "hard-nosed" belief that doing so will pave the way for a meeting of the minds with their oppressors.
Yet Obama's policy is anything but realistic. By refusing to support the dissidents, he is not demonstrating that he is a realist. He is showing that he is immune to reality. He is so committed to appeasing the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei that he is incapable of responding to actual events, or even of taking them into account for anything other than fleeting media appearances meant to neutralize his critics.
Rice and Axelrod demonstrated the administration's determination to eschew reality when they proclaimed that Ahmadinejad's "reelection" is immaterial. As they see it, appeasement isn't dead since it is Khamenei - whom they deferentially refer to as "the supreme leader" - who sets Iran's foreign policy.
While Khamenei is inarguably the decision maker on foreign policy, his behavior since June 12 has shown that he is no moderate. Indeed, as his post-election Friday "sermon" 10 days ago demonstrated, he is a paranoid, delusional America-bashing tyrant. In that speech he called Americans "morons" and accused them of being the worst human-rights violators in the world, in part because of the Clinton administration's raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas in 1993.
Perhaps what is most significant about Obama's decision to side with anti-American tyrants against pro-American democrats in Iran is that it is utterly consistent with his policies throughout the world. From Latin America to Asia to the Middle East and beyond, after six months of the Obama administration it is clear that in its pursuit of good ties with America's adversaries at the expense of America's allies, it will not allow actual events to influence its "hard-nosed" judgments.
TAKE THE ADMINISTRATION'S response to the Honduran military coup on Sunday. While the term "military coup" has a lousy ring to it, the Honduran military ejected president Manuel Zelaya from office after he ignored a Supreme Court ruling backed by the Honduran Congress which barred him from holding a referendum this week that would have empowered him to endanger democracy.
Taking a page out of his mentor Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's playbook, Zelaya acted in contempt of his country's democratic institutions to move forward with his plan to empower himself to serve another term in office. To push forward with his illegal goal, Zelaya fired the army's chief of staff. And so, in an apparent bid to prevent Honduras from going the way of Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua and becoming yet another anti-American Venezuelan satellite, the military - backed by Congress and the Supreme Court - ejected Zelaya from office.
And how did Obama respond? By seemingly siding with Zelaya against the democratic forces in Honduras who are fighting him. Obama said in a written statement: "I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of president Mel Zelaya."
His apparent decision to side with an anti-American would-be dictator is unfortunately par for the course. As South and Central America come increasingly under the control of far-left America-hating dictators, as in Iran, Obama and his team have abandoned democratic dissidents in the hope of currying favor with anti-American thugs. As Mary Anastasia O'Grady has documented in The Wall Street Journal, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to say a word about democracy promotion in Latin America.
Rather than speak of liberties and freedoms, Clinton and Obama have waxed poetic about social justice and diminishing the gaps between rich and poor. In a recent interview with the El Salvadoran media, Clinton said, "Some might say President Obama is left-of-center. And of course that means we are going to work well with countries that share our commitment to improving and enhancing the human potential."
But not, apparently, enhancing human freedoms.
FROM IRAN to Venezuela to Cuba, from Myanmar to North Korea to China, from Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq to Russia to Syria to Saudi Arabia, the Obama administration has systematically taken human rights and democracy promotion off America's agenda. In their place, it has advocated "improving America's image," multilateralism and a moral relativism that either sees no distinction between dictators and their victims or deems the distinctions immaterial to the advancement of US interests.
While Obama's supporters champion his "realist" policies as a welcome departure from the "cowboy diplomacy" of the Bush years, the fact of the matter is that in country after country, Obama's supposedly pragmatic and nonideological policy has either already failed - as it has in North Korea - or is in the process of failing. The only place where Obama may soon be able to point to a success is in his policy of coercing Israel to adopt his anti-Semitic demand to bar Jews from building homes in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. According to media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has authorized Defense Minister Ehud Barak to offer to freeze all settlement construction for three months during his visit to Washington this week.
Of course, in the event that Obama has achieved his immediate goal of forcing Netanyahu to his knees, its accomplishment will hinder rather than advance his wider goal of achieving peace between Israel and its neighbors. Watching Obama strong-arm the US's closest ally in the region, the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab states have become convinced that there is no reason to make peace with the Jews. After all, Obama is demonstrating that he will deliver Israel without their having to so much as wink in the direction of peaceful coexistence.
So if Obama's foreign policy has already failed or is in the process of failing throughout the world, why is he refusing to reassess it? Why, with blood running through the streets of Iran, is he still interested in appeasing the mullahs? Why, with Venezuela threatening to invade Honduras for Zelaya, is he siding with Zelaya against Honduran democrats? Why, with the Palestinians refusing to accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination, is he seeking to expel some 500,000 Jews from their homes in the interest of appeasing the Palestinians? Why, with North Korea threatening to attack the US with ballistic missiles, is he refusing to order the USS John McCain to interdict the suspected North Korean missile ship it has been trailing for the past two weeks? Why, when the Sudanese government continues to sponsor the murder of Darfuris, is the administration claiming that the genocide in Darfur has ended?
The only reasonable answer to all of these questions is that far from being nonideological, Obama's foreign policy is the most ideologically driven since Carter's tenure in office. If when Obama came into office there was a question about whether he was a foreign policy pragmatist or an ideologue, his behavior in his first six months in office has dispelled all doubt. Obama is moved by a radical, anti-American ideology that motivates him to dismiss the importance of democracy and side with anti-American dictators against US allies.
For his efforts, although he is causing the US to fail to secure its aims as he himself has defined them in arena after arena, he is successfully securing the support of the most radical, extreme leftist factions in American politics.
Like Carter before him, Obama may succeed for a time in evading public scrutiny for his foreign-policy failures because the public will be too concerned with his domestic failures to notice them. But in the end, his slavish devotion to his radical ideological agenda will ensure that his failures reach a critical mass.
And then they will sink him.
Friday, June 26, 2009
SOMETHING HUGE IS HAPPENING - LIKE WORLD ORDER CHANGE & DESTRUCTION OF THE USA
Pamela "Atlas" Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as
Associate Publisher. She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.
by Pam Geller
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these exist
but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now
coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it
because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people
react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years.
The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing
our economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history,
and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are
not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close
election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so
controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one
woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We
have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to
write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream
Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana
republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free
fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire
government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and
know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its
length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war
with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same
religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have
the opportunity to do so.
And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has
never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big a s Wasilla ,
Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in
their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip
by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him
speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course.
The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he
answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more
important.)
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will
divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign
the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed
coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German
knew next to nothing.. What they did know was that he was associated with
groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they
disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory
and promises.. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he
was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even
newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would
bully them into submission.
And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic
crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the
controls of government power, department by department, person by person,
bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name,
where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his
side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and
goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating
the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country,
across Europe , and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and . . .. change. And the people surely got
what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read
your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down,
called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed
out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in
England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and
called a crazy troublemaker.. He was right, though .
Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in
Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, a nd
universities. And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just
two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens,
killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and
neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course.
The road to Hell is paved with them.
***************************************************************
Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not
too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.
IN GOD WE TRUST
Every body that is on this mailing list is either a
senior citizen, is getting close or knows sombody that is.
Most of you know by now that the Senate version
(at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive
rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this20part of
the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by
Bloomberg with the following statement.
Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform "will
not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just
remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that
is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder
of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
Please use the power of the internet to get this
message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election
coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and
reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have
begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard! Lets do it!
If you disagree, don't do anything.
Associate Publisher. She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.
by Pam Geller
I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in
six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is
something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a
banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these exist
but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now
coming into a sharper focus.
Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it
because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people
react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something
happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years.
The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.
We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing
our economy. Why?
We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history,
and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why
we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think
critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are
not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?
We have now established the precedent of protesting every close
election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so
controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one
woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We
have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to
write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream
Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana
republic. To what purpose?
Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free
fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of
collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire
government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and
know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its
length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war
with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same
religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have
the opportunity to do so.
And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has
never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big a s Wasilla ,
Alaska . All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in
their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip
by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him
speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force
stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course.
The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he
answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more
important.)
I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am
now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has
never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will
divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign
the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed
coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral
German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former
smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German
knew next to nothing.. What they did know was that he was associated with
groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they
disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory
and promises.. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he
was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even
newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would
bully them into submission.
And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic
crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the
controls of government power, department by department, person by person,
bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name,
where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his
side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and
goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating
the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages,
better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country,
across Europe , and across the world.
He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this
all in the name of justice and . . .. change. And the people surely got
what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read
your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down,
called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed
out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in
England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and
called a crazy troublemaker.. He was right, though .
Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in
Europe . It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, a nd
universities. And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just
two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens,
killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and
neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course.
The road to Hell is paved with them.
***************************************************************
Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not
too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.
IN GOD WE TRUST
Every body that is on this mailing list is either a
senior citizen, is getting close or knows sombody that is.
Most of you know by now that the Senate version
(at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive
rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this20part of
the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by
Bloomberg with the following statement.
Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform "will
not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that
come with age instead of treating them."
If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just
remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that
is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder
of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.
Please use the power of the internet to get this
message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election
coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and
reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have
begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard! Lets do it!
If you disagree, don't do anything.
Monday, June 22, 2009
GREEN ODE TO PADDY O'MOUSAVI
O Paddy dear, and did ye hear the news that’s goin’ round?
The shamrock is by law forbid to grow on Irish ground!
No more Saint Patrick’s Day we’ll keep, his color can’t be seen
For there’s a cruel law ag’in the Wearin’ o’ the Green.
”I met with Napper Tandy, and he took me by the hand
And he said, “How’s poor old Ireland, and how does she stand?”
“She’s the most distressful country that ever yet was seen
For they’re hanging men and women there for the Wearin’ o’ the Green.”
“So if the color we must wear be England’s cruel red
Let it remind us of the blood that Irishmen have shed
And pull the shamrock from your hat, and throw it on the sod
But never fear, ‘twill take root there, though underfoot ‘tis trod.
When laws can stop the blades of grass from growin’ as they grow
And when the leaves in summer-time their color dare not show
Then I will change the color too I wear in my caubeen
But till that day, please God, I’ll stick to the Wearin’ o’ the Green.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN'S UNCLE SAM PLANTATION
Back on Uncle Sam's plantation
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist
Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.
I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.
I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.
A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.
A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"
Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
Through God's grace, I found my way out.
It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.
I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.
But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.
Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.
Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.
There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.
In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."
Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability.
"Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.
Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.
"Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.
It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.
Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?
"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist
Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.
I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.
I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.
A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.
A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"
Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
Through God's grace, I found my way out.
It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.
I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.
But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.
Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.
Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.
There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.
In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.
"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."
Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability.
"Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.
Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.
"Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.
It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.
Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?
"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
