Wednesday, December 30, 2009


Obama Surrenders U.S. Sovereignty: His INTERPOL Executive Order

December 28th, 2009

Pajamas Media

by Bob Owens
At, Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton have dug up the bizarre and unsettling issuance of an executive order recently signed by President Barack Obama.

Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425, signed December 16 and released a day later, grants the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) rights on American soil that place it beyond the reach of our own law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Schippert and Middleton note that Obama’s order removes protections placed upon INTERPOL by President Reagan in 1983. Obama’s order gives the group the authority to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests — which means this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against governmental abuse. “Property and assets,” including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations and records are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities.
If the president of the United States has an aboveboard reason for making a foreign law enforcement agency exempt from American laws on American soil, it wasn’t shared by the White House.
Andy McCarthy, former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, notes at National Review that the limitations that Obama removed are “what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.”
A paragraph later, McCarthy describes Obama’s actions in the starkest of terms:
This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.
Some bloggers covering this story are noting that the law enforcement agency to which Obama has extended such extraordinary powers to has had a dismal past.
INTERPOL’s senior leadership was flush with Nazis from the late 1930s all the way into the 1970s. That fact allowed, going Godwin isn’t necessarily relevant to today’s organization. Khoo Boon Hui of Singapore is the current president of the organization, and the current secretary general is American Ronald Noble. Noble is perhaps best known in America for overseeing the Treasury Department’s review of the disastrous 1993 raid and siege of a Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, that left nearly 80 people dead. Noble had cautioned against the initial raid plan as being too dangerous, but the lack of any significant ramifications for federal officials that approved of the raid and allegations of a cover-up have inspired conspiracy theorists to derisively dub Noble “the Enforcer.”
But INTERPOL’s past isn’t what concerns us at this moment. Its current actions and the actions of our president are those that we question.
With the flourish of a pen and no warning at all, Barack Obama surrendered American sovereignty to an international force with a checkered past. To what end?
The consensus opinion among those commenting on this development is that the most radical president in American history seems to be intent on submitting American citizens to the whims of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Previous administrations have been very leery of signing onto agreements that would make citizens susceptible to the ICC, due to the possibility that U.S. servicemen could be dragged into show war crimes trials. Such events are obviously heavily politicized, and demands for war crimes arrests can come from any government, even those that sponsor terrorism or genocide themselves.
No finer point can be made about the endemic problems of the INTERPOL/ICC than that made by a recent diplomatic incident that erupted in Great Britain, where an Israeli government official had to cancel travel plans to England because of an arrest warrant issued by an English judge — because of Iranian charges of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. The brief but intense conflict was one Iran helped instigate, as the Persians supplied the terrorists in Gaza with the rockets they used against Israeli civilians, triggering an inevitable Israeli response.
If President Obama and his radical allies in the Democratic leadership have their way, American soldiers could presumably be brought up on charges as war criminals by enemy nations and marked for arrest and deportation by an international police force on American soil. They would face charges in a foreign land without the constitutional protections they fought and bled to protect. The White House seems to be on the bewildering path of giving al-Qaeda terrorists who murder innocent women and children more legal protection than the very soldiers that risk their lives trying to bring terrorists to justice. The asinine court-martial charges being brought against three Navy SEALs based upon the word of a terrorist they captured suddenly make a sickening kind of sense.
It also stands to reason that Obama’s seeming willingness to put American soldiers’ lives in the hands of a corrupt international community could also be brought to bear against his political enemies. Foreign investigators of dubious intent, and our own left-wing extremists, have long branded officials of the previous administration “war criminals” for actions they’d taken in the war on terror. It is entirely conceivable — perhaps even likely — that these same organizations and enemy governments that went after 25 Israeli government officials through INTERPOL and the ICC would quickly move to indict a wish list of current and former U.S. government officials for alleged “war crimes.” Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would obviously be at the top of such a list of politically motivated suspects, but such a list could just as easily include General David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressmen, and senators.
As the Iranian gambit has shown, Obama’s bizarre assault on U.S. sovereignty could have disastrous repercussions. We can only hope that his fetish for weakening this nation can be stopped before American politicians and servicemen are made pawns by our enemies.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009


Egypt: Muslim gangs rape Christian girls  - RELIGION OF PEACE????? OR PIECES!!

Wednesday, 30 December 2009 00:48 Acharya S Religion, Spirituality & Atheism - Islam More love and charity from the beautiful and peaceful religion! As Egypt's ancient Christian-Coptic community is genocided, the world idly stands by and repeats the pretense that Islam is a "religion of peace." The latest reported atrocity from the Wonderful World of Islam is the kidnap and gang rape of Christian girls in Egypt, with the rapist-beasts receiving what appears to be total immunity for their crimes. Indeed, it is in keeping with the centuries-long Islamic practice of "rape jihad" that these thugs are to be lauded for their despicable behavior.

Where Are Egypt's Christians?
Christians in America and Europe worry about the secularisation of their holiday.... Egypt's Christians have a far more basic worry....
A serious fear of Egyptian Christian parents is not the assimilation of their children into a Muslim majority but the fear of their daughters being abducted, raped and forced to convert to Islam. So fearful are many Christians that they prefer to live in a garbage choked section of Cairo inhabited exclusively by Christians, who would rather risk serious illness and death by disease than the loss of their daughters to predatory Muslims who kidnap their daughters under cover of active police collaboration....
Assyrian International News Agency reports as follows on cases involving Coptic Christian girls who were kidnapped, raped and forcibly converted to Islam by a Muslim gang that was allowed to act with impunity.
Ingy Adel, now 16, was abducted at the age of 12 on her way to school by being anaesthetized and bundled into a car. "I was taken into a room by a man called Sultan, who tied my hands behind my back and raped me," said Ingy. Four men followed Sultan in raping her, "I felt as each one of them raped me, that I was their enemy. They have beaten me ferociously."

She said that for a whole month she was given drugs and raped, "more than 50 men raped me." After two months and only through the efforts of her father she was found and brought back home. When they reported the crime to the State Security she was beaten by the officer to change her testimony and say that she ran away from her family with her own free will.

"Until today they have done nothing about it and will not do anything, because I am a Christian," sobs Ingy...
The Egyptian government has refused to even extend the minimal protections of dhimmi status to Egypt's Christians. What is done in the name of Islam is simply a rubber stamp for bestial behavior, for the removal of all restraints of human decency....
Forced Islamization of Christian Girls Supported By Egyptian State
The phenomenon of abduction, rape and forced Islamization of Christian girls in Egypt was shown for the first time on the Christian TV channel "Life TV", which broadcasts from outside Egypt and has nearly 60 million Arab-speaking viewers in Egypt and around the world....
...this phenomenon in its present form is nearly 40 years old, and most of these conversion crimes, with a few isolated exceptions, are carried out by organized Islamization gangs or "Islamization Mafia", a termed coined by him, which are fully funded by the state and supported by State Security.
"Those highly organized gangs carry out systematic planning," says Khalil. "Besides violent forced abductions, other devious means include allurement, deception, psychological pressure, financial temptation, emotional relationships ending in rape and photographs taken to blackmail the victims into conversion, and spreading fear in the hearts of their families...."

Sunday, December 27, 2009


Why did Chinese premier Wen Jiabao choose to publicly humiliate Barack Obama at Copenhagen? In their eyes, and those of much of the world, he has lost face, and with it, power and influence. While getting widespread play overseas, this story has been kept very quiet by our disinterested, nonpartisan media (I haven't seen it mentioned in any major U.S. outlet).

After promising to meet the Messiah at 7:00 p.m., Premier Wen stiffed him in favor of a meeting with the leaders of India, South Africa, and Brazil. Rather than wait, a no-doubt infuriated Obama stalked into the room in question and demanded, "Are you ready to see me, Premier Wen?" No word on Wen's reaction, though he did submit to a discussion on the spot that evidently sealed the release of the immortal and glorious Copenhagen Quasi-Agreement on Climate Change.

So with Barack Obama, we've reached the point where leader of record of the most powerful state in history has become a man you can casually stand up. But the question remains, why?

There are a number of reasons why the Chinese might take a cavalier attitude toward an American leader. China is the chief foreign holder of American debt, which may well have created an impression of the U.S. as a beggar nation on the level of a failed African republic. (I strongly suspect that words were exchanged on this topic during Obama's recent visit to China, though we're unlikely ever to learn about them in detail.)

There's also the matter of race. As is true of most Asians, the Chinese sense of racial superiority is cultural and innate. This is a people who refer to Caucasians as "ghost shadows"; what they think of American blacks is probably best not dwelt upon.

Then there's the deep aura of unseriousness that Obama has generated around himself. Though essentially incalculable, this factor is undeniable and will grow in importance and impact as time passes.

But there's one event in particular that very likely played a part -- the fact that, only a few weeks before, Obama publicly and notoriously bowed to the emperor of Japan.

Japan and China have a lengthy history, very little of which can be termed benign. They have always been rivals, often acting at cross purposes and usually at sword's point. But the past century of Sino-Japanese relations has been little short of horrendous.

Japan's militarist government occupied Manchuria in 1931 and proceeded to menace the Republic of China for several years afterward. In June 1937, as a result of a contrived confrontation known as the "Marco Polo Bridge Incident", Japan escalated to open conquest. Occupying Nanking in December of that year, the Japanese army carried out a city-wide massacre that in little more than a month resulted in over 250,000 deaths. So brutal were Japanese actions that they could not, in a pre-Auschwitz world, be referred to directly in news accounts. Sixty years passed before the story was completely told in Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (Chang, a less than stable personality in the first place, was so deeply affected that she later committed suicide, after telling friends that she could not get the images of the killings out of her mind.)

For nearly a decade Japan occupied vast areas of China, a period marked by further massacres, atrocities, and casual violations of the human spirit. It's safe to say that, but for the even viler activities of the Nazis, the Japanese occupation would stand as one of the peak moments of human cruelty in the modern era. (It's undeniable that Japanese human experiments in their Chinese and Manchurian prison camps were fully as loathsome as those of the Nazis.)

Though the Chinese don't discuss the matter, their attitude toward Japan and the Japanese can easily be imagined. Particularly since Japan, unlike Germany, has only in recent years reached the point of admitting to "irregularities" in its occupation, much less issuing an apology or offering reparations.

So here comes Obama, as ignorant of all this as a little lamb.

Many will recall the uproar that surrounded Ronald Reagan's 1985 visit to a German cemetery at Bitburg, instigated by the existence of SS graves within line of sight of the ceremony. The attitude of the Chinese to Obama's bow must be similar. From that point of view, Wen's behavior should be taken as a rebuke, not to the United States so much as to Obama personally.

Which only goes to underline the reason why diplomatic protocol exists in the first place -- to exclude through ritual actions all possibilities that error, misunderstanding, or personal pique might interfere with matters of state.

Obama has yet to learn this. His insistence on winging it, on reinventing established practice on his own terms, is potentially far more than simply embarrassing. It could be actively dangerous. His refusal to go by the rules may well have cost him the opportunity to pose as Savior of Gaia in Copenhagen. It may cost him -- and OUR country -- far more at some future time.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker.

Sunday, December 20, 2009


Union of Persian Students and

Human Rights Activists in Exile

In the name of freedom


To: Human Rights Watch

Subject: the grave condition of prisoner of conscience in Iran, Mr. Seyed Hossein Kazemeini Boroujerdi

Honorable authorities of Human Rights Watch:

I would like to inform you that Mr. Boroujerdi has been detained since Oct 8, 2006 for more than three years. He is suffering from heart, eye, tooth, respiratory, bone and kidney problems and Parkinson’s disease too. These diseases that are because of deprival of access to necessary medical facilities and the bad and unsuitable condition of health and food in prison, have caused his weakness and losing weight as he hasn’t balance in standing and walking and he has recently fallen down and hurt several times, for example on Oct 12, 2009, and was in coma for minutes.

It is necessary to say; Mr. Boroujerdi has been detained in general sections and solitary confinements of Evin and Yazd Central prisons under various Physical and mental tortures in the period of his detention. He was exiled from Evin prison in Tehran to Central prison in Yazd on Nov 23, 2008, but was transferred to Evin from solitary confinement in Yazd on Aug 19, 2009, because of intensification of his physical gravity. It should be mentioned that Mr. Boroujerdi not only hasn’t been hospitalized in any hospital in these times, but has been deprived of sick leave too.

At the end I would like to remind you that this prisoner of conscience has been deprived of access to an independent lawyer, physician and an open court too and Iranian judicial system has presented no formal explanation on the reason of his detention and using rough actions about him and some of his followers.

We hereby ask Human Rights Watch of the United Nations to follow up his critical condition by passing a special statement.

Yours Sincerely,

Mehdi Hoveizy

Director of Union of Persian Students


Sunday, December 13, 2009


U.S. collapse into Marxism
From "Lynnward"

For some reason, this didn't send. I found it as I was looking fro something else. It doesn't appear that I sent it, and I haven't seen where its been discussed. So, I'm sending it now. (12/09/09)

I received this today and almost choked on my Cranberry juice. Imagine - and from Pravda, the Russian paper. They certainly know what they're talking about. this isn't the first thing of this type I've received, but this one is the worst - and the most honest.

And, the author didn't even deal with the proposed health care system our leaders are trying to shove down our throats. I think what bothers me most of all, is the we are being seen as passive. Which, I suppose we have been.

All the changes that have been going on, and the conservatives have been politely disagreeing, but still allowing things to happen. I can assure you, if the conservatives were in power, and they made such sweeping changes, that impacted not only our lives, but the lives of our children and their children, the liberals would have taken to the streets. Heck, they have taken to the streets for far less. But, one thing we can say about conservatives, is we know how to behave. That we are, for the most part, proper and allow the system, such as it is, to work.

But, can we afford to do that anymore? I wonder.

The recent anger of the people at the Town Hall meetings shows conservatives have about had it. But, I say, I think its time that we "have had it." Otherwise, as the rest of the world can so clearly see, we are on the slippery slope towards socialism, Marxism - whatever you want to call it, and it isn't good. And, it's gaining speed. Obama et al have been very effective, although we can blame the conservatives as well. Both had a hand in what we now see.

And, we appear so cowardly, complacent and meek to the rest of the world. Not only are some laughing at us, they actually feel sorry for us! We're a train wreck and they're all watching as it happens. Fascinated, curious - anxious.

 After all, once Americans have lost their freedoms (which, clearly, the world can see we are, in a number of areas - critical areas), who else is going to help others gain, or regain theirs? the author of the article is correct - what right do we have pushing democracy when we no longer have it? When we sat quietly by while we lost it? How in the world can we tell others to fight for it, when we don't? When we aren't?

Most Americans have blinders on. And, the author is also correct when he states most Americans have no clue what's going on - after all, it wasn't on the nightly news, or in the local paper. The media is, and has been, complicit in what's going on. They are, essentially, a state run media, parroting what our leaders say, and pushing the agenda the liberal government wants pushed.

And, the worse thing is, we were warned. Of course, the conservatives that warned were called conspiracy nuts, and told to put their tin foil hats on, or accused of being chicken little and crying the sky was falling. Well, it's falling now, kiddo. It's falling for sure.

The tea parties have been good - a positive move towards letting our representatives (and I say that word with difficulty - representative. Because the only thing they seem to be representing is their own agenda, or the agenda of who knows who - certainly not the populous. The polls bear that out) But, the Tea parties aren't enough - at least not with their current structure.

And, the media doesn't report on them, or when they do, the reporting is often faulty, not telling how many people were at any given tea party. . We need to do more, and not only save the country we love, but show the world we aren't going to just accept the slide into a Big Brother Nanny state. It's time for people to be angry, to feel strident. The left doesn't like it. Too bad. What they are seeing now is what liberals have been doing to conservatives for years. And, they don't like it. It's difficult to raise much sympathy for them.

Now people are afraid, because the proposed health care bill clearly states there will be diminished services for older and disabled people, as socialized or nationalized health care always does. It has to. Something has to give when there is a finite amount of money. that's what all the other nationalized health care systems do. After all, our government can't continue to keep printing it when they run out.

All I know, is we need to do something, and do something soon. Before its too late, if it isn't already. And, unfortunately, we can't trust our "representatives" because they double talk us and lie to us. Not all of them, but many of them. So, America , its time to take back our country, restore the republic and capitalism. Time to make certain both the young and the old have health care.

Time to show we're ALL valuable. We fought for the Iraqi's freedom while we were losing our own. Time to take it back. There is no more time to waste, no more time to dawdle. We need to bring capitalism back with a bang. Demiocracy must be restored. The time has come for Americans to challenge the system and take back what is ours by right and that which was blessed by God.


There are far more decent American citizens than there are traitors. It only requires a leader to organise them and deal with these traitors.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* *********

Read what the Russians are writing about America 's collapse into marxism fueled by none other than Barack Ocommie..

American capitalism gone with a whimper

27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL:    

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonald’s burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America .

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America 's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament) . Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK 's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses?

Senator [Congressman] Barney Frank, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort.

He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

Tuesday, December 8, 2009


Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.

Know the line has held, your job is done.

Rest easy, sleep well.

Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held...

Peace, peace, and farewell...


There is one Christmas Carol that has always baffled me.

What in the world do leaping lords, French hens, swimming swans, and especially the partridge who won't come out of the pear tree have to do with Christmas?

This week, I found out.

From 1558 until 1829, Roman Catholics in England were not permitted to practice their faith openly. Someone during that era wrote this carol as a catechism song for young Catholics.

It has two levels of meaning: the surface meaning plus a hidden meaning known only to members of their church. Each element in the carol has a code word for a religious reality which the children could remember.

-The partridge in a pear tree was Jesus Christ.

-Two turtle doves were the Old and New Testaments.

-Three French hens stood for faith, hope and love.

-The four calling birds were the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

-The five golden rings recalled the Torah or Law, the first five books of the Old Testament.

-The six geese a-laying stood for the six days of creation.

-Seven swans a-swimming represented the sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit--Prophesy, Serving, Teaching, Exhortation, Contribution, Leadership, and Mercy.

-The eight maids a-milking were the eight beatitudes.

-Nine ladies dancing were the nine fruits of the Holy Spirit--Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self Control.

-The ten lords a-leaping were the ten commandments.

-The eleven pipers piping stood for the eleven faithful disciples.

-The twelve drummers drumming symbolized the twelve points of belief in the Apostles' Creed.

So there is your history for today. This knowledge was shared with me and I found it interesting and enlightening and now I know how that strange song became a Christmas pass it on if you wish.'

Merry (Twelve Days of) Christmas Everyone

Sunday, December 6, 2009


Fact Sheet: Copenhagen Consequences: What You Need To Know

The United States may become subject to a new treaty that would result in a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to other nations and undermine our national sovereignty. On December 7, 2009, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will hold its last government-level conference in Copenhagen, Denmark before the Kyoto Protocol is scheduled to expire in 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol, which established the infamous treaty to combat supposed global warming, was signed by President Bill Clinton but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. This time, things could be different. The UNFCCC is putting forth a strong effort to establish a new “Copenhagen Protocol” to replace Kyoto.

....President Obama has made it clear that he intends to pursue the policies, with or without a treaty. He said that the Copenhagen talks should produce an “immediate operational effect,” even if a legally binding treaty isn’t agreed upon.


Obama joins UN conference at crucial moment



Saturday, November 28, 2009


Can Muslims Be Good Americans?

Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.

Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).

Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

Geographically - no. . .Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Note: [There is an unmentioned SIXTH pillar of Islam -- Jihad, holy war which obliges every Moslem’s participation, either as a warrior or a supporter.]

Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.

Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.

They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.

* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.

* * * You had better believe it.

* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.

You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America !

And not only that , someone has elected a Marxist trained one as president of the U.S.A.

(Internet Email)

Monday, November 23, 2009


This Islamic 20-year project receives strong assistance from Oba-Hussein and his actions of putting fervent Moslems into top level poistions and at his insistence offering lower level government jobs to thousands of other Moslems.

Read the response, addressed to Mr. Obama, to all this at the end of the article. 

By Anis Shorrosh IHC Abstract

Dr. Shorrosh offers the following 20-point analysis of the Islamist agenda to take over America by the year 2020:

1. Replace America’s freedom of speech with “anti-hate crime” bills that silence free speech nation-wide.
2. Wage a war of words using black leaders to promote Islam as the original African-American’s religion. Strangely, no one states the fact that it was Arab Muslims who captured and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same: Abed.
3. Engage the American public on the virtues of Islam.
4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office.
5. Take control of the media and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock. [Done! They even own about 10% of FOX!]
6. Encourage the fear of imminent shut-off of Middle Eastern oil supply.
7. Protest any time Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena. [The criminal CAIR leads the way in this!]
8. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Ever notice how many doctors in America are Muslim, when their countries of origin need them more desperately?
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

· Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)

· Marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually)

· Convert angry, alienated black prison inmates and turn them into militants (2000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida).
10. Mosques and student centers (now ~2000) should teach hatred of Jews, Christians and democracy. Hundreds of Muslim schools are firstly loyal to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.
11. Provide grants to colleges and universities in America to establish “Centers for Islamic studies”.
12. Tell the world that terrorists have hijacked Islam, but not the truth, that Islam hijacked the terrorists.
13. Appeal to Americans for sympathy towards the Muslims in America, who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.
14. Undermine America’s sense of security with misinformation of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
15. Instigate prison riots demanding Islamic Sharia, not America’s justice system.
16. Increase charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism. [Obama publicly stated this as one of his goals!]
17. Raise interest in Islam on college campuses by insisting that freshmen take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the instructor is American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran while stressing its peaceful, spiritual and religious aspects only.
18. Consolidate all Muslim lobbies, mosques, Islamic student centers and media via the internet and hold an annual convention to coordinate plans to propagate the faith.
19. Send intimidating messages to outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by any means.
20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US, by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethnic groups in America.


President OBAMA said in his Cairo speech: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story.

Dear Mr. Obama:

Where were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?

Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.

Were they Muslims who celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.

Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?

Declaration of Independence ? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.

Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.

Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.

Your own 'half brother' a devout Muslim still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves."

Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage" doesn't it Mr.Obama?

Where were your Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not

There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King Jr.. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.

Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present.

In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hijab' or for talking to a man that is not a direct family member or their husband.

Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights aren't they?

Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler.

The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.

Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?

If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the middle east.

No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news networks that day.

Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.

To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.

And now we can add November 5, 2009-- the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .

That, Mr. Obama is "Muslim heritage" in America .

And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .

And you, Mr. Obama,  verge on being a treacherous traitor.

Sunday, November 15, 2009


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 1, 2009



 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.



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


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.


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.


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.

Monday, October 26, 2009


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.

Sunday, October 18, 2009


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.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009


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

Tuesday, October 13, 2009


"Removal of Zelaya was constitutional": UN

UN experts concluded that there was no coup in Honduras





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, 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?



Sunday, October 4, 2009


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

Tuesday, September 29, 2009


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


Friday, September 25, 2009


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.