World Views

ONE PISSED OFF HOUSEWIFE! AMONG HOW MANY SIMILAR OTHERS?

2012-01-21T22:28:00.000-08:00

Subject: One Pissed off (in this case, Canadian) Housewife

This was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how it also applies to the U.S.A. , U.K. and Australia .

THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH

Written by a housewife in New Brunswick , to her local newspaper. This is one ticked off lady...

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not, started by Islamic people who

brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from the capitol of the USA and in a field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of a nation they are fighting against in a brutal Insurgency.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East, start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which, is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg 's head, while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan , come out and fight like men, instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in Mosques and behind women and children.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana, care about the innocent children within range of their suicide Bombs.

I'll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that their freedom of Speech on stories, is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home, to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:

I don't care. Shoot him again.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food, that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe, in your heart of hearts:
I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.'

Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it.

I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail Friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering, if during their life on earth, they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.

I have another quote that I would like to share AND...I hope you forward All this.

One last thought for the day:

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The British Soldier.

3. The Canadian Soldier.

4. The US Soldier, and

5. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other four, for you and your children's Freedom.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET!

AMEN!

GOD BLESS CANADA AND AMERICA .

=============

I would like to add: When some U.S. Marines urinated on the bodies of some Taliban fighters they had just sent to paradise...probably to clean them up a bit before their arrival... well, I DON'T CARE EITHER.!!

Hat Tip A.R.

INDIA WHERE YOU CALL WITH COMPUTER PROBLEMS (SMILE)

2011-11-12T18:53:00.000-08:00

NEW HUMAN RIGHTS / PEACE LOGO

2011-10-25T22:29:00.000-07:00

“Free as a Man,” created by Serbian artist Predrag Stakic, is the winner of an online competition conducted by the Human Rights Logo Initiative, which is on a mission to make the design an internationally recognized symbol for human rights.

An initial call for entries went out in May and kicked-up 15,000 submissions from more than 190 countries. After a healthy period for public comment, a jury made up of 36 designers, human rights advocates, and concerned politicians from around the world chose 10 finalists.

SELF-SERVING BLOOMBERG SELLS OUT USA, ISRAEL AND JEWS TO ARAB ENEMIES

2011-10-22T22:45:00.000-07:00

Has major media company gone completely bonkers?
New York-based news giant becomes best buddies with controversial figure

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prince bin Talal and Jamal A. Khashoggi

"I met Osama in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia), and ever since, I developed a close relationship with him."

Who said this? Bin Laden's second in command?

No, it's New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's new business partner.

His name is Jamal A. Khashoggi, and he's heading the recently announced joint media venture between Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Bloomberg News.

The controversial partnership raises new concerns about infiltration of the U.S. media by Islamists bent on institutionalizing Shariah finance and other Islamic laws in the West.

In a recent Arab press interside view, Khashoggi revealed he grew up in Saudi Arabia with the late al-Qaida leader inside the radical Muslim Brotherhood, a secretive movement (operating inside the Obama White House!) whose credo is "Jihad is our way; Death in the cause of Allah our highest ambition."

He says he spent time with bin Laden in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and later in Sudan. The close friends shared a dream of a pan-Islamic nation.

"We were young Muslim activists who believed in our responsibility to support Islam and create an Islamic state," said Khashoggi, who previously worked for Saudi's intelligence minister (who also met with bin Laden in Afghanistan before 9/11).

"I was a Muslim Brotherhood type (and believed that by) establishing the Islamic system throughout, it will lead to the (return of the) caliphate," explained Khashoggi, who now calls himself a "neo-Islamist." "Now, I believe this is the work of God. If God wants (the caliphate) to happen, he will make it happen."

"Neo-Islamists" are a new generation of Muslim leaders distinguished by their seeming receptivity to the forces of modernization and engagement with the West. However, they remain faithful to the central tenets of Shariah law.

"What I admire the most in Wahhabism is that it empowers me to reach God directly without the need of anybody else," Khashoggi said regarding his faith. "And I like that and I call that positive Wahhabism."

Last month, Khashoggi and bin Talal announced the launch of a pro-Islamist 24-hour TV news network with Bloomberg's privately held news service.

The deal has Bloomberg News providing five hours of financial and economic news programming throughout the day on the new "Alarab" channel, which the prince says will be "right of Al-Jazeera" – that is, more fundamentalist.

A team of Bloomberg media specialists and producers will be provided to the Alarab channel, and will assist in the production of the channel's economic and business coverage, according to a press release.

Sources tell WND that Bin Talal and Bloomberg finalized the deal this May during a private meeting in the mayor's New York City office.

Critics fear the venture could serve as a platform for bin Talal's notoriously anti-Israel agenda. The billionaire has donated millions of dollars to Saudi telethons raising money for families of Palestinian "martyrs." Bin Talal also co-owns a Saudi TV station that once broadcast a fundraiser titled, "Jihad in Palestine," which glorified violence against Israel.

After 9/11, the prince presented a $10 million gift to then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. When bin Talal explained it came with a string attached – that America must acknowledge its pro-Israeli policies brought on the attacks – Guiliani famously rejected the relief check.

New York's current mayor, on the other hand, appears to have few qualms about doing business with the Saudi royal, even though Bloomberg is Jewish.

Critics say the mayor is chasing Arab petrodollars as his own business empire struggles amid the U.S. recession.

But the two seem to see eye-to-eye on many issues, including the Ground Zero mosque. Bloomberg gave his blessing to the Islamic shrine. In fact, to the shock of many, the mayor actually promoted its construction. His support is said to have been colored by bin Talal, who is said to be one of the project's silent foreign boosters.

Bin Talal's Saudi-based Kingdom Foundation has sunk more than $300,000 into American Society for Muslim Advancement, a U.S. nonprofit group promoting the mosque. His foundation is run by Saudi hijabi Muna Abu Sulayman, who appears on ASMA's website as one of its "Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow."

Sulayman, who spends much of her time in the U.S., happens to be the daughter of Dr. AbdulHamid Abu Sulayman, "one of the most important figures in the history of the global Muslim Brotherhood," according to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report.

The Egypt-based Brotherhood is the parent of Hamas and al-Qaida and the source of most of the jihadi ideology and related terror throughout the world today.

Citing its secret U.S. archives, prosecutors say the Brotherhood, which was set up in America with millions in Saudi cash, has a plan to "destroy" America "from within," and is using its agents and front groups in the U.S. to carry out that strategy. Khashoggi is said to have helped establish the Brotherhood network when he lived in Indiana decades ago.

Dr. Sulayman's U.S. offices were raided by federal agents after 9/11 on suspicion of providing material support to terror groups. An unsealed federal search warrant lists him as chairman and president of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, or IIIT, the Brotherhood's U.S. think tank.

In December 2008, IIIT hosted Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Rauf to discuss his Shariah Index Project, which was to be housed in the planned 15-story structure. The index will formally rate which governments best follow Islamic law.

Sulayman succeeded Rauf's late father, Muhammad, as rector of the International Islamic University in Malaysia. Rauf has kept an office in Malaysia, and he's held Shariah project meetings there.

More troubling to observers is bin Talal's obsession with mainstreaming Shariah finance in the West – and Bloomberg's apparent receptiveness to the idea.

Islamic banking rejects the cornerstone of Western finance: credit and interest rates. It also requires a share of profits go to Islamic charities, which often funnel money to terrorism.

Through a $20 million endowment, bin Talal has set up a Shariah law and finance section at Harvard University.

Bloomberg LP recently opened a regional hub in Dubai, where it has developed an "Islamic finance portal."

"Since the meltdown of the Western capitalist system, there has been an increasingly large focus on the virtues of Islamic finance," Bloomberg's Mideast chief Max Linnington told "The National" newspaper of Dubai. "Today, there is no one single provider of information that caters to the Islamic finance market. So by Bloomberg being here, we are in the process of building out an Islamic finance product."

Khashoggi told Al-Majalla.com that he wants to model the 24-hour Arab channel on Fox News, which his boss has a stake in. Bin Talal has sunk more than $600 million in Fox parent News Corp. With a 7 percent stake, he's now the biggest shareholder outside the Rupert Murdoch family.

Murdoch and Alwaleed together operate a media venture called Rotana. Zawya Dow Jones New Service, which covers Mideast markets, grew out of the deal.

Khashoggi denied Murdoch is a partner in the Alarab venture. But Zawya Dow Jones itself reported last year that Alwaleed would launch "the news channel in partnership with the Fox Network."

Last decade, Murdoch attended an awards dinner honoring the prince in New York. It was thrown by the Arab Bankers Association of North America, a group that supports Shariah finance in America. Murdoch sat next to bin Talal at the head table.

The media mogul took the podium to praise the Saudi billionaire for his investment in News Corp.

"Very proud, we are, that Prince Alwaleed is one of News Corp.'s largest shareholders," Murdoch gushed.

The prince's website says he "intends to leverage its relationship with News Corp.'s management to identify new investment opportunities." He counts Fox's parent as a "core holding."

Bin Talal, who has been interviewed by Fox in flattering features, has boasted of his influence over Fox news content. For instance, he recounted how when he saw Fox describing Muslim riots in France as "Muslim riots," he phoned Murdoch directly and had the wording changed within a half hour in order to delink Islam from the violence.

A Fox producer, moreover, suggested the Saudi shareholder also had a hand in unbooking authors of the bestselling "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," which exposes the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America. Bin Talal has donated millions of dollars to CAIR, which was recently implicated in a terror plot to funnel money to Hamas suicide bombers and has since been banned by the FBI from outreach functions.

Despite proven terror ties, top CAIR officials are regular invited guests on the O'Reilly Factor and other Fox News shows.

Bloomberg, for his part, recently published a glowing profile of bin Talal in his Bloomberg Markets Magazine.

"The prince says his shift in strategy at Kingdom Holding may put him on a path to surpass the riches of the 79-year-old (Warren) Buffett," the article says.

"When he was my age, he was not as big as me," bin Talal is quoted as saying. "I still have 20 years."

Bin Talal says his goal is to be the largest foreign investor in America.

And with his support for Moslem Obama and a blackmailed, cowed Republican party and the enemies that we face from within - Obama and Bloomberg - are just a couple of MANY traitors, America may well be doomed! Touch and go at the very best!

WAKE UP PEOPLE! you are being led to slaughter by this treacherous administration and their Islamists and Marxist supporters!

Who in America is standing up to and funding a resistance to this?

Anybody?

Do we have any POWERFUL patriots left?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=358561#ixzz1bZmDoDy0

ISLAM AND GAYS PRESSURE TO BAN BIBLE

2011-09-25T18:04:00.000-07:00

Police in Lancashire have told the owner of a Christian café to stop displaying Bible texts on a video screen, because it breaches public order laws.

MORE ISLAMIC (and some Homosexual) PRESSURE ON WESTERN CULTURES TRY TO BAN THE BIBLE (and Christianity). Lethal slogans displayed by Islamists in public appear to be immune from such laws! Why?

Officers attended the Salt & Light Coffee House on Layton Road, Blackpool, on Monday 19th September, following a complaint about “insulting” and “homophobic” material.

The café’s owner, Mr Jamie Murray, says the officers did not specify which Bible texts had caused the offence.

Breach

He says the officers told him that displaying offensive or insulting words is a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and told him to stop displaying the Bible.

The Bible texts are displayed on a TV screen at the back of the café. Mr Murray uses a set of DVDs called the Watchword Bible.

The DVDs cycle through the whole of the New Testament verse by verse, with the words appearing on the screen. Mr Murray mutes the audio.

Legal

He told the police officers he would agree to stop displaying the Bible verses while he sought legal advice. After speaking with a lawyer, he is once again displaying the material.

The café’s name, Salt & Light, is a quote from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Christian leaflets are available in the café, and it has links with a local church.

Mr Murray is being supported by The Christian Institute, a national charity that defends the religious liberty of Christians.

Free speech

There is widespread concern that the police are misusing the law to clamp down on words or material that "others" may find “insulting”.

Civil rights groups worry about the impact on free speech.

The Christian Institute is calling for the word “insulting” to be removed from Section 5 of the Public Order Act – a proposal supported by the National Secular Society, two civil rights groups Liberty and Justice, and Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.

A backbench amendment to remove the word “insulting” from the Section 5 offence has been tabled in the House of Commons as part of the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

The Home Office has promised to consult on the change, but suggests the problem may be better dealt with by advice to police officers and improvements in police training. (Reduce influence of these "others" on pushing police to do their emotion based, biased bidding under the guise of authority).

Interrogation

Mr Murray said: “I couldn’t believe the police were saying I can’t display the Bible. The officers were not very polite, in fact they were quite aggressive. It felt like an interrogation.

“I said ‘surely it isn’t a crime to show the Bible?’ But they said they had checked with their sergeant and insulting words are a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I was shocked.

“I’m not here to insult or offend anyone, but the Bible is the Bible. We’re always being told that we’re a tolerant and diverse nation. Yet the very thing that gave us those values – Christianity – is being sidelined.

Enough

“I’m not looking to make a name for myself, I’d rather be quietly getting on with running my café. But there comes a time when you have to say enough is enough.”

The Christian Institute’s Head of Communications, Mike Judge, said: “We’ve all seen the police stand by while extremist Muslims hold placards calling for infidels to be beheaded, but woe betides a Christian café displaying Bible texts.

“Yes, the Bible speaks about morality, of course it does. But the Bible isn’t hate speech. Disagreement isn’t hatred. If a café customer dislikes parts of the Bible, the right response is to take their custom elsewhere – not dial 999.

Liberty

“Will Lancashire Constabulary be publishing a police-approved Bible? Perhaps they could call it the PC-PC version. Haven’t they heard of free speech or religious liberty?” (Or does that hold true only to loud-mouth Islam and Shariah, which claims "victim" status?)

In 2005 the same force, Lancashire Constabulary, paid out £10,000 compensation to Joe and Helen Roberts, an elderly Christian couple who had been investigated by the police for telling their council that they didn’t agree with homosexuality.

Mike Judge added: “I’d have thought Lancashire Constabulary would have learned their lesson after paying out £10,000 to a pair of Christian pensioners who they had interrogated over their views on gay rights.

Costly

“After that controversy they promised to review their procedures to stop this kind of nonsense. They broke that promise on Monday when their officers marched into the Christian café. The police may now be facing another costly legal action.

“This just shows why Section 5 of the Public Order Act needs a meaningful revision. The police clearly believe it gives them the power to clamp down on free speech – even to ban the Bible.”

Sam Webster, The Christian Institute’s in-house Solicitor-Advocate, said: “We will be advising Mr Murray of his legal options. He may well have grounds for a legal action against the police for infringing his rights to free speech and religious liberty.

Alarmed

“It ought to go without saying that reading the Bible out loud in a public place, or displaying Bible texts in a Christian café, is not of itself a criminal offence. I am alarmed that I even have to point that out.

“On the face of it, officers of Lancashire Constabulary appear to have said that such behaviour may fall within the scope of Section 5 of the Public Order Act. As a lawyer and a Christian, I find that deeply disturbing.”

SHARIA DEBATE

2011-09-09T23:37:00.000-07:00

Alyssa Lappen, Big Peace
Sharia advocates desperately want to convince legislators and the public that Islamic law is plain vanilla --- and totally non-threatening to existing U.S. legal codes. Notwithstanding a nationwide Muslim Brotherhood-backed pro-sharia push, nothing could be further from the truth . . .

Excerpts:

If sharia were advanced, progressive, wonderful, and "brilliant," its truth and beauty could withstand all criticism and questions. But sharia raises a major reg flag in banning free speech and inquiry. How it would play out in the U.S. is perhaps best examined by looks at Britain and Germany, where all sharia's ills stand fully exposed. One needs no PhD or LD to realize that officially accepting any part of a legal system so often demonstrably at odds with our own would, yes, prescribe genuine national disaster.

If anything, intense pressure from closet Muslim radicals for U.S. sanction of sharia should push every state that can to pass its own bill as quickly as possible.

XXX's sharia description is quite correct — not the “hate” or “lunacy” that Reza, Ali, Stilt and Fadel call it.

Sharia is indeed a “complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law NOT theosophy… Shariah is, moreover, a doctrine that mandates the rule of Allah over all aspects of society.”

(Alan note: DOES THIS take Islam OUT of the protective confines of a "religion" that is being falsely demanded of us!)

READ MORE:

http://bigpeace.com/alappen/2011/09/09/sharia-lobby-shifts-into-5th-gear/

ALAPHABETICAL OBAMA DOWNGRADE OF AMERICA (& HIS DOWNWARD SLIDE)

2011-08-21T19:02:00.000-07:00

Mental snapshots from President Obama's efforts to improve America's standing in the world, 923 days into his administration:

A is for the Arab world, and our standing in it: This year, Zogby International found that only 5% of Egyptians had a favorable view of the U.S. In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, it was 9%.

B is for the federal budget deficit, which is estimated to come in at around 11% of GDP in 2011, up from about 3% in 2008.

C is for China's military budget. For 2012, Beijing plans to increase spending on defense by 12.7%. The Obama administration, by contrast, proposed Pentagon cuts in April averaging out to $40 billion per year over the next decade, and Congress may soon cut a lot more.

D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

E is for energy. The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled. E is also for ethanol, the non-wonder fuel the U.S. continues to subsidize to the tune of $5 billion a year.

F is for free trade. Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which facilitates $1.6 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush midwifed more than a dozen FTAs, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of FTA's signed by the current president: zero.

G is for Guantanamo, which remains open, and for Gadhafi, who may no longer be in power, and for Greece, which offers a vision of America's immediate future if we don't reform our maniacal SPENDING and entitlement state.

H is for Hillary Clinton, who—I can't believe I'm writing this—would have made a better president than Mr. Obama.

I is for Israel, a Middle Eastern country the president claims to support even as he routinely disses its prime minister, seeks to shrink its borders and—why not?—divide its capital.

J is for jobs. In November 2008, president-elect Obama promised he would create 2.5 million jobs by 2011. By October 2010 the economy had shed 3.3 million jobs. (Alan note: actually SEVEN million)

K is for Karzai, Hamid, Afghanistan's feckless leader. Still, the Obama administration probably did itself no favors by publicly dumping on the man, leading him to seek new best friends in Tehran.

L is for Laden, Osama bin. The president's greatest triumph, which will forever put him one notch—if only one notch—above Jimmy Carter. (Alan note: local resident eye-witness denies Osama was killed or captured - video http://terrornewsbriefs.blogspot.com/2011/08/al-qaeda-in-iran-denial-by-witness.html

M is for Mexico, a country that manages 5.4% unemployment and 4.2% annual growth even as it fights a war against the drug cartels. (Alan note: to whose drug cartels, Eric Holder and his ATF provided thousands of automatic guns under the illegal "Fast & Furious" project)

N is for NATO, once a pillar of Western security, which Narcissist Mr. Obama is in the process of destroying through his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and his refusal to give NATO the push it needs to win in Libya.

O is for ObamaCare, which goes far to explain B, D, J as well as the Greek part of G.

P is for Pyongyang, whose ruler the administration is once again attempting to engage in the six-party talks. This is after the Kim regime welcomed Mr. Obama's plea for a nuclear-free world by testing a nuclear bomb, torpedoing a South Korean ship, shelling a South Korean village, and unveiling a state-of-the-art uranium enrichment facility.

Q is for QE2, the most disastrous experiment in monetary policy since Fed Chairman William Miller's low-interest rate policy crashed the dollar in 1978.

R is for the reset with Russia, the principal result of which is an arms-control treaty that brings us to parity in strategic nuclear weapons, leaves us behind in the tactical category, and ill-equips us for the challenge of a proliferating world.

S is for shovel-ready. Enough said.

T is for taxes, which Mr. Obama would like to see raised for "millionaires and billionaires"—curiously defined as people making $200K and up.

U is for Iran's uranium enrichment. When Mr. Obama came to office promising to extend his hand to the mullahs, Iran had enriched 1,000 kilos of uranium. Today they have produced more than 4,000 kilos of HIGH GRADE plus some weapon grade MATERIAL.

V is for Venezuela, a country whose extensive subterranean links to Iran the administration has consistently downplayed. (Alan note: and whose Communist leadership Obama openly supports)

W is for the W "Dubya" (Bush), whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.

X is for Liu Xiaobo, an example of what a deserving winner of the Nobel Peace Prize looks like. X is also for Xanax, likely to be remembered as the drug of choice of the Obama years.

Y is for Yes, We Can! (Not!!) Unfortunately, it's also for Yemen.

Z is for zero, Obama's NICKNAME for his total inability to make anything positive happen.

Courtesy Defending Iranian Democracy

OBAMA FUNNELLING BILLIONS TO ENEMY TALIBAN

2011-07-24T20:42:00.000-07:00

By Karen DeYoung,
Sunday, July 24

A year-long military-led investigation has concluded that U.S. taxpayer money has been indirectly funneled to the Taliban under a $2.16 billion transportation contract that the United States has funded in part to promote Afghan businesses.

(Alan note: More taxpayer money being misused by Obama. Wonder what foreign enemy funding he wants to cover with the "extra" $400 BILLION he insistently demands from Congress as part of his deal)

The unreleased investigation provides seemingly definitive evidence that corruption puts U.S. transportation money into enemy hands, a finding consistent with previous inquiries carried out by Congress, other federal agencies and the military. Yet U.S. and Afghan efforts to address the problem have been slow and ineffective, and all eight of the trucking firms involved in the work remain on U.S. payroll. In March, the Pentagon extended the contract for six months.

According to a summary of the investigation results, compiled in May and reviewed by The Washington Post, the military found “documented, credible evidence . . . of involvement in a criminal enterprise or support for the enemy” by four of the eight prime contractors. Investigators also cited cases of profiteering, money laundering and kickbacks to Afghan power brokers, government officials and police officers. Six of the companies were found to have been associated with “fraudulent paperwork and behavior.”

“This goes beyond our comprehension,” said Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), who last summer was chairman of a House oversight subcommittee that charged that the military was, in effect, supporting a vast protection racket that paid insurgents and corrupt middlemen to ensure safe passage of the truck convoys that move U.S. military supplies across Afghanistan.

The military summary included several case studies in which money was traced from the U.S. Treasury through a labyrinth of subcontractors and power brokers. In one, investigators followed a $7.4 million payment to one of the eight companies, which in turn paid a subcontractor, who hired other subcontractors to supply trucks.

The trucking subcontractors then made deposits into an Afghan National Police commander’s account, already swollen with payments from other subcontractors, in exchange for guarantees of safe passage for the convoys.

Intelligence officials traced $3.3 million, withdrawn in 27 transactions from the commander’s account, that was transferred to insurgents in the form of weapons, explosives and cash.

A senior U.S. defense official said that a radically revised transport system, replacing the Host Nation Trucking contract when it expires in September, will be announced in a few weeks.

Based on the findings of the investigation, the new contract will expand the number of companies from eight to at least 30 and change the security system for the truck convoys. It will require detailed information on all subcontractors and supervision by military units in the field rather than headquarters-based contracting officers.

In the meantime, interim steps have been taken to improve oversight and accountability within the murky web of companies and individuals involved in the shipment of more than 70 percent of all U.S. military food, fuel, weapons and construction material within Afghanistan, said the official, who was authorized to discuss the issue only on the condition of anonymity.

HAWAII - OBAMA'S SAMPLE OF HIS NATIONAL WELFARE STATE PLANS

2011-07-16T23:25:00.000-07:00

Tent Cities Or On The Streets

By Michael Snyder - HawaiiNewsDaily

Economic despair is beginning to spread rapidly in America.

As you read this, there are millions of American families that are just barely hanging on by their fingernails. For a growing number of Americans, it has become an all-out battle just to be able to afford to sleep under a roof and put a little bit of food on the table.

Sadly, there are more people than ever that are losing that battle.

Tonight, tens of thousands of formerly middle class Americans will be sleeping in their cars, even though that is illegal in many U.S. cities.

Tens of thousands of others will be sleeping in tent cities or on the streets.

Meanwhile, communities all over America are passing measures that are meant to push tent cities and homeless people out of their areas. It turns out that once you lose your job and your home in this country you become something of an outcast.

Sadly, the number of “outcasts” is going to continue to grow as the U.S. economy continues to collapse.

Most Americans that end up living in their cars on in tent cities never thought that it would happen to them.

Alan Note: NOT because of the debt ceiling but because moron Obama, who has never even run a lemonade stand and understands NOTHING about finance or economics has spent us into penury and fiscal slavery - to him as the slavemaster!

An article in Der Spiegel profiled one American couple that is absolutely shocked at what has happened to them….

Chanelle Sabedra is already on that road. She and her husband have been sleeping in their car for almost three weeks now. “We never saw this coming, never ever,” says Sabedra. She starts to cry. “I’m an adult, I can take care of myself one way or another, and same with my husband, but (my kids are) too little to go through these things.” She has three children; they are nine, five and three years old.

“We had a house further south, in San Bernardino,” says Sabedra. Her husband lost his job building prefab houses in July 2009. The utility company turned off the gas. “We were boiling water on the barbeque to bathe our kids,” she says. No longer able to pay the rent, the Sabedras were evicted from their house in August.

How would you feel if you had a 3-year old kid and a 5-year old kid and you were sleeping in a car?

Sadly, if child protective services finds out about that family those kids will probably be stolen away and never returned.

America is becoming a very cruel place.

Unfortunately, what has happened to that family is not an isolated incident. As rampant unemployment has spread across America, the number of people that have lost their homes has soared.

Today, it is estimated that approximately a third of the homeless population in Seattle live in their cars.

It is even happening to my readers. A reader named JD left the following comment on one of my articles a while back….

I was laid off from my construction job almost 2 yrs ago was on "unenjoyment" for over a year, they cut me off last september so i lost my apartment. Since then ive been couch surfing and hotel hopping. Now i occaisonally sleep in my car. I was lucky enough to have a friend with a lawn care business so i can at least put ever increasing gas in my car\house. I hate to say it but i think we will see hoovervilles in the major cities soon. When the welfare & food stamps & all the other govt. programs end the anarchy begins.

Desperation is rising all over America. Most people had hoped to see an economic recovery by now but it just hasn’t happened.

The phenomenon of Americans living in their cars has become so prominent that even Time Magazine has done a story about it….

For people who cannot afford rent, a car is the last rung of dignity and sanity above the despair of the streets. A home on wheels is a classic American affair, from the wagon train to the RV.

Now, for some formerly upwardly mobile Americans, the economic storm has turned the backseat or the rear of the van into the bedroom. “We found six people sleeping in their cars on an overnight police ride-along in December,” says John Edmund, chief of staff to Long Beach councilman Dee Andrews. “One was a widow living in a four-door sedan. She and her husband had been Air Force veterans. She did not know about the agencies that could help her. I had tears in my eyes afterwards.”

Unfortunately, it turns out that sleeping in cars has been made illegal in many areas of the United States.

In many cities, police are putting boots on the cars and when the homeless owners can’t pay the fines the vehicles are being taken away from them.

Venice, California is one place where people have been arrested for living in vehicles. Venice had been a popular spot for people living in their RVs to go, but police started arresting people that were living in RVs and they began towing away their vehicles. The following is an excerpt from an article that appeared on the Daily Kos website….

They took Eric while he was changing his battery in his car. Claimed he lived in his car. A few days later they went to 3th Street and took his RV because he was in jail and no one moved it for 72 hours. Saturday they did a sweep of 7th and took Bear and his RV. They also took Elizabeth’s RV but do not know if they took Elizabeth but can not find her. The police went to 6th and took the white RV that always parks by Broadway on 6th. Everyday they take 1 to 4 RVs. Very soon there will be no one left.

Once you are down on your luck in America you will quickly find that authorities will try to take everything else you still have away from you.

The United States can be a very brutal place to be if you are poor.

All over America, communities are making tent cities illegal or they are simply just chasing them away.

It turns out that many Americans really don’t like large numbers of homeless people camping out in their neighborhoods.

But many of those now living in tent cities used to be just like you and me.

What is being done to tent cities in some areas of the country is absolutely disgusting.

For example, who could ever forget this video of police in St. Petersburg, Florida using box cutters to slash up the tents of the homeless….

What goes through your mind when you watch something like that?

If you don’t feel at least a little bit of compassion for those people then something is wrong.

You never know – you might be the next one forced to take refuge in a tent city.

In many U.S. cities, it is even illegal to sleep on the street. If you are homeless I am not sure what you are supposed to do. In some areas of the U.S. you can’t sleep in your car, you can’t sleep in a tent city and you can’t sleep on the street.

So what should we do with all of the Americans that are being forced out of their homes by this economy?

Should we just round them all up and put them into fenced camps?

Don’t laugh – we are getting closer to that kind of thing every day.

We live in very frightening times.

Poverty is absolutely exploding in America. The number of Americans that are going to food pantries and soup kitchens has increased by 46% since 2006. There are 44 million Americans on food stamps. If it was not for measures like these, the streets of America would be filled with destitute people.

Things are tough out there and they are about to get tougher.

At the beginning of next year, the extended unemployment benefits that have been helping the unemployed during this economic downturn will expire. Up to now, many unemployed Americans have been able to enjoy up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Now that is coming to an end.

According to the New York Times, this is going to drain 37 billion dollars out of the wallets of unemployed Americans that are just barely hanging on.

What in the world is that going to do to the economy?

This all comes at a time when it looks like unemployment is going to start rising once again.

Cisco has just announced that they are going to be laying off 10,000 workers. Other large firms are expected to announce more layoffs shortly. The number of good jobs continues to shrink.

There are other signs that the economy is slowing once again. Pre-orders for Christmas toys are way down. Vacancies at U.S. shopping malls are rising again. Nearly every major poll shows that Americans are extremely pessimistic about the economy right now.

So why in the world is all of this happening?

Where in the world did all of our jobs go?

Well, it turns out that millions of our jobs have been shipped overseas where the labor is far, far cheaper and it is really starting to catch up with us.

On The American Dream website, I just finished an article entitled “How Globalism Has Destroyed Our Jobs, Businesses And National Wealth In 10 Easy Steps“. It is a 2500 word essay that explains how globalization has absolutely gutted our economy. The article will hopefully help you understand why so many good jobs have left the United States and why they aren’t coming back.

Many of our great cities that used to be the envy of the entire globe are now a bad joke to the rest of the world.

The following is what one reporter from the UK found when he visited one of the worst areas of Detroit….

Occasionally a half-ruined or half-burned house still stands to remind you that this used to be a cityscape. Pathetic, besieged knots of surviving homes remind you of what was once here. Sometimes amazing efforts have been made to keep them smart. More often, they haven’t.

Many bear menacing notices warning visitors to stay away. On the door of one, easy to imagine as a neat home with an iron-pillared porch where the head of the family must once have sat on summer evenings, are the words ‘Enter at ya own risk’ accompanied by a crude drawing of an angry face.

I ventured into a nearby ruin, smashed, charred and half-filled with garbage. You have no idea who or what might be lurking in these houses.

But don’t laugh at Detroit. What is happening in Detroit is coming to your area soon enough.

America is in an advanced state of decay. The number of “outcasts” is going to multiply as more Americans lose their jobs and their homes. Millions more Americans will be sleeping in their cars, in tent cities or on the streets before this is all over.

The U.S. economy is never going to get back to “normal”. What we are living through now is the “new normal” and it is rip-roaring prosperity compared to what is coming.

Please show compassion to the people around you that are hurting right now.

You never know, as the economy continues to unravel it may be you that needs some compassion soon.

AND NO! IT IS OBAMA'S NOT BUSH'S FAULT. In two years he outspent/wasted what Bush spent in EIGHT!

WE NEED REMINDING HOW CARTER AND NOW OBAMA HELP(ED) TERRORISM AND DESTROY THE FREE WORLD

2011-06-24T23:36:00.000-07:00

I FOUND THIS IN A FRIEND'S ARCHIVE AND FEEL IT WORTH REPOSTING

To understand the truth about the late Shah

and what really happened in Iran in 1979,

one must read this article by Alan Peter,

An expert on security and intelligence matters in Iran.

=================================

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1919-1980),

A retrospective on his reign on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death.

"They revere you in fortune

and trample you in defeat"

(Moliere)

("25 YEARS" DATED AT THE TIME THIS WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN)

Some 25-years ago this summer, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi the Shah of Iran was dying in Cairo. Egypt's President Sadat had offered him his last refuge and helped him escape from a perilous exile in Panama.

Historically, Egypt has been famous for providing shelter - even to those they do not approve - like the family of Yasser Arafart - at the time that Arafat was public enemy #1 in Egypt for inciting the overthrow of Sadat's regime, his wife and children were guarded by Sadat's government bodyguards.

In the case of the Shah, Sadat liked him and the Shah's marriage to former Egyptian King Farouk's sister made him "family", too.

In Panama, the fate of the ailing monarch had hung in the balance for several weeks as shadowy contacts between Panama's strongman, General Torrijos, and emissaries from the Islamic revolution increasingly pointed to a swap deal - the extradition of the Shah against the release the 52 American Embassy hostages in Tehran.

While the Shah's hand-over to Khomeini was seriously contemplated by President Carter, his administration had been drawn into an eerie gambit in Panama of which the hostage end-game was unknown .

The Shah's succumbing to cancer on July 27th, 1980 must have brought a sigh of relief in Washington as indeed in many other capitals burdened by the past courtship for refuge of the Iranian monarch, many of whom had previusly benefitted from his largesses.

Two decades and many sorry events later, some of the intricacies of the Shah's personality and rule still beg scholarly probe.

The majority of Iran's current population has been born after the Shah's demise. His image in their mind, as indeed in the minds of many casual observers abroad, has been shaped through unrelenting distortions of historical facts by Carter and an obliging liberal Media, intent on justifying Carter's decision to remove the Shah.

The younger Iranians deserve an unbiased account of these 37 years in its baffling turns and twists and contradictions. Including that when he left Iran for the last time, the Shah also left behind some $3 Billion of the Pahlavi Foundation funds over which he had total control and relied on some $90 million of his own money, accumulated over many decades, through investments in Europe, one of which was a jewelry business in Switzerland.

To be sure, a distilled account of these years would not completely vindicate the Shah. His handling of the constitution was self-defeating in ways that escaped his political savvy. Yet, at worst, was still aimed to benefit the country not himself. He had all the prestige he needed and required no constitutional short cuts to stroke his ego.

His authoritarian rule, much of it because he could not find "managers" to help run the country honestly and efficiently, carried the seeds of instability and a backward thrust, the prevention of which had served as an alibi to silence dissent. Yet, the surfeit of slander and libel before and after his downfall was largely undeserving.

Few leaders in history have been adulated and demonized in such a frivolous manner. A good illustration of hypes comes from two prominent Americans. On the New Year's Eve of 1978 -- a few short days before the triggering event of the Islamic revolution -- President Carter stunned the US western allies by calling the Shah his most trusted ally and dialogue partner.

Carter's effusive flattery - describing Iran as island of stability - was in opposing symmetry to another hyperbole by Senator Edward Kennedy, who some two years later, at the height of the American Embassy hostage crisis, castigated the Shah for having run "one of the most violent regimes in history of mankind".

Kennedy continues, even today, in his baseless attacks on anything and everything, including his own government and citizens.

Both remarks were clearly calculated to achieve short-term objectives. Carter came to Teheran, desperate to check the soaring price of the crude oil.

Kennedy's remark was timed to optimize the chances of his emissary to Tehran, tasked to obtain from Ayatollah Khomeini a token release of the American hostages.

Kennedy, then seeking to snatch the Democratic presidential nomination from the incumbent Carter, had chosen the former US Senator James Abourezk (of Arab extraction) for this unpublicized mission to Tehran.

Where should the line be drawn? In a mixed bag of achievements and flaws the Shah's balance sheet resembles other modernizing states. Many would grade it superior. What tarnished his image most was his alleged record on human rights and political freedoms, much of which proved in the aftermath to be highly exaggerated.

Detractors state "a silence of a cemetery" to characterize the political arena in Iran during most of the Shah's rule. The ubiquitous security agency SAVAK, created in 1957 with the help of the US through General Teymour Bakhtiar, later a sworn enemy of the Shah, was the instrument of the repression of mostly Communist attacks on the monarchy triggered by the Soviets.

By the seventies, the suppression had spawned violence as groups, sprung from the very edges of the ideological spectrum, resorted to urban guerrilla tactics and acts of terrorism. A vicious circle set in. General Bakhtiar, domiciled in Iraq, was instrumental in sending waves of terrorists into Iran. Terrorists willing to shoot to kill.

For the first time traffic police, who usually had empty holsters or unloaded guns at their waist were issued side arms and bullets. The terrorists robbed banks to fund their operations and for the first time in Iranian history, the robbers shot innocent clerks to make a point.

Then SAVAK blended ruthlessness with incompetence.

It had been effective in dismantling the clandestine structure of Iran's Communist party (Tudeh) but failed to guage the creeping popular discontent, fanned by Marxist groups like the Mojahedin and Fedayeen, still less the coming of the fundamentalist Islamic bane that surprised the Soviets and snatched away their Marxist revolution to place it in clerical hands.

When the crunch finally came in 1978, this colossus fell on its clay feet unable to save its master. A dozen Soviet urban guerilla psychologists, operating from inside the Soviet Embassy in Tehran and calling the shots for anti-Shah operations overwhelmed Iranian intelligence and police autorities, who had no training in how to handle or oppose these attacks.

For instance, they had their Marxist minions knock on people's doors begging for Mercurochrome (a red antiseptic liquid common in Iran) and cotton wool. Ostensibly needed to treat wounded innocents shot by the Shah's forces in such huge numbers that pharmacies no longer had enough of stocks to provide them to these volunteers.

The red Mercurochrome was in fact used to stain the streets and clandestine flyers would then claim the Shah's men had shot innocents nd removed their bodies.

As proof they used another gambit. They collected old shoes - men's, women's, children's of both sexes and threw one shoe of each pair by the hundreds on top of the stains. The flyers would then invite people to witness the amount of deaths by those single shoes that had fallen off the bodies as the Shah's forces allegedly hurriedly removed the victims and left the shoes behind.

The extent of repression was never close to claims recklessly advanced in some quarters, including by such reputable institutions as Amnesty International, which finally concluded in late 1978 that there were less than 2,400 political prisoners in the Shah's jails.

Only this number despite the wide spread Soviet efforts to install their minions and find passage to warm waters providing thousands of candidates. Despite the Bakhtiar terrorists sent in their hundreds, despite the Marxist and Fedayeen in their thousands openly attacking the regime. And the Hezbollah-to-be, pro-Khomeini adherents who disregrded laws and inviting arrest on a daily basis.

No mass graves trailed the Shah when he finally quit the country in January, 1979. No "death caravans" haunted his memory. Tehran produced no equivalent of Buenos Aires's "Plaza de Mayo" where "grandmas" gather every Sunday to reclaim news of their missing children. To be sure the military courts were quick to mete out death sentences. But the practice of royal pardon was abundantly resorted to. The sentences were systematically commuted or annulled.

Some viewed this practice as a gimmick to earn political capital but be it as it may, few now dispute the fact that the Shah was averse to cruelty or execution. He even stayed Khomeini's execution in 1964 at the behest of General Pakrvan, head of SAVAK. In hindsight the gravest, catastrophic mistake possible, which not only later cost Pakravan his life but also Iran's progress into a modern nation instead of a deep well of suffering and pain it is today.

The overall number of executions by the military tribunals, including those occasioned by drug related offenses, after drug smuggling and distribution became a capital offense, were estimated at around 350 cases in a 25-year period. The USA has more than this and Iran currently has close to 200 a year, including teen-agers of both genders, which contravenes all laws and even Iran's own.

Figured among them were a few prisoners of conscience including some twenty-five ring-leaders of the military wing of the Communist party of Iran. Their crime, leading to execution, was to have been mesmerized by Stalinist Russia. The rest of the six hundred communist officers arrested in nineteen fifties - as indeed the bulk of other political prisoners - were rehabilitated, many were co-opted into the Shah's administration.

One of his favorite gambits was to invite dissident leaders into senior government positions and then ask them to do the job better than the person they replaced.

Then chortle when they eventually admitted they were unable to because the system and co-workers were too cumbersome and their staff often sabotaged work or were incompetent and they now understood why their predecessors failed to succeed.

Having experienced the challenges first hand, they usually ended up becoming strong supporters of the Monarch in his efforts to change and modernize the nation.

All in all some 3500 persons were reportedly killed in street unrests or by order of military courts during the Shah's reign, between 1953 to 1979 though little substantiaion exists for such a number.

In one famous incident of Jaleh Square, where claims of 5,000 deaths were made, secret martial law figures later showed only eight had died from bouncing bullets fired into the air to control the crowd and another 30 had been wounded the same way. The square was also not big enough to hold 5,000 people making such a claim even less possible. Over a thousand "unmatching" shoes were found in the square the morning after!

The Geneva based International Committee of Red Cross which visited all Iranian prisons in 1977 in an anti-Shah mission inspired by Carter and his allies, put the number of political prisoners at 3200 while some seventy prisoners were declared unaccounted for.

American liberal democrats, as was the intention, could pretend to be horrified by these figures, moderate though they are in relative terms and could use them to justify the removal of the Shah.
This having been said, there is another facet of human rights in the Pahlavi era which has largely been disregarded in the rush to condemn.

In an average middle class neighborhood in Tehran of the nineteen fifties, for example, a small alley had taken its name after a Jewish doctor, who had been the first to construct a house in that vicinity.

The alley housed an Assyrian Christian family, several Baha'i families, a Zoroastrian family and of course many Moslem households. No hint of bigotry disturbed the serenity of this cultural mosaic. Tolerance or lack of it was a personal matter not a government imposition and for the most part if you lived your life to the fullest but avoided anti-government activity, nobody bothered you.It would be hypocritical to claim that religious minorities were by law on the same footing as Moslems but intolerance was being discouraged and the system moved progressively towards full equality of rights among citizens.

There were differences: minority members could not rise above the rank of Brigadier-General in the military. On the other hand, each ethnic minority had representation in the Majliss (Parliament) and Senate proportionate to their numbers in the overfall population.

A previously unknown historical anecdote cited by a US scholar in a recent book best illustrates the point. It concerns the protection of the Iranian Jews living in the occupied Europe during World War II.

Reich on the false pretence that these citizens, having lived in Iran for over two millennium, had been assimilated in the Persian (Aryan) race. According to the author, the Iranian Government of the time, managed to procure them safe conduct from the authorities of the Third
The status of women is another case in point. Under the Pahlavis Iranian women were brought to the society's mainstream. The mushrooming institutions of higher learning opened their doors to women. Teachers, doctors, lawyers and administrators were trained and fielded in different walks of life, to the very highest levels such as Minister of Education, Member of Parliament and so on.

The right to vote, to seek divorce and be protected from an abusive husband was - to the dismay of the clerics - written into the law - weakening their supersititious and religious hold on the general populace. And creating resentment among them toward the Monarchy.Today, the Iranian women remain one of the vanguards of resistance to scourges of the fundamentalist Mullah rule.

The Bazaar merchants also resented their monopolistic control of imports and exports and general business being extracted from their little bazaar booths, which represented billions of dollars never put back into circulation for the improvement of the economy.

The Shah moved much of this into modern, multinational organizations in uptown Tehran, so the miffed merchants funded the clerics and encouraged them to foment trouble and use religion to attack the monarchy.

Much of the bravura exhibited by the Shah's administration in the seventies, was in the sphere of economy. The exuberance of the double-digit growth was indeed intoxicating. In 1974 - in the wake of a quantum jump in the oil price -- the Shah dismissed the counsel of prudence by experts and decreed an even faster growth. In his complex psyche, many imperatives drove him to go full blast.

One factor was to firm up the throne for Crown Prince Reza but he was equally concerned with his legacy and place in history - should he not disprove those detractors who claimed he did not measure up to the towering figure of his father. Reza Shah the Great, to use his full title, was a stern disciplinarian with a strong will to unify the country and willing to use force to bring Iran's tribal chieftains under Central Government control. A hard act to follow for his diplomat son.

But the economic bullishness did not pay off in the face of the sabotage by the bazaar. The country's weak infrastructure buckled under the weight of imports and the rise in the price of oil resulted in lower consumer demand in world markets.

As the economy wobbled and Carter's human rights agenda aimed like a javelin at the Shah, forced him to make liberalizing gestures, and the tide began to change.

Iranians respect power and strength.The moment he showed a "co-operative" attitude, they turned on him. Egged on by both the funds from the bazaar and the hostile clerics, whose influence had been diminished to almost nothing among a much more modern populace with open ties available to Western life styles and mind sets.

All these were unexpected perks for the disgruntled clerics. The magnetizing effect of the boom had already drawn rural masses to major cities glutting the congregations in mosques. Now the clerics reaped the harvest of fanned discontent, brandishing radical Shiite doctrine both as a challenge and a remedy.

The Shah's "politics of liberalization" had also created its own sliding spiral. To reverse these trends, the Shah should have - but failed - to rally secular political forces to his side.

With the hindsight, it is also fair to say that the rigidity of some of the secular National Front leaders, who could have showed support and not eventually been destroyed themselves by the clerics, was an error of historical scale on their part.

Marxist and libertarian influences also made them into a philosphical, snobbish elite, which could not see the pitfalls of their mindsets relative to increasingly literate but basically uneducated and inexperienced Iranian populace.

To what extent the Shah's judgment had been impaired by the secret diagnosis of lymphatic cancer in 1974 has not been established. Such a link is hard to quantify, all the more so that the Shah had apparently not been told of the exact nature of his illness, until the later years.

Be it as it may, his most serious errors occurred during the ensuing period. It was at this time that the Shah decided on one party rule to prevent the bickering that had ensued in the two party system of Iran Novin and Mardom and to allow very capable men in the minority Mardom party to accept important positions to carry the nation forward. Instead he decreed that the Rastakhiz party would have two "wings" to cover the differing views of the elected parliamenterians.

He replaced the Islamic calendar with an ostentatious imperial calendar in a historical acknowledgement - not of his reign - but that of some 5,000 years of Monarchy in Iran. Anti-Monarchy groups, using any excuse, immediately attacked this as personal grandure.

The Shah had also begun his somewhat fanciful flights on the "Great Civilization." The new royal mindset had the Iranians believe that within a generation or so Iran would rank among the world's industrial elite. Had he been given more time, his investments in key industries in the West, like Krupp steel and internal develoment of essential items like cement plants, nuclear power, etc., could well have made his vision come true. With all the various pieces inside his almost photographic memory he was looking beyond the horizon.

Had a race against the clock already began for the Shah? A wild-west climate of profiteering marked these balmy years. Abusive business practices, including by the Shah's close family and friends, became a hallmark of the laissez-faire policies practiced at overkill scale. Partly because policing or regulating everything in a rapid growth arena with too few people to help him, became too much to handle.

Remember, a country resembles a major corporation and needs competent managers, directors, vice-presidents, senior vice-presidents and staff to run profitably and efficiently. Iran's growth far outstripped the availability of persons who could accept responsiblity with any degree of competence - or sadly - with honesty and not line their own pockets.

The Shah himself could hardly be given a clean bill of health as he brooked corruption in his entourage, yet he was far from the rapacious persona, with a fabulous wealth, which the revolutionary puffery sought to depict. In fact he was a pragmatist. When complaints reached hin that his Minister of Interior had misappropriated some $40 million and should be sacked and thrown in jail, the Shah refused.

He explained that the man had been Minister of Interior for some ten years or so, knew his job well and if he were fired, would spend a few years in prison and then be free to go to Europe and enjoy his plunder.

Instead, the Shah stated, he will be at his desk every morning at six a.m., know that I know everything - and if from nothing else but guilt will do his job for the country better than before.

Which would be preferable to releasing him to go play in Europe with his stolen money, which could probably no longer be found to retrieve it.

During the Embassy hostage crisis, the revolutionary authorities kept no stone unturned to find documentary evidence of financial wrong doings by the Shah. This search was aimed, inter-alia, to substantiate claims in the extradition brief submitted to Panama.

In March 1980, foreign correspondents scrambled for scoops in the jammed conference hall of the Tehran's Central Bank, where President Bani Sadr was to make the Islamic Republic's legal case against the Shah. Scathing revelations were expected.

Yet nothing worth the print could be wired back to editors.The revolutionary authorities had not been able to pin the Shah to any financial irregularity. This was not, however, the case in respect of some of the Shah's close family members.

Interesting to note, however, is that within six months of taking power, the Mullahs had rapaciously transfered funds to private overseas accounts they created for themselves, which exceeded by about ten times the total amount of what the 1,000 elite families of Iran had placed overseas during the last 25-years of the Shah's reign.

Most of the money transfered out of Iran just prior to the revolution was done by trades people. Plumbers, carpenters, construction contractors, builders, electricians etc., who got their money out and quickly left while the Shah was still there.

When the crunch finally came in 1978, the Shah was unprepared and not up to the challenge. He was quick to shed the awe-inspiring mask of the mighty king and meekly looked for advice.

The Anglo & American Ambassadors were solicited most, yet their counsel was tentative and vague, reflecting indecision and discord with their own chancelleries. Others consulted, were an array of retired politicians, social scientists, military leaders and some prominent clerics.

Their advice was too contrasting to allow the Shah to overcome his indecision. In managing the crisis the Shah committed blunders, practicing appeasement from a position of weakness. By the last quarter of 1978, in the face of an astounding quiescence by the Shah, the largely apolitical mass of the urban population, 60% under the age of 25-years and still wet behind the ears politially, swung to insurrectionists' inflammation of them, rendering the trend irreversible.

But to his credit the Shah skirted a bloodbath. Evidence abounds that on this score he had remained steadfast throughout the crisis period. He repeatedly rejected the get-tough advice proffered not only by some of his generals but coming also from some unlikely quarters in the West.

By the year-end the Shah was ready to unclench his hold on power.

Images of his tearful farewell at Mehrabad airport on January 14, 1979 remain haunting memories of a dream turned into a nightmare.

In a grisly act of disappointment, the Shah left behind in detention his loyal and highly refined Prime Minister of 13-years, Amir Abbas Hoveyda. The ex-Premier was summarily executed by the revolution's hanging judge, Mullah Khalkhali, shortly thereafter.

With the Shah's departure, Iran sank into the darkness of the Middle Ages. A reign of terror, of which he had presciently warned the nation, set in. The first public act of Khomeini, when he took over the reins of power in February 1979, was to abolish women's right to sit in as a judge in a court of law.

He initially dissolved the Ministry of Justice, stating that anyone against him was against Allah and should be killed where they stood - with no need for a trial or other justice system.

That presaged the calamities and blood-letting that were to follow.Perhaps no ruler in history like the Shah has benefited from a postmortem redemption, due not to any re-appraisal of his balance sheet but the misdeeds and brutal excesses of those who succeeded him in power. Far above and beyond anything of which he could have been accused even by his most biased opponents.
A case study would support a theory that the value accorded to any given regime should be measured in light of its inevitable successor and the ability of the latter to improve conditions and ills of which they accused the predecessors.

As they ask in American politics, are you better off now? Iranians would certainly say "no".

Year 2565, Shahanshahi,Irani Parsi, (Persian).

His Late Majesty, Shahanshah of Iran.

The benevolent Father of modern Iran

& a patriot betrayed by the free world.

May God Bless His Soul.

The late Shah's hand of friendship was extended to all nations.

With an exception of Libya and Cuba, most leaders of the world

benefited from their association with His Majesty's Government.

But at the time of need, only President Sadat showed courage

and decency but no one else.

Sadat - friend in need, friend indeed.

WHAT’S "DOWN" WITH THE SUN?

2011-06-16T11:17:00.000-07:00

MAJOR DROP IN SOLAR ACTIVITY PREDICTED - ICE AGE INSTEAD OF GLOBAL WARMING?

Read the full article with graphics and conflicting comments at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2735391/posts

CHINA PLANNING SELF-SUSTAINING CHINA OWNED CITIES IN THE USA

2011-06-11T00:22:00.000-07:00

China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho

Thanks to the trillions of dollars that the Chinese have made flooding our shores with cheap products, China is now in a position of tremendous economic power.

So what is China going to do with all of that money?

One thing that they have decided to do is to buy up pieces of the United States and set up "special economic zones" inside our country from which they can continue to extend their economic domination.

One of these "special economic zones" would be just south of Boise, Idaho and the Idaho government is eager to give it to them.

China National Machinery Industry Corporation (Sinomach for short) plans to construct a "technology zone" south of Boise Airport which would ultimately be up to 50 square miles in size. The Chinese Communist Party is the majority owner of Sinomach, so the 10,000 to 30,000 acre "self-sustaining city" that is being planned would essentially belong to the Chinese government.

The planned "self-sustaining city" in Idaho would include manufacturing facilities, warehouses, retail centers and large numbers of homes for Chinese workers. Basically it would be a slice of communist China dropped right into the middle of the United States.

According to the Idaho Statesman, the idea would be to build a self-contained city with all services included. It would be modeled after the "special economic zones" that currently exist in China.

Perhaps the most famous of these "special economic zones" is Shenzhen. Back in the 1970s, Shenzhen was just a very small fishing village. Today it is a sprawling metropolis of over 14 million people.

If the Chinese have their way, we will soon be seeing these "special economic zones" pop up all over the United States.

So exactly who is "Sinomach"?

The following description of the company comes directly from the website of Sinomach....

With approval of the State Council, China National Machinery Industry Corporation (SINOMACH) was established in January 1997. SINO-MACH is a large scale, state-owned enterprise group under the supervision of the State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.

As you can see, Sinomach is basically an arm of the Chinese government.

The borrower is always the servant of the lender, and now China is buying up America.

The reality is that Sinomach is not looking only at Idaho. Sinomach is in discussions to develop "special economic zones" all over the United States. (THANK YOU OBAMA!)

Sinomach has recently dispatched delegations to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania to explore the possibility of establishing "special economic zones" in those states.

Will such "self-contained communities" soon start appearing from coast to coast?

According to Dr. Jerome Corsi, the U.S. government has already set up 257 "foreign trade zones" across America.

These "foreign trade zones" will apparently be given "special U.S. customs treatment" and will be used to promote global free trade.

"The FTZs tend to be located near airports, with easy access into the continental NAFTA and WTO multi-modal transportation systems being created to move free-trade goods cheaply, quickly and efficiently throughout the continent of North America."

So what do our politicians think about all of this?

Most of them are greatly in favor of it.

"Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia," Idaho Lt. Gov. Brad Little said last year. "Asia’s where the money is."

So will all of this "foreign investment" really bring jobs back to the American people?

Alan Note: FTZ's will handle FOREIGN goods, manufactured overseas and imported! Not a way to bring jobs back to the USA.

Perhaps a few, but the truth is that these "special economic zones" that the Chinese are setting up are designed to be self-contained communist Chinese communities. Some Americans will likely be employed in these areas, but not nearly as many as our politicians would have you to believe.

In addition, these "special economic zones" represent a massive national security threat. The communist Chinese could potentially be able to bring in and store massive amounts of military equipment virtually undetected.

In the days of the Cold War, we would have never dreamed of giving the Russians a 50 square mile city in the middle of Idaho.

But today we have become convinced that the communist Chinese want to be our great friends.

The following quote originally appeared in the Idaho Statesman, but has since apparently been taken down....

"The Chinese are looking for a beachhead in the United States," said Idaho Commerce Secretary Don Dietrich. "Idaho is ready to give them one."

Indeed!

If relations between the U.S. and China go south someday, we will deeply regret giving China so many open doors.

The truth is that you can never fully trust the communist Chinese. Their top military officers talk about a coming conflict with the United States all the time. China is extremely interested in North America. In fact, the Chinese and the Mexicans have even been holding talks on military cooperation.

But even if you don't consider the communist Chinese to be a military threat, you should be deeply concerned about the economic implications of what is happening.

Today, tens of millions of Americans are wondering why the economy is so bad.

Well, there are a lot of reasons, but the fact that we have sent China thousands of our factories, millions of our jobs and trillions of dollars of our national wealth is a major contributing factor.

If you do not know the truth about how badly the Chinese economy is wiping the floor with the Americen economy then you need to read this article: "40 Signs The Chinese Economy Is Beating The Living Daylights Out Of The U.S. Economy".

Beautiful new infrastructure is going up all over China today, and meanwhile many of our once great manufacturing cities are turning into rotted-out war zones.

China would not be what they are today if we had insisted that they abandon the communist system and respect basic human rights before we ever opened up trade with them.

But that did not happen. Instead we enthusiastically welcomed China into the WTO and we let the predatory Chinese system run wild.

In 2010, China had a "current account balance" of over 272 billion dollars, which was the largest in the world.

In 2010, the United States had a "current account balance" of negative 561 billion dollars. According to the CIA world factbook, that put us in last place in the entire world. In fact, our negative current account balance was more than 9 times larger than anyone else in the world. If you go check out this chart it will give you a really good idea of how nightmarish our trade situation has become.

The world is changing and nothing is ever going to be the same again.

Just ask the residents of Boise, Idaho - they are about to have a 50 square mile self-contained communist Chinese city plopped right into their backyard.

IRAN RELATED WEEKEND READ

2011-06-04T13:17:00.000-07:00

Iran: The fight at the top heats up
Al-Arabiya - 19 hours ago
For Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that has become the question. Not long ago, Mr. Ahmadinejad was regarded as the most powerful of the five ...
http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2011/06/03/151726.html

Khamenei calls for unity among conservatives
AFP - 4 hours ago
TEHRAN — Iran’s supreme leader called on the ruling conservatives to end their ... Iran has not recognised Israel since the 1979 Islamic revolution and ...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jb_oc5ZUbLJ2exXLgkCF22rtc3xQ%3FdocId%3DCNG.4110b3e99956903bdf5fbd9d268ff9c0.4d1

Why sanctions against Iran won’t work
Salon - 42 minutes ago
To the surprise of few, new Iran sanctions legislation was recently introduced in the House and Senate, shortly before this year’s AIPAC ...
http://www.salon.com/news/iran/%3Fstory%3D/politics/war_room/2011/06/04/iran_sanctions - 5 related articles

Russia Favors Curbs on Iran Sanctions
Global Security Newswire - 23 hours ago
Governments should propose dialing back economic penalties against Iran in an effort to address a long-running dispute over the Middle Eastern nation’s ...
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110603_5467.php

Increasing Pressure On Iran
Voice of America - 1 day ago
The United States has imposed sanctions on seven foreign companies for activities in support of Iran’s energy sector, and on sixteen companies and ...
http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Increasing-Pressure-On-Iran-123043993.html

OPEC to Consider Oil Output Increase
Wall Street Journal - 34 minutes ago
Key OPEC officials said the group is likely to raise its oil-output ceiling, but open criticism from Iran sets the stage ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576365411157281014.html

Iran to continue crude supply despite payment issues: MRPL
Business Standard - 1 day ago
“We are the largest crude importers from Iran. Last year, we had taken close to 7.5 million tonnes and this year also we would be taking a similar range. ...
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/iran-to-continue-crude-supply-despite-payment-issues-mrpl/137421/on

Venezuela-Iran ties go beyond the oil issue
El Universal - 22 hours ago
And, they underscored, “Venezuela will sell oil whomever it feels right to,” including Iran, also a Member State of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting ...
http://english.eluniversal.com/2011/06/03/venezuela-iran-ties-go-beyond-the-oil-issue.shtml

Iran says foreign forces cause of Afghanistan instability
Xinhua - 1 day ago
Speaking at a meeting with the United Nations envoy to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, in Tehran on Wednesday, Fathollahi said, “Iran has always supported ...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-06/02/c_13908116.htm

Analysis: Saudi rulers aid allies against Iran, Arab revolts
Reuters - 2 days ago
Saudi Arabia shares US fears that Iran wants nuclear arms and has struggled to adjust to rising Iranian regional influence since the 2003 US-led invasion of ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/02/us-saudi-mideast-idUSTRE7512LP20110602

Syrian protesters turn on Iran and Hezbollah
FRANCE 24 - 6 hours ago
Videos of recent protests in Syria show demonstrators chanting slogans against Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, ...
http://observers.france24.com/content/20110603-angry-syrian-protesters-turn-iran-hezbollah

Khameini: Iran backs Arab uprisings unless pro-US
Jerusalem Post - 5 hours ago
By REUTERS TEHRAN - Iran backs all Muslim uprisings except those stirred up by Washington, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday, ...
http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx%3Fid%3D223563

Iranian Dissidents Outraged at Death of Female Activist, While ...
Fox News - 12 hours ago
Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said, “The shameful actions of government thugs in this incident reveal a deep contempt ...
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/06/03/iranian-dissidents-outraged-at-death-female-activist-while-others-faces-charges/

Evidence grows Iran aiding Syria’s Assad
UPI.com - 2 days ago
CAIRO, June 2 (UPI) — Evidence is growing that Iran is helping the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad, Tehran’s key Arab ally, to suppress a ...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/06/02/Evidence-grows-Iran-aiding-Syrias-Assad/UPI-72061307024479/

Assad Rampage in Syria
Pajamas Media - 12 hours ago
Demonstrators burned flags of Iran and China. The Obama administration continues to do little or nothing. 1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is ...
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/03/assad-rampage-in-syria/

Iran defence minister forced to leave Bolivia over 1994 Argentina ...
Telegraph.co.uk - 3 days ago
Iran’s defence minister was forced to leave Bolivia during a diplomatic trip after Argentina demanded his arrest in connection with the deadly 1994 bombing ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/bolivia/8550445/Iran-defence-minister-forced-to-leave-Bolivia-over-1994-Argentina-bombing.html

15 MORE KILLED IN SYRIA

2011-06-02T22:18:00.000-07:00

Syria: Attack on Central Town of Rastan Kills 15

June 2, 2011

Syrian government troops have heavily bombarded Rastan, near Homs, in the centre of the country, killing at least 15 people, activists say.

More than 50 people have been killed in Rastan since a military operation there started at the weekend, reports say.

The offensive comes despite an amnesty offer by President Bashar al-Assad's government and the release of hundreds of detainees.

The initiatives have been dismissed by Syrian opposition groups.

The opposition groups, which are meeting in Antalya in neighbouring Turkey, say the Syrian government's concessions have come too late, correspondents say.

The groups are working on what they hope will be a roadmap for peaceful transition.
The Local Co-ordinating Committee, which helps to organise and document the country's protests, gave the names of the people it said were killed in Rastan in the latest artillery and tank bombardments.

The committee said the offensive had hit at least two mosques and a bakery, as well as houses that collapsed, killing entire families.

Eyewitnesses told BBC Arabic that army and security forces are not able to take control the town, even though it has been surrounded by tanks over the past few days.
Detainees released.

Following the announcement on Tuesday of a conditional amnesty, hundreds of detainees have been released.

More seem to be on the way, although it is not clear if the authorities intend to free all the 10,000 or more people they are believed to have detained in the past 10 weeks and the thousands already in jail before that, says the BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut.

The authorities have announced the formation of a high-level commission to oversee a proposed national dialogue aimed at stabilising the situation.

More than 1,000 people have been killed in Syria since an uprising against President Assad began in March, activists say.

Reports from Syria are hard to verify independently, as foreign journalists are not allowed into the country.

VENICE MOSQUES

2011-05-22T16:39:00.000-07:00

NO Mosques In Venice
The Italian government did not allow any mosques to be built in Venice , and ...

Because there are no mosques in Venice , the Government has allowed the Italian Muslims to pray in the streets as they do in France

So far only 543 have drowned.

RAPES IN IRANIAN PRISONS BECOME LUCRATIVE BUSINESS FOR JAILERS

2011-05-14T13:34:00.000-07:00

By Amy Kellogg

As Iranian students call for demonstrations on Sunday as a sign of solidarity with jailed student leader Majid Tavakoli, the blogosphere is buzzing over another imprisoned figure who has written an incendiary letter exposing the sordid details of sexual assaults against political prisoners and others.

Journalist Mehdi Mahmoudian, serving a five-year prison sentence in Rejaie Shahr prison, wrote a September 2010 letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The letter has just been published on Kaleme, a website close to Mir Hossein Mousavi, the man who challenged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the last elections.

Mahmoudian, a member of the Society for the Defense of Prisoners’ Rights, which advocates “democratic interpretations of Islam,” says it is his religious duty to alert Khamenei’s attention to the abuses taking place in prison. Most shockingly, he writes in great detail about men being raped in the prison.

“Throughout the different quarters of Rajaei Shahr prison, sodomy has become a commonplace routine occurrence. And it seems that to lessen the dangers of contamination, prison guards provide health products to inmates.”

Mahmoudian does not use the word condoms, but that is the implication when he discusses “health products.” His letter goes on to say “anyone with a little beauty of the face, but who lacks physical strength in his arms or money in his account to pay extortionists, will be paraded in different rooms, and each quarter has a boss who will make money from this, and after a while can sell him to another.”

According to the account of one political prisoner, a young man was raped seven times during a single night. “In the morning, when he complained about this to the guards, he was transferred to solitary.” Mahmoudian claims prison guards effectively use inmates as “rent boys,” selling them off for as much as $250.

“I don’t know what will become of me once this letter is published,” Mahmoudian also wrote.

He has since been transferred to solitary confinement, his mother, Fatemeh Alvandi, told BBC Persian. She says also that he is being denied visitors, and his father was turned away from jail on Thursday after waiting hours to see his son.

Alvandi sent an open letter herself to the website Rah Sabz, or the Green Way, addressed to the heads of the judiciary and security services. In it, she says that because of the way they have treated this “illiterate old woman” and her son, she understands that “you (the judiciary and security services) believe in nothing. Not God, not religion nor the Prophet, and all you do is try to fool the people and save your own rule.”

Hadi Ghaemi, director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, tells Fox News that he understands sexual assault takes place in Iranian jails. “We know rape was used as a form of punishment against post-election protestors on a wide scale, and within prisons today, rape appears to be common, encouraged by prison guards as a way to punish targeted prisoners.”

Even cleric Mehdi Karroubi, former speaker of the Iranian parliament and another participant in the 2009 elections, has written about the sexual assault of young men in prisons. He says the assaults leave the men demoralized, with “physical and psychological problems, and unable to even leave their homes.” He also says reports of such abuses have been revealed to him by people in “sensitive positions.”

Rejaie Shahr prison was once notoriously known as a holding pen for hardened criminals and drug users. Today it's home to prisoners of conscience, such as Mahmoudian and Ahmad Zeidabadi.

Fox News met Zeidabadi in 2005. Zeidabadi is known by Iranians as the “honor of the pen” and came across as a warm and humble man, and patient though somewhat nervous. He was willing to be interviewed by an American journalist because he already had his run-ins with Iranian authorities.

A religious man, Zeidabadi has always advocated democracy in his country. But his insistence on referring to the supreme leader simply as "Mr. Khamenei” as opposed to a divine supreme leader got him into trouble. Zeidabadi was awarded the UNESCO Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize in 2011 for his reporting.

Zeidabadi was sentenced to six years imprisonment, after which he is to be exiled for five years to the desert town of Gonabad. The most unusual and unprecedented aspect of his sentence is a “lifetime ban from political and social life.”

Courtesy Fox News

BULLYING O'DONNEL SWATTED DOWN LIKE A MOSQUITO

2011-05-07T20:40:00.000-07:00

This arrogant apologist and protagonist for Obama, throwing his journalistic ethics down the drain, shouted down and ordered Orly Taitz off his show because he has his own strong opinions and would not even listen to anything else.

He tried to conduct his anti-Bush, pro-Obozo interview with Condoleeza Rice in the same fashion BUT got cut down to size by her far broader knowledge of facts and her refusal to allow him to over-shadow the interview with his own biased opinion rather than allow broadcast of her complete replies.

WATCH FOR YOURSELVES!

YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE VIDEO ON THE BLACK BACKGROUND BUT THE "START" ARROW IS VISIBLE SO CLICK ON THAT TO VIEW VIDEO

IRAN POWER STRUGGLE

2011-04-28T23:44:00.000-07:00

The power struggle between Supreme Ruler Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad reached a high point today when the President threatened to resign and Khamenei told him to go right ahead! So apparently Ahmadi-Nejad has stopped going to his office.

What is interesting behind the scenes is that Ahmadi-Nejad's representatives met SECRETLY WITH OBAMA DELEGATES IN THE PERSIAN GULF to try to depose the Supreme Ruler.

Already furious at this, the Supreme Ruler clamped down on Ahmadi-Nejad's efforts, last week, to remove the Minister of Intelligence and take over that Intelligence and Security operation in favor of the IRGC (Revolutionary Guard Corps) which met with Khamenei's resistance and nearly 100 officers and guards of the IRGC were arrested for planning a coup. And the Minister "fired" by the President was told to go back to work.

Here are some headings of events:

According to Amir-Hossein Sabeti, Raja News columnist, Ahmadinejad has three preconditions for returning to the presidential office: Appointing Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei as first vice president, dismissal of Said Jalili as Supreme National Security Council secretary, and dismissal of Hojjat al-Eslam Heydar Moslehi as intelligence minister.

According to Aftab News, Ali Larijani, parliamentary speaker, and Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani, Assembly of Experts head, have had a meeting with Ahmadinejad during the past couple of days.

Twelve parliamentarians call for impeachment of Ahmadinejad.

In an interview with Rooz Online, Hojjat al-Eslam Jafar Shojouni says "the destiny of [Abol-Hassan] Bani-Sadr is awaiting Ahmadinejad
Shojouni refutes having given an interview to "the counter revolutionary daily."

Rooz Online releases the audio tapes of the interview with Shojouni.

Sobh-e Sadeq criticizes Ahmadinejad's attempt to dismiss the intelligence minister "in the midst of a regional crisis."

The Student Basij distributes a CD-Rom containing Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei's thoughts on the school of Iran

100 parliamentarians sign a letter warning Ahmadinejad and reminding him that he has made a pledge to "serve the people and stand by the Supreme Leader of the revolution."

10 cabinet ministers met with Ahmadinejad Wednesday night.

According to Serat News, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei and Hamid Baqaei had a separate "secret meeting" Wednesday night.

Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani's Office dismisses rumors on the ayatollah's meeting with Ahmadinejad.

Ayatollah Alam al-Hoda: "Even if the entire country has voted for a public official, he would be illegitimate if the Supreme Leader does not approve of him." (Khamenei touted as teh 800 pound gorilla in charge)

Hojjat al-Eslam Ali Saidi, the Supreme Leader's Representative to the Revolutionary Guards, (split among the Guards) says Ahmadinejad can only preserve his popularity "by obeying the Supreme Leader." He adds: "Failing to obey the orders of the Guardian Jurist amounts to not obeying the commands of God and the Imam of the Era."

The various Guards units have splintered into groups with the three main ones being those who refuse to hurt Green Movement demonstrators, those who will follow the Supreme ruler and are ruthless against demonstrators and an ambivalent set of splinters who are devout followers of Ahmadi-Nejad (a former IRGC commander himself) but prefer to follow less violent and more "secular" activity.

Hopefully the power struggles will weaken all of them but they are already turning to their buddy Obama to help call the shots. And not to bother their Syrian allies where 10,000 of the IRGC have moved and are suppressing the populace in the same brutal fashion they used in 2009 in Iran and continually since then.

SEE BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN

2011-04-25T21:33:00.000-07:00

CLICK ON TITLE ABOVE TO VIEW SITE

An Israeli site to balance visitors' access to both sides of the coin. We may not agree but we deserve to see both sides. Funny way of putting it? Not really if you are a thinking person who wants to reach conclusions based on knowledge and differing viewpoints of facts, then this set of articles (which I have not fully read, nor about which I have formed an opinion or side) is simply an opportunity others may not give us. Even to just disagree.

This gesture was partly brought on by a meeting I had recently about a major illegal activity where a "source" tried to indict and involve American Jews in the illegal actions. And there was not even a remote basis for the accusations. Just his ingrained anti-Semitic agenda based on his personal faith. Yes, a fervent Moslem but NOT an active jihadist and generally a good enough guy and not out to destroy America.

But sadly carrying around a hang-up, the anti-Jewish/Israeli hang-up that is shared by Oba-Hussein's Oval Office, who along with his pro-Jihad, Islamic Moslem Brotherhood bosom buddies is far more dangerous to Jews. Amazing how American Jews have been and are so blind to the Sword of Damocles about to descend on their heads as Obama throws them under the bus like most of the other supporters he has had.

"Where's your Jew baggage"

RAPID RECHARGE

2011-04-21T19:10:00.000-07:00

Batteries that Recharge in Seconds

A new process could let your laptop and cell phone recharge a hundred times faster than they do now.

By Katherine Bourzac

A new way of making battery electrodes based on nanostructured metal foams has been used to make a lithium-ion battery that can be 90 percent charged in two minutes. If the method can be commercialized, it could lead to laptops that charge in a few minutes or cell phones that charge in 30 seconds.

The methods used to make the ultrafast-charging electrodes are compatible with a range of battery chemistries; the researchers have also used them to make nickel-metal-hydride batteries, the kind commonly used in hybrid and electric vehicles.

How fast a battery can charge up and then release that power is primarily limited by the movement of electrons and ions into and out of the cathode, the electrode that is negative during recharging. Researchers have been trying to use nanostructured materials to improve the process, but there's usually a trade-off between total energy storage capacity (which determines how long a battery can run before needing a recharge) and charge rates. "People solved half the problem," says Paul Braun, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Braun's group has made highly porous metal foams coated with a large amount of active battery materials. The metal provides high electrical conductivity, and even though it's porous, the structure holds enough active material to store a sufficient amount of energy. The pores allow for ions to move about unimpeded.

The first step in making the cathodes is to create a slurry of polymer spheres on the surface of a conductive substrate. Because of their shape and surface charge, the spheres self-assemble into a regular pattern. The Illinois researchers then use a common technique called electroplating to fill the space between the spheres with nickel. Next, they dissolve the polymer spheres, and most of the metal, to leave a nickel sponge that's about 90 percent open space. Finally, they grow the active material on top of the sponge.

"It's some distance to a product, but we have pretty good lab demos" with nickel-metal-hydride and lithium-ion batteries, says Braun. The Illinois group has made lithium-ion batteries that charge almost entirely in about two minutes. The method should be applicable to the cell sizes needed for laptops and electric cars, though the researchers have not made them yet.

"The performance they got is unprecedented," says Andreas Stein, a professor of chemistry at the University of Minnesota. Stein pioneered the polymer-particle templating method that Braun's group used. Braun's work is described in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

Jeff Dahn, professor of physics at Dalhousie University, is skeptical that these electrodes will ever end up in products. "When you look at the flow chart for making this structure, it's pretty complicated, and that is going to be expensive," he says.

Braun acknowledges: "There are lots of people coming up with elegant [electrode] structures, but manufacturing them is tricky." He says, however, that his fabrication process combines existing methods that are currently widely used to make other products, if not to make batteries, and that it shouldn't be too difficult to adapt them. The process would add extra steps to making a battery, but these steps aren't particularly expensive or complex, Braun says.

Braun's group will next test the electrode structure with a wider range of battery chemistries and work on improving batteries' other half, the anode—a trickier project.

"TAGHIYAH" (lying) VERSION OF "TRANSPARENCY" AT WHITE HOUSE

2011-04-19T12:45:00.000-07:00

Transparency inquiry can't even get asked
Obama spokesman: 'I'm not going to take your questions'

(Alan Note: Remember the Openess Award awarded recently to Obama was finally done in private with the Press banned!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by WorldNetDaily

Jay Carney

The "transparency" in the Obama administration means sometimes a question can't even be asked.

The discovery came today at the daily White House news briefing with press secretary Jay Carney, who responded to a request to be allowed to ask about the president's positions: "I'm not going to take your questions."

Ironically, Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House and the No. 2 reporter on the White House beat, had wanted to ask about Obama's openness.

"In the Washington Post, the president of the Society of Professional Journalists wrote of the Obama administration, 'Reporters' questions often go unanswered. When replies are given they frequently are more scripted than meaningful. What is the White House response to this?" was what Kinsolving had wanted to ask.

He hoped to follow up with, "This Washington Post column also quoted AP's report that 'the Obama administration even censored 194 pages of internal emails about its open government directive.' Is the AP wrong in reporting this?"

But Carney, who had gone down the first two rows of the press gallery today allowing questions, skipped over Kinsolving when his turn arrived. And later when Kinsolving interrupted to ask to be allowed some questions, Carney refused.

It was in a commentary in the Post that the issue had been raised.

Written by Charles Ornstein, a senior reporter at ProPublica, and Hagit Limor, an investigative reporter at WCPO-TV in Cincinnati and president of the Society of Professional Journalists, the editorial cited Obama's promise for "openness.'

"We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration," he wrote in one of his first memos to federal agencies. "Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government."

But they wrote that they have found "little openness" from Obama.

"If anything, the administration has gone in the opposite direction."

They cited several examples, including a government ban on reporters seeking outside comment when the Food and Drug Administration announced changes to one of its processes. Also, they noted the Associated Press said in more than one-third of requests for public records, the administration refused to provide any information at all.

"Reporters' questions often go unanswered. When replies are given, they frequently are more scripted than meaningful. Public employees generally are required to obtain permission to share their expertise, and when interviews are allowed, a media 'handler' is listening in to keep control over what is said. And when replies come via e-mail, it's unclear who has written them," they wrote.

Read more: Transparency inquiry can't even get asked
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=288793#ixzz1JzfJFYyF

LIVING PROOF AMERICA IS AN AGING DEMENTED NATION? ELECTED OBAMA?

2011-04-18T23:06:00.000-07:00

There's still no foolproof way to predict who will develop dementia, but brain scientists say they have identified a new clue:

Cluelessness, as in an inability to tell when people are lying or using sarcasm.

A preliminary new study conducted at the University of California at San Francisco suggests that the neurodegenerative process responsible for dementia also causes deterioration of regions of the brain responsible for detecting insincere speech.

"These patients cannot detect lies," study author Dr. Katherine Rankin, of the university's Memory and Aging Center, said in a written statement. "This fact can help them be diagnosed earlier."

It might also help them hold on to their money, researchers say, as the blind faith resulting from dementia can make older people easy marks for online scams and dishonest telemarketers.

For the study, 175 older volunteers - more than half of whom had Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease), or some other neurodegenerative disease - watched videos of two people talking. At some points in the videos, one of the people would tell a lie or use sarcasm.

Healthy volunteers had little trouble spotting yerbal and non-verbal cues that indicated insincerity. Not so the volunteers with neurodegenerative disease.

And clueless may not be the only early sign of dementia, researchers say. Adopting a new political affiliation or religion late in life - changes sometimes attributed to a midlife crisis - may actually be the result of brain deterioration that might lead to dementia.

What's the study's take-away message? Older people should simply assume that everyone they talk to is lying.

Just kidding.

SYRIA CRUSHING REVOLT BUT CRUMBLING - DESPITE OBAMA PROTECTION

2011-04-13T17:23:00.000-07:00

Alan Note: with a marked steadiness, Obama is supporting the Islamic Mullah regime in Iran - against the oppressed populace, who have died in multiple thousands during and since 2009 demonstrations in the streets but because of the regime's support of the Obama Administration financially and with manpower, it has been given "immunity' from any of the actions he used to destabilize several other countries in the last few months. Syria still has some of the same immunity, partly because they are an Iranian partner in terror .

Also, Iran (despite being Shia instead of the larger Sunni sect) is already a ruthless Moslem regime and from Obama's point of view, does not need to be destabilized to allow radical Islam - through the Moslem Brotherhood or Al Qaeda - to take over the otherwise American allied governments he threw under the bus. To facilitate the coming Caliphate, which will be hard to avoid with Obama in charge.

Remember, Islamic Iran has been at the top of the State Department list of Terrorism enabling nations since the list came into being.

==================

Syrian revolt spreads to ruling Alawite tribes. Cities sealed. Executions in army

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report April 13, 2011

Clashes in southern Syrian city of Daraa.The popular uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad is still spreading.

Tuesday, April 12, one of the Assad family's own Alawite tribes and the key Sunni city of Aleppo joined the movement demanding the president and his kin's removal. Assad fought back against the expanding threat to his survival by mobilizing all his military and security resources, including the loyal young thugs of the shabbiha gangs. They have orders to shoot to kill and not permit ambulances to collect the wounded. Tanks seal the most restive towns of Teraa, Bania,s Latakia and Hama.

Alawite unrest centers on the impoverished Knaan tribe centered in the village of Bhamra in the mountains of northern Syria. A second immediate danger to the regime comes from Aleppo, Syria's commercial hub, where for the first time more than 10,000 protesters marched. The Druze mountain inhabitants are up in arms. So too are the Kurdish towns of the north such as Kamishli and the Shammar tribes of southeastern Syria around the border town of Abu Kamal.

Damascus University has been under siege for four days, although security forces have not been able to breach it.

A grave humanitarian crisis is spreading with the unrest. Army outposts and roadblocks have cut off main roads linking the north to southern and central Syria, as well as telephone and internet services and even food deliveries in many places. Mass arrests of thousands take place nightly including, according to debkafile's sources, members of the Syrian ruling establishment for the crime of appealing to Assad to abandon his violent methods of repression and meet some of the protesters demands for reforms. Some are journalists who support the regime but who wrote articles to this effect. They were not published.

For the first time, sources report that the protesters began returning the fire against security forces on Monday, April 11, in a number of places, especially Deraa in the south and Banias in the north. A well-laid ambush was laid on the main coastal road linking Latakia and Banias and nine Syrian officers and troops killed.

Middle East and intelligence sources report a three-way shooting war currently in progress in Syria, in which the army and security forces, the protesters, and the shabbiha gangs are taking part. The and bloody mayhem is such that the number of casualties is almost impossible to assess.

The troops open fire at protesters as soon as a few people gather in the street without waiting for a demonstration to form. The wounded are denied medical care and allowed to die in the streets as a deterrent to protesters. Tuesday night, the White House finally issued a harsh denunciation of the Syrian "government."

The statement read: "We are deeply concerned by reports that Syrians who have been wounded by their government are being denied access to medical care. The escalating repression by the Syrian government is outrageous, and the United States strongly condemns the continued efforts to suppress peaceful protesters. President Assad and the Syrian government must respect the universal rights of the Syrian people, who are rightly demanding the basic freedoms that they have been denied."

Sources in Washington say that the language used in this statement from the Obama administration continues to skirt the protesters' most pressing demand for the Syrian president to step down, because of the still unresolved internal debate on how to handle Assad.

Despite the mounting brutality of the Syrian ruler's methods to crush the revolt against his regime, some White House circles in Washington are warning that Assad's fall would open the door for radical Muslim elements to take over, even suggesting that this would put Israel in "mortal danger."

(Alan note: MORE so than in Libya, Egypt or Tunisia? The State Dept. is finally anxiously warning of Libya and other unrests/uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa resulting in a situation similar the 1979 overthrow of the late-Shah by Ayatollah Khomeini with the steady support of Jimmy Carter, the Soviet Union and the MEK Mojaheddin).

This argument was never heard in Washington when Hosni Mubarak was toppled in Egypt.

And it by no means relates to the Assad regime's eight-year long record as primary accomplice and abettor of radical Muslim organizations such as Al Qaeda, the Lebanese (Iranian enabled, funded and armed) Hizballah and Palestinian Hamas.

Starting from the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Damascus gave sanctuary and launching-pads for Muslim groups to strike American forces fighting in Iraq, including training camps and logistical aid for smuggling weapons and explosives for that purpose. Syria also facilitates the passage of arms and other support to the Hizballah radicals. And built a nuclear site which was bombed by Israel. A second, North Korean technnology site has since been discovered.

The extreme measures to which Assad has resorted as the revolt against him enters its fourth week have led to firefights within the army. Many cases are now reported of Syrian officers opening fire on other Syrian officers, killing them when they refuse to shoot protesters.

There have been incidents of Shabbiha gangs shooting two ways – on demonstrators and at times on army forces. In one such incident in Ras al-Naba'a, a quarter of Banias – the irregulars appeared to be goading the soldiers into using more force to disperse the protesters. In others, these pro-Assad street gangs appear to be shooting from demonstrations to make it look as though the protesters were killing the soldiers.

Contrary to the image the Assads have always presented that "the Alawites (minority) are the ruling class in Syria," it is worth pointing out that they in fact rule Damascus, while the rest of those minority tribes, which number 1.4 million (8 percent of the 26 million population) live in abject poverty with no electricity or running water in their villages and no ties to the Assads.

The paradox is that though lacking influence in the capital, their revolt against the regime could be the last straw for Asad.

These villages are now rising up for fear of being stigmatized, however unjustly, by the Sunni majority of collaboration with the Assads and targeted for revenge. In any case, they are so penurious and neglected that they have little to lose by the regime's fall.

The Shabbiha: This well-armed, roughly organized group derives most of its 9-11,000 members from Assad clans within the Alawite community and its allies. Their fighting skills were imparted by the Lebanese Hizballah or Iranian Revolutionary Guards instructors, but their loyalty to the Assad family is undivided. As smugglers, their strongholds are mostly along the coastal region, some of whose communities rely on the Shabbiha for their livelihood.

(Alan note: Syria is also part of the corridor of arms, missiles and potentially nuclear technology being sent by Iran into Venezuela and into South America).

Emphasis by AntiMullah

SITUATION UPDATE FROM WORLD TRIBUNE - IRAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARD (IRGC) OCCUPIES SYRIA

WASHINGTON — Iran has deployed 10,000 elite troops in Syria to protect the regime of President Bashar Assad and has been in effective control of the country for the past week, the opposition said.

U.S. intelligence sources said the IRGC is known to have maintained its presence in Syria since 2008.

The Reform Party of Syria (RPS) said Iran has deployed its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria to bolster Syria's defense. The Washington-based opposition group said the IRGC contingent in Syria includes 10,000 troops, with headquarters in the northern province of Homs.

"In essence, the IRGC now occupies Syria and has become its de facto ruler," RPS spokesman Farid Ghadry said. "Syria has become the 32nd province of Iran."

On April 10, at least five people were killed in clashes between security forces and protesters throughout Syria. All except one of the victims were identified as civilians.

RPS, regarded as authoritative, said IRGC was playing a leading role in regime security as well as Syrian defense, Middle East Newsline reported. The opposition said IRGC personnel included experts in missiles, nuclear development, security and training.

At first, IRGC monitored the anti-Assad protests. But since April 4, RPS said, IRGC has been directing all security operations through its command and control center in Homs, including monitoring the Assad family.

"All of Assad's high echelon security generals now report directly to the IRGC as of April 4, 2011," RPS said. "All the generals in Assad's army and security apparatuses, with emphasis on the Alawite generals, including Maher Assad, are being closely monitored by the IRGC for fear of a military coup."

Maher, Assad's younger brother, was said to be playing a leading role in quelling the uprising in Syria. RPS said IRGC, in an operation by Hisham Bikhtiar, was monitoring telephones and tracking the vehicles of senior government officials.

IRGC was said to have played a key role in security operations in the southern city of Dera. IRGC said senior officers directed Syrian security forces to employ live fire in which nearly 30 civilians were killed in Dera on April 8-9.

"It targeted the city of Dera because the IRGC deemed that breaking the people's will in Dera will demoralize the other cities," RPS said on April 9.

IRAN: FROM ESCATOLOGY TO 21ST CENTURY FOREIGN POLICY

2011-04-07T20:28:00.000-07:00

Escatology = religious interest in the final history of the world - or "end times"

by Clare Lopez

http://lopez.pundicity.com/9357/iran-eschatology-foreign-policy

The United States faces no greater foreign policy challenge than managing the threat from the jihadist regime in Tehran while also standing unequivocally with the Iranian people in their struggle for liberty. Indeed, a succession of U.S. administrations has been wrestling with that challenge for over 31 years. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not easily compared to other nations or even other totalitarian dictatorships: after Arabia, Iran is the second state in the modern era to be captured by violence and ruled by the forces of Islamic jihad. The threat to U.S. national security and international stability derives from the primary mission of this regime, enshrined in its 1989 constitution: the establishment of an Islamic state worldwide and subjugation of all people on earth to Sharia, or Islamic law.

When Iran's constitutional mandate is coupled with a theological belief system that holds the Shi'ite messianic figure, the Twelfth Imam (or Mahdi), can be prompted to return to earth through the instigation of Armageddon, then 21st century U.S. foreign policy must reckon with 7th century eschatology in quest of the bomb. Whether or not the Supreme Leader and the clerical clique that supports him seek "martyrdom" on a national scale, Iran's aggressive militarization and international power projection via its terror proxies present U.S. foreign policymakers with a set of challenges that must top the list in terms of immediacy and import.

Nuclear Weapons Ambitions

The Ayatollah Khomeini founded the Iranian revolution in 1979 on a deep-seated hostility to modernization and secularization in an increasingly Westernized world. But it was his near-disastrous military face-off with neighboring Iraq that prompted the order to acquire nuclear weapons. Pursued in secrecy for years before the Iranian opposition's August 2002 revelations stunned the world, Iran's quest for the bomb was jump-started by substantial assistance from Pakistan's AQ Khan in addition to help from China, North Korea, and Russia. After years of defying UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) demands that Iran honor the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and come clean about the entirety and purpose of its nuclear program, today Iran appears closer than ever to achieving a deliverable warhead capability. The threat of Iranian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation, perhaps to terrorist associates such as al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, represents an additional concern while other regional nuclear programs may well emerge under regimes that fear Iranian hegemony and perceive a diminution of the U.S. leadership role in the world.

Nuclear weapons enable this regime's key objectives: regime survival as an Islamic jihadist state; regional hegemony in the Middle East and maximization of broader geo-strategic influence; destruction of the State of Israel; and global domination of Islam and Sharia law. Grasping the primacy of these goals, it becomes easier to understand why years of U.S., European, and international negotiations with this regime have come to naught in achieving a voluntary slowing or halt to Iran's nuclear enrichment activities. Neither have stringent economic sanctions accomplished much beyond imposing additional hardships on the Iranian people. Only a covert campaign aimed at Iranian nuclear scientists, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), and intelligence agency defections, and the introduction of sabotaged components into the Iranian nuclear supply chain, reportedly have achieved some involuntary setbacks to the program.

Despite such successes that at best will buy some time, continued U.S. failure to comprehend the eschatological and existential nature of Iran's nuclear weapons quest leaves it ill-prepared to meet this regime's hostile intent. Only credible threats to the existence of that regime are likely to have any effect on its determination to carry on. And only regime change in favor of a democratic opposition pledged to eschew WMD of all kinds can eliminate for good the possibility of nukes in the hands of the mullahs.

Alliances in the Axis of Terror

Iran's chummy relations with regimes hostile to U.S. and Western interests add complexity to dealings with Tehran. Iranian dependence on proliferation assistance for its chemical, biological, nuclear weapons, and missile programs from countries like China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia has been problematic for many years. The ineffective international inspection and enforcement mechanisms that allowed nuclear proliferation to culminate in a nuclear weapons capability for Pakistan looks likely to end the same way for Iran. U.S., UN, and other efforts to impose sanctions, pass resolutions, and issue toothless condemnations are mostly disregarded with contempt by the Tehran regime.

Tehran's closest ally and partner in WMD development and sponsorship of terror is Syria. Iran is the dominant partner in the relationship, but both gain from an alliance that meets strategic needs of each. Iran receives logistical access to its terror proxy, Hezbollah, penetration for its revolution deep into the Arab world, and a frontline position from which to confront Israel. Syria receives a powerful ally that helps it dominate Lebanon (historically considered a Syrian province) and relieves Syria's isolation as a secular dynasty ruled by the Alawite minority Muslim sect, considered heretical by many Muslims. Given these mutual benefits, U.S. and Israeli fantasies about separating Syria from its Iranian orbit must be seen as the pipedreams they are.

The Iranian ballistic missile program owes much to its North Korean partnership. Tehran and Pyongyang often act as a tag team to demand or distract international attention, but their antics cannot minimize the underlying deadly intent to perfect a nuclear delivery system. Although the Iranians are not known to have achieved yet the difficult task of miniaturizing its warheads to fit ballistic missile nosecones, joint development of this technology with North Korea clearly appears headed in that direction. The threat from Iran's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) eventually will reach the U.S. homeland unless steps are taken to forestall that possibility.

Closer to home, the Iranian beachhead in Venezuela raises echoes of the 1960s Cuban missile crisis for strategists observing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's romance with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Since 2001, the two have signed dozens of defense, economic, and political agreements to cement a relationship that provides Iran with intelligence and military outposts in America's backyard. Chavez assists Iran on myriad fronts, from evading UN sanctions to mining for uranium; Ahmadinejad reciprocates with an influx of military and intelligence operatives who train Venezuelan forces at covert Iranian facilities around the country. The relationship involves Hezbollah as well, as 2010 photos of Venezuelan officials meeting with Hezbollah officials in Lebanon demonstrate. Iran also has been courting other Latin countries, including Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.

Military Influence

Tehran's aggressive drive for expanded geo-strategic influence in the Persian Gulf, broader Middle East, and southwest Asia, harnessed to its determination to seize leadership of the international jihad, alarms neighboring Sunni regimes that also fear erosion of the traditional American defense commitment. Iran's IRGC, Qods Force, Bassij, and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are Tehran's lead organizations for domestic control at home and jihadist terror projection abroad. Each of these demands attention by U.S. policymakers to understand its mission and capabilities, and to formulate effective countermeasures that check Iran's international agenda.

The IRGC was established by Khomeini in the early months of the 1979 revolution to augment the regular army's defense of Iran's borders and ensure the obliteration of Khomeini's domestic rivals. Later, its primary function became keeping the regime in power, especially after the widespread street demonstrations that followed the June 2009 presidential elections. Afterward, regime fears about survivability led to large infusions of resources to the IRGC to boost its ability to suppress internal regime opposition.

The Qods Force's stature and capabilities also have expanded in recent years. The operational terror arm of the Iranian regime, the Qods Force is responsible for liaison with Iran's terror affiliates, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Taliban. Both the IRGC and Qods Force (in addition to the MOIS) maintain an undercover presence in Iranian diplomatic facilities worldwide, from which joint al-Qaeda-Hezbollah-Iran operations are launched. Together, they project Iran's writ in Lebanon, which the UN Special Tribunal on Lebanon looks unlikely to weaken, even with indictments expected to name Qods Force commander, Qassem Suleimani, for his role in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. IRGC and Qods Force operatives run training camps where Hezbollah explosives experts pass on their deadly skills; they also provide funding, training, and weapons to terrorist militias in Iraq and Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

The Qods Force handles Iranian relations with organized crime and narco-traffickers, including Afghan drug lords. Investigative reporting from Africa and the Americas indicates an expanding presence of these terrorist elements in these areas as well.

Meanwhile, in the MOIS (Ministry of Intelligence and Security - VEVAK in Persian) , the Iranian regime fields a world-class, well-funded intelligence service that is directly commanded by the Iranian Supreme Leader. Numbering some 30,000 personnel, the MOIS is highly sophisticated as well as brutal and ruthless. Its number one mission is to defend the regime against all threats, domestic or foreign.

Together with the IRGC and Qods Force, the MOIS shares responsibility for infiltration and suppression of regime opposition by any and all means and liaison with terror organizations worldwide. U.S. national security leadership should not have too much trouble recognizing its tactics and tradecraft, as the MOIS was trained by the Soviet KGB.

The MOIS has developed an extensive network of individuals, groups, think tanks, and others that the Iranian media have openly referred to as "the Iran Lobby in America." The principal objective of this lobby is to infiltrate top U.S.-Iran policymakers and persuade them to take a conciliatory approach to the Iranian regime, oppose coercive diplomacy, stringent sanctions, and any sort of military action, and to urge instead a policy of concessions and negotiations. It is concerning that some of the individuals affiliated with the "Iran Lobby" should have found their way into influential government posts as well as positions of trust from which to advise and brief U.S. Iran policymakers.

Indeed, U.S. civilian, intelligence, policy, and military leadership have yet to either comprehend or counter the deadly activities of these regime actors.

A Terrorist Regime's Terror Ties

There is no clearer evidence of the Iranian regime's commitment to jihadist violence than the words of its own constitution, calling for the "continuation of that revolution both inside and outside the country." Regime preference to accomplish that relies on terrorist proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah as well as operational alliances with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other jihadist groups.

Thanks to Iranian funding and training, Hezbollah in 2011 stands on the brink of dominating Lebanon both militarily and politically. Its effective overthrow of the Lebanese government in January 2011, coupled with assumptions of impunity for its role in the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, places the sovereignty of a free Lebanon in jeopardy and poses an important test for U.S. policymakers. Iran both aids and uses Hezbollah's rise to power in Lebanon as part of its own overall strategy to position itself as a rising regional power and rival to U.S. predominance.

U.S. leaders face a crucial choice: support the brave Lebanese who fought and died for the Cedar Revolution or see Tehran take a front-line position against the State of Israel—which it threatens regularly with genocide—as well as a foothold on the southern shores of the Mediterranean.

Hezbollah not only has developed into one of the most tightly disciplined, superbly trained, and fanatically dedicated fighting forces in the world, but it also has grown into a global terrorist network with a presence in Africa, Europe, and the Americas. That presence directly threatens U.S. national security imperatives, not least because of Hezbollah's history of acting as the Iranian regime's cat's paw for a litany of bloody terror attacks, but also because of its expanding relationships with Mexican and South American drug cartels.

Iran also provides significant material support to Hamas, its Muslim Brotherhood terror proxy in Gaza. That support includes financial infusions, terror training conducted by the IRGC/Qods Force and Hezbollah, and the provision of thousands of rockets and missiles that Hamas launches across the border into Israel. Dismissive of any genuine attempts at nation-building, Hamas under Iranian tutelage instead implements Islamic law and assails Gazan Palestinians with an incessant barrage of media messages conveying Jew-hatred and glorification of suicide killings.

Effective defense of U.S. national security priorities in the Middle East as well as the homeland requires understanding that the Iranian regime has worked for years in close coordination not only with Hezbollah and Hamas, but also with Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and al-Qaeda to mount terrorist operations against U.S., Israeli, and Western interests around the world. This jihadist alliance began when Osama bin Laden contracted with Iran for explosives and other training from Hezbollah's global terror chieftain, Imad Mughniyah, in the early 1990s. Iran later hired out Hezbollah to Hamas, the Iraqi terror militias, and the Taliban.

Major terror attacks from the Khobar Towers bombing to the East Africa Embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, September 11, and attacks against U.S. and Coalition partners in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, are the result of this tri-partite arrangement.

Iran and these jihadist organizations are unified in their enmity to the U.S., Israel, and all Western-style civilization. U.S. policymakers must prioritize the urgency of studying their motivation to wage doctrinally-commanded jihad against non-Muslim targets for the purpose of imposing Sharia worldwide. Unequivocal denunciation of Iranian-sponsored terrorism and refusal to legitimize terrorist policies even when supported by a radicalized electorate must be the cornerstones of American leadership.

Tehran's 21st Century Threat

The history of the Khomeinist regime in Iran has been written in blood: first and foremost, the blood of its own people, but also in every place the regime's emissaries—the IRGC, Qods Force, MOIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others—have extended their reach. The U.S. holds a leadership role in the free world; people everywhere yearning for liberty look to the U.S. for moral inspiration and a superpower's protection against tyranny. Tehran's naked ambition for geo-strategic hegemony, inexorable march to a nuclear weapons capability, embrace of terror as a policy tool, and horrific record of human rights abuses at home define a regime that is deeply and inherently destabilizing to the international system.

U.S. policy decisions about how to deal with this Iranian regime will be among the most crucial American leadership must make in the coming months. Underestimating the hostile intent of Iran's agenda or failing to recognize the compelling strength of the Islamic jihadist ideology that binds them and their terror allies together in enmity to free societies under rule of man-made law will lead to increasing global destabilization. U.S. leadership must grapple with the reality that this Iranian regime is a serious adversary that poses a grave threat to the democratic way of life everywhere.

Absent a strong, credible U.S. response, Tehran will interpret American resolve as lacking and react accordingly—advancing its hegemony over neighbors, threatening Israel, and holding U.S. policy hostage to terror and nuclear blackmail. Should Washington falter before this challenge, not only would it fail the American and Iranian people alike, but it would betray the United States' essential commitment to defend liberty wherever it is threatened by tyranny.

OBAMA'S POLICY COMES FROM TERRORISTS AND THEIR ENABLERS

2011-04-03T15:01:00.000-07:00

Another stunner behind Obama's Libya doctrine - You won't believe who helped devise policy used by president

By Aaron Klein

Hanan Ashrawi

TEL AVIV – A staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late PLO leader Yasser Arafat served on the committee that invented the military doctrine used by President Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

As WND first reported, billionaire philanthropist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world's leading organization pushing the military doctrine. Several of the doctrine's main founders sit on multiple boards with Soros.

The doctrine and its founders, as WND reported, have been deeply tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya. Power is the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Now it has emerged that Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect.

That commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "Responsibility to Protect," while defining its guidelines.

Ashrawi is an infamous defender of Palestinian terrorism. Her father, Daoud Mikhail, was a co-founder of the PLO with Arafat. The PLO was engaged in scores of international terrorist acts and was declared a terrorist group by the U.S. in 1987.

During the First Palestinian Intifada, or war of "resistance" against Israel, in 1988, Ashrawi joined what was known as the Intifada Political Committee, which sought to advance Palestinian goals through both politics and "resistance." She served there until 1993.

In 1991, Arafat appointed Ashrawi to serve as the PLO's Minister of Higher Education and Research. The Palestinian school system is notorious for its glorification of "martyrdom," or suicide bombings, and has long preached against the existence of Israel.

"Discover the Networks" notes Ashrawi has long defended the Hamas terror group as a legitimate component of the Palestinian "political spectrum."

She has stated she does not "think of Hamas as a terrorist group."

"We coordinate [with Hamas] politically," she said in April 1993, "the people we know and talk to are not terrorists."

In 1998 Ashrawi founded MIFTAH, a nonprofit that seeks to undermine Israel's legitimacy and refers to that Jewish state's 1948 creation as "Al Nakba," or "The Catastrophe."

Ashrawi has long been a Holocaust denier. In the July 2, 1998, edition of the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, she published an article calling the Holocaust "a deceitful myth, which the Jews have … exploited to get sympathy."

In 2001 Ashrawi became a spokeswoman for the Arab League.

Notably, Amre Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, served as an adviser to the same 2001 commission that invented the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

Ashrawi, meanwhile, was a protégé and later colleague and close friend of late Columbia University Professor Edward Said, another notorious apologist for Palestinian terrorism.

Said was replaced by Rashid Khalidi, a close personal friend to Obama.

Soros funded doctrine

With Ashrawi on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

In his address to the nation on Monday, Obama specifically cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Indeed, the Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of "Responsibility to Protect."

"Responsibility to Protect," or "Responsibility to Act" as cited by Obama is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has also been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world's leading champion of the military doctrine.

Two of global group's advisory board members, Ramesh Thakur and Gareth Evans, are the original founders of the "Responsibility" doctrine, with the duo even coining the term "Responsibility to Protect."

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."

Obama cited doctrine multiple times

Aside from his direct citation of the "Responsibility" doctrine in his address explaining why the U.S. is acting against Libya, Obama alluded to the doctrine four more times in his speech.

The following are relevant excerpts from his address, with references to U.S. "responsibility" in bold:

In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies – nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey – all of whom have fought by our side for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibility to defend the Libyan people.

Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians.

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and – more profoundly – our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.

Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

Alan Note: Coming to America when other countries, mandated by the UN and the Arab League, invade us for not becoming Moslems and failing to allow Sharia law to govern us?!

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict," he concluded.

More Soros ties

Responsibility founders Evans and Thakur served as co-chair, with Gregorian on the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term "Responsibility to Protect."

In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to "sovereignty as responsibility."

Evans presented "Responsibility to Protect" at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative.

Thakur is a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by Soros.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a "crisis management organization" for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian (pro-Iran) opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease "excessive" military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros' own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

'One World Order'

WND also reported that doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

"Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote in a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

Power pushes doctrine

Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power. (Being viewed to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State!!)

Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the "Responsibility to Protect" principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.

Then last November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of "Responsibility to Protect" alongside Evans.

With research by Chris Elliott
Read more: Another stunner behind Obama's Libya doctrine http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=281065#ixzz1IUwgigQG

LIBYA SHOWS HOW GOOFY INTERVENTION HAS BECOME

2011-03-27T21:30:00.000-07:00

By Don Feder

What’s even more absurd and futile than going to war to spread democracy and advance human rights? Intervention to stop regimes from “killing their own people.”

This is the sole rationale offered for Obama’s Libya excursion (Operation Odyssey Dawn even sounds like a Carnival Cruise ship) – to keep a tyrant from killing his own people.

British Prime Minister David Cameron declares: “Colonel Gaddafi has made this happen. We can not allow the slaughter of civilians to continue.”

While criticizing the way the mission was undertaken (and telling the president he “must do a better job of communicating to the American people”), House Speaker John Boehner – de facto chairman of the Obama Reelection Campaign – nevertheless insists: “It’s unacceptable and outrageous for Gaddafi to attack his own people, and the violence must stop.” From this beastly behavior, you will desist at once!

On March 19, Barack Obama said he had authorized a limited military action “to protect Libyan civilians.”

In the four decades Col. Gaddafi has been in power, how many of his “own people” do you think he’s murdered? In the past, we bombed him exactly once, not for killing his people but for killing our people – after the 1986 Berlin nightclub bombing, where two U.S. servicemen died.

The killing-his-own-people standard is applied with excruciating selectivity. The odds that we’ll keep a particular people from being butchered by a particular tyrant are comparable to winning the grand prize in a multi-state lottery.

• In 2009, Ahmadinejad was killing demonstrators in the streets of Tehran. As many as 150 died. Unlike the Libyan regime, nuclear-armed Iran really does pose a clear and present danger. Far from authorizing air strikes, it took our president weeks to work up the courage to condemn the slaughter.

• Over the course of three months in 1994, 800,000 Rwandans died in a tribal bloodbath. Other than offering humanitarian support – and singing “Toot, Toot Tutsi Goodbye!” – the West did nothing.

• On the night of June 3-4, 1989, the People’s Liberation Army liberated from their earthly existence 3,000 pro-democracy protestors in Tiananmen Square. Over the past decade, the regime has tortured to death an additional 3,400 of its own people who were members of the Falun Gong meditation cult. The PRC is our second largest trading partner and President Hu Jintao is an honored guest at the White House.

• During the 1990s, Kim Jong-Il, the evil madman who holds North Korea hostage, killed between 900,000 and 3.5 million of his own people in a state-sponsored famine. Instead of Tomahawk missiles up the keester, Kim got bribes to keep him from developing and/or proliferating nuclear weapons.

And still the administration, its media lackeys, and European amnesiacs offer the moral imperative of protecting Libyan civilians as the casus belli for the second most senseless humanitarian intervention this nation has undertaken.

The first came under another leftwing Democratic president. In 1999, then-President William Hefner Clinton dove into bed with the Islamists of the Kosovo Liberation Army. (Maybe he missed Monica.) In the 78 days we shocked and awed Yugoslavia, 3,000 civilians died.

We were there, Clinton informed us, to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims by Serbian Christians. When NATO turned Kosovo over to the KLA, none of the alleged mass graves were found. The ethnic cleansing came later, when victorious Albanians drove 277,000 Serbs from their homes, two-thirds of the province’s pre-war population.

In December 2010, a report by the Council of Europe charged Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim (the Snake) Thaci with harvesting the organs of Serb prisoners murdered for that purpose.

Aren’t humanitarian interventions fun?

Which brings us to the first intervention the community organizer can truly call his own. Operation Charlie Sheen is run by Barrack, Hillary, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and their joint chiefs of staff – Larry, Moe and Curly.

According to a story in the March 22 Washington Times, “observers” believe it will be hard to reach an agreement among coalition partners “given the divergence of opinion” about what they want to happen. (Gaddafi goes. Gaddafi stays but stops killing his own people. Gaddafi becomes a contestant on Dancing With the Stars.) Our French coalition partners are confused. They don't know who to surrender to.

Obama got us into this mess armed with a resolution of the U.N. Security Council (10-0 vote, with China and Russia abstaining) and an “Allah-be-praised” from the Arab League, whose members are willing to sit back and see the infidels bloody the tyrant for the sake of the jihadists.

I didn’t know Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League the power to declare war. That must mean the European Union has the authority to levy taxes, the power to confirm judicial appointments is vested in the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Grand Duchy of Fenwick enforces U.S. immigration law.

In some ways, Libya isn’t as bad as the Egyptian intervention, in others, much worse. (We didn’t bomb the Egyptian Army because then-President Hosni Mubarak was killing his own people.)

Mubarak was definitely our bastard.

Caroline Glick writes in a March 21 column in The Jerusalem Post: “Under Mubarak, Egypt advanced U.S. interests in two main ways. First by waging war against the Muslim Brotherhood and opposing the rise of Iranian power in the region, Mubarak weakened regional forces that most threatened U.S. interests. Second, by managing the Suez Canal in conformance with international maritime law, Egypt facilitated the smooth transport of petroleum products to global markets and prevented Iran from operating in the Mediterranean Sea.”

Thanks to our Special-Olympics intervention, the Muslim Brotherhood is now the most powerful political force in the nation, as the March 19 referendum on constitutional amendments demonstrated.

Egypt’s newly appointed foreign minister has called for opening the nation’s border with Hamas-infested Gaza, to facilitate the flow of arms. And Egypt’s ruling coalition is allowing Iranian ships – carrying weapons to Hamas – to traverse the Suez Canal without being inspected. Where do you think Palestinian terrorists (a redundancy, I know) got the long-range Iranian Grad-type rockets they recently fired into Be’er Sheva?

Isn’t intervention fun?

Unlike Mubarak, you can’t say the Colonel is our bastard. (Reagan called him a “mad dog.”) But for the past 15 years or so, he’s been a remarkably well-behaved bastard. After 9/11, he saw which way the wind was blowing over the sand dunes, gave up his WMD programs, renounced terrorism, paid billions in reparations to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and acted as a bulwark against al-Qaeda in his region (out of self-interest to be sure).

On the other side of the Libyan civil war, the rebels are supported by al-Qaeda. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center notes that most of the Libyans fighting our forces in Iraq come from rebel strongholds.

As of Tuesday, we had fired 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Gaddafi’s military installations, each costing $1.16 million. It will cost an estimated $400 million to $800 million just to establish the no-fly zone, and as much as $100 million a week to maintain it.

This is small change compared to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan – denominated in dollars and blood.

March 20 marked the 8th anniversary of our long march into the Iraq morass. The net result: 4,500 dead Americans, 67,500 dead Iraqis and 50,000 troops still stationed in the country. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of Operation Enduring Bankruptcy, projected through 2017 (the target date of our withdrawal), at $2.4 trillion – somewhere around 17% of the current National Debt.

We deep-sixed Saddam, killed a lot of terrorists and gave Iraq the semblance of democracy – which will last until the last U.S. soldier departs. The loveable Iraqis reciprocated by killing and terrorizing the nation’s Christian population.

Going into Iraq was probably the right thing to do. (I’m having doubts about that too.) Staying for 8 years seems a folly comparable to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.

But why run just one war when you can do two simultaneously? Afghanistan has cost over 1,550 American lives and $101 billion so far. Obama increased our troop strength to 100,000. Last year, terrorist attacks increased 64% and 2,777 civilians died.

If Iraq is Mission Impossible, Afghanistan has become Mission The-Road-to-Hell-is-Paved-With-Good-Intensions. In the 19th century it was a British graveyard. In the 1970s and 80s, it was Moscow’s mausoleum.

Its denizens are the raw material for democracy the way Mel Gibson is in line for a brotherhood award.

The Roman Empire bled to death on hundreds of foreign battlefields. (Its politicians helped at home, with taxes and inflation. Sound familiar?) Is there a Latin term for mission creep?

Obama’s Libyan adventure will be worth the cost if it sparks an authentic, no-holds-barred, everything-on-the-table debate about military interventions.

Humanitarian intervention (stop-him-from-killing-his-own-people), intervention to spread democracy and uphold human rights (as Bush ’43 so cluelessly put it in his second inaugural address, “The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in our world”) make as much sense as Obama’s Shiite health care program.

There is one, and only one, reason to use the U.S. military overseas. It’s called Operation You-Better-Be-Damn-Sure-Our-National-Interests-Are-At-Stake.

Operation Odyssey Dawn will go down in history as one of the high points in a presidency that has brought us unemployment hovering around 10%, a 21.4% increase in federal spending, the only three trillion-plus budget deficits, the federal abandonment of traditional marriage, race-based justice and suing Arizona for trying to keep out criminal aliens.

Will Barack Obama do more damage domestically or with his defense/foreign policy? It will be close – very close.
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com

OBAMA WAGES WAR ON MIDDLE CLASS

2011-03-24T23:01:00.000-07:00

Obama's War on the Middle Class

By Jeffrey Folks

Whenever he is in campaign mode, President Obama goes to great lengths to remind voters that he is "struggling to defend the middle class." As he did in January 2010, Obama speaks of the middle class as "under assault" (by whom he does not specify). In his Labor Day radio address of 2010, he spoke of his "commitment to the middle class." As evidence of this commitment, Obama established a "Middle Class Task Force" early in his presidency chaired by Vice-President Biden. With Biden in charge, why worry?

It should be obvious that Obama and the left wing of the Democratic Party are not struggling to defend the middle class. Most of the time they are struggling to disenfranchise it by ignoring the basic rights of human liberty and of property that are guaranteed under our Constitution.

The 18% real rate of unemployment during Obama's first two years in office has not done much for the middle class. At the same time, there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass. ObamaCare, financial services reform, mortgage reform, education reform, tax reform: in all of these areas, the administration's efforts have been to create and expand services for the poor at the expense of the middle class.

Whether it is the free health care promised to tens of millions of new Medicaid recipients or mortgage principle reductions ("cramdowns") promoted at every turn by his Justice Department, Obama acts like a political general in the class war -- the war of the government services-dependent poor and unionized public sector against the middle class. Among the first acts of his administration were the expansion "making work pay" and child credit benefits: welfare of the sort that had been trimmed by the GOP Congresses of the 1990s.

Whether it is benefits for the underclass or more power for public sector unions, Obama is intent on cementing power based on the loyal support of the underclass and unionized labor. But to complete the task, he must deceive the middle classes for a bit longer by appearing to move to the center. The independent middle class voter, the very class of citizen that is most endangered by his presidency, is key to his reelection. In order to win reelection, he convince them he is safe.

But nothing Obama has done has benefited the middle class. That much should be clear just from what is happening with consumers' pocketbooks.

The recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report on consumer prices is a telling indication of the effects of Obama's policies on the middle class. During the past 12 months, gas prices are up nearly 20%. While global markets largely determine oil prices, Obama's assault on drilling and his weak-dollar policy have not helped things. Had the President pursued a pro-drilling policy and defended the dollar, gas prices would have been substantially lower. Even at this late date, if the administration were to signal support for expanded drilling, world energy markets would respond by lowering the price of oil, thus lowering the price the middle class pays at the pump.

Gas prices hit the middle class disproportionately hard. Bill Gates spends an infinitesimal portion of his earnings on energy bills, and the urban underclass pay little. But the middle class, most of whom commute some distance to work, are shelling out a great deal more each month. The same for food prices, which are up substantially above the "core rate" of inflation. The underclass benefit from increased food stamp subsidies; Gates has probably never shopped. It is the middle class that bears all the burdens under Obama.

The passage of ObamaCare was supposed to lower the cost of health care for practically all Americans. This, in fact, was one of the main rationales for its adoption. Again and again, Obama promised that his health care reform bill would lower the cost of health care -- by $100 billion (he likes big round numbers, for some reason), by $200 billion, by $500 billion over the next ten years.

But since ObamaCare was passed, health care costs for the middle class are way up. Over the past 12 months the cost of private medical insurance, where it can be purchased at all, is up by as much as 59%. Hospital costs are up 6%, nearly three times the rate of core inflation. The cost of the most widely prescribed drugs has increased well above the rate of inflation, driven up by the prospect of future government regulation. None of this has helped the middle class. It is, in fact, part and parcel of a calculated transfer of wealth from the middle class to the underclass.

It's not just energy and health care. Other prices that are influenced by government policy have gone up disproportionately to those in the less regulated market. Educational expenses are up 4%, twice the rate of core inflation. Again, it is the middle class that has been hit. College tuition, private school tuition, and child care -- these costs impact the middle class, not the Warren Buffets of the world, and not the underclass who receive full "need based" scholarships, magnet school preferences, and subsidized child care.

It does not help that, as announced Monday, sales of previously owned homes fell in February to their worst level in nine years. Middle-class homeowners who are now under water on their loans will have to wait a bit longer to break even. Boomers eyeing a place in the sun are going to have a hard time selling their current home before moving.

As Obama understands all too well, one of the hallmarks of all socialist countries is the absence of an independent middle class. From the Bolshevik experiment in Russia to socialist Venezuela today, it is necessary for communist leaders to eliminate that class of citizens who are not dependent on government for their welfare.

Political theorists from Aristotle to Locke understood that a truly independent and prosperous middle class was essential to the collective well-being of any society. The middle class has always, in every society, been characterized by qualities of social restraint and economic realism -- a shrewd and skeptical conservatism that serves to restrain the grandiose plans of utopian revolutionaries and embittered reactionaries alike.

Throughout its history American society in particular has been the beneficiary of an aspiring middle class whose efforts have created the world's greatest democracy. It is an ominous sign that the political left, with the loyal support of more than a third of our population, is intent on its destruction.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on American culture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRUE HISTORY OF OBA-HUSSEIN'S (mythical) PALESTINIAN BUDDIES

2011-03-15T17:37:00.000-07:00

Back in early days of AntiMullah in 2006, we wrote and posted an in-depth article on the Palestinians.

I am not Jewish so had no personal axe to grind and just wanted to bring out the truth - whatever it was.

This is now in the old Archives, which Google apparently strips of formatting to reduce storage space.

Makes reading it a bit more difficult as it is now one long paragraph but all the information, still all valid, is there.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2006/08/u-p-d-t-e-d-palestinians-pure.html

For those interested in the progression of certain Middle East /Iran matters from pre-site 2004/05 posts transfered over and for most of 2006 before it became too burdensome to continue the special section, now click on the Archives link below to have a look at some interesting background articles:

http://view-archive-contents.blogspot.com/

=================

The Fogel family murders and Palestinian rejoicing photos

HISTORY OF MOHAMMAD & ISLAM

2011-03-10T19:55:00.000-08:00

FULL ARTICLE: LONG & DETAILED

http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm

Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".

A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....

Muhammad led 27 military campaigns against innocent villages and caravans & planned 38 others

“I am the prophet that laughs when killing my enemies.” (Hadith)

We apologize to anyone who may be offended by the history of the founder of Islam (Muhammad) below. And we are aware of the sensitivities involved. However, infinitely more damage has been done to Islam's "believers" by Islam's history of withholding the truth about its founder to them -- - and the circumstances surrounding its inception -- than any "damage" this true history below can cause.

REAL ID ACT

2011-03-05T01:21:00.000-08:00

By Tom DeWeese

How the U.S. Government Forged a Surveillance Society

On September 12, 2001, President George W. Bush invited members of Congress and the media for a meeting in the cabinet room of the White House. The mood was understandably anxious, somber: The World Trade Center lay in rubble, the Pentagon had a hole gouged into it and shock and awe had settled over the United States. One of the most extraordinary periods of American history � what would come to be known as the "Post 9-11 Era" � was beginning.

The president gravely laid out the situation and the steps his administration would take to secure the homeland, but during the course of the meeting he also made this significant declaration: "We will not allow this enemy to win the war by changing our way of life or restricting our freedoms."

Those were heroic words of principle and patriotism in a traumatic time, but history would show that government's reaction to the terrorist threat was the exact opposite than the protection of freedoms. Instead, government rushed in with a massive plan to create a surveillance society, intending to watch and document every action by the American people as a means of ultimate security.

First, Congress passed the Patriot Act, giving law enforcement powers to circumvent many Constitutional guarantees to personal privacy and home security. Then Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department immediately became an army of more than 170,000 employees by combining twenty two existing federal agencies, including the

Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Secret Service, FEMA, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Customs Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection, Federal Protective Service, FBI's Computer Incident Response Center and several more lesser agencies of the same type. In the middle of this rush for security, Congress created the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). Also born in this Post 9/11 era were state fusion centers with the intention of combining federal, state and local law enforcement agencies into instant response teams, intending to eliminate bureaucratic overlap and red tape, in case of another terrorist attack or Hurricane Katrina-type disasters.

Finally, Congress passed the REAL ID Act, promoted as an attempt to standardize the process and format for creation of all state drivers' licenses to achieve increased security. Proponents argued that, under REAL ID, we will know that anyone carrying a drivers' license is legal in this country and therefore not a threat.

What most Americans do not know is that the blue print for REAL ID did not originate in the United States, but in the backrooms of a United Nations organization called the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). That organization is tasked with the goal of creating a once-size fits all international identification system using massive data banks that contain individual biometric information on nearly everyone in the world. Biometrics is defined as measurement of the body. One might correctly think of fingerprinting, iris scans and facial recognition as biometrics.

In compliance to this goal, REAL ID mandates a certain picture quality for all drivers' licenses. Those photos are to comply with the ICAO's Document 9303 biometric format. Your photo taken by a local DMV is run through special software which measures and analyzes the unique identifiable characteristics of your face. The process results in a unique numeric code which identifies a person according to facial measurements. In other words, under REAL ID, using the adopted standard of the ICAO, your face is reduced to a number code, a number which is read by a computer and be tracked by surveillance cameras worldwide.

Why would the United States agree to implement such a system? What happened to the promise that we would not let the terrorists change our way of life? How did the United States move from a free society, bent on preserving our freedoms in a dangerous terrorist-driven world to one of total surveillance over the actions of every citizen? What was the unseen hand that led to such decisions?

The international focus on drivers' licenses through REAL ID came as a result of plans for international biometric passports. Passports, of course, are a control device of travelers both coming and going through US borders. Discussion regarding the use of E-Passports started soon after 9/11. It was not until the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 that our federal government put in place the framework for the issuance of E-Passports. E-Passports utilize both biometric technology and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology.

Focusing on passports, however, was about to create an international problem for the US government that would force it to accelerate and expand its surveillance plans, leading to a global surveillance system beyond what most in Congress intended.

Using the excuse that the US government wanted to learn as much about Al- Qaeda as possible, the US began to dictate to foreign governments that they also needed to implement E-Passports. Without them, said the US, their citizens would not be able to enter the US. In addition, the US wanted those nations to provide all information they had on Al-Qaeda members.

Meanwhile, the United Nations set up a committee named simply "Al-Qaeda". Again, the stated goal was for all nations to cooperate in an Al-Qaeda clearing house of information. Each government was to provide the names of the members of Al-Qaeda that the respective governments were aware of.

What became obvious to many in our government was, if we expected information about citizens of other countries our government was also going to have to "ante up" and provide information about our citizens to the other nations. This is when things started to get out of control. Global information sharing was seen as a necessity. All "chips" were on the table. For the system to work the personal and sensitive information, including the biometrics of all citizens in all countries, had to be made available to intelligence and law enforcement people around the world.

Other nations resented the United States telling them that they must supply information about their citizens if the US wasn't willing to do the same. The US was forced to comply with its own dictates. And so the drive was on for the creation

of an international surveillance system. REAL ID, while not recommended by the 9/11 Commission, became the center piece for the drive to document each and every American and placed their biometric records in international data bases.

The Real ID Act of 2005 was signed into law in May, 2005. The rulemaking process took roughly 2 1⁄2 years to be completed. During that 2 1⁄2 years over six hundred groups and organizations came out against the law for a variety of reasons. These groups covered a broad political spectrum from the far right to the far left. Religious organizations representing all major religions spoke out against the Real ID Act.

Among the reasons for such overwhelming opposition is that Real ID is an unfunded federal mandate; the federal government intervening in the issuance of state driver's licenses; the unfettered power Real ID provides the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; a variety of privacy concerns; First Amendment religious concerns of which many were by Christian evangelical ministries; the state driver's license would become a de facto national identification card; and the requirement that each driver's license applicant would provide biometric samples.

In order for a state to be in compliance with the law, each state has 18 "benchmarks" they must complete or satisfy the Department of Homeland Security that the state is working towards completing the individual benchmarks. Opposition has been strong as 25 states, either as a result of law or resolution, opposed the Real ID Act. Because of the opposition, the Real ID Act implementation date has been postponed twice. However, proponents are determined to force implementation anyway and DHS demands that states comply by May, 2011.

If enforced, Americans will find what the saying "under government's thumb" really means. Biometric documents will be required for nearly every action Americans take. A digital/electronic footprint will be the only way to access bank accounts; accessing transportation (at any level); purchase of goods and services; obtaining employment; and so forth. Every one of these actions will be stored in databanks and transferred to international databanks for storage.

Along with REAL ID, more legislation is pending in Congress to create even more control, all sold as just another way to keep us secure. One piece calls for a "National Worker's Identification Card" and Senator Lieberman wants a new biometric social security card. If these proposals are passed into law and Real ID or anything else similar is in place it will be "game over". Employers and retailers will have to have biometric readers and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) scanners.

In addition, American law enforcement is being changed and with it, America's unique justice system is being changed too. Once law enforcements mission was to catch criminals after a crime was committed. And even those captured were protected as"innocent until proven guilty." That Constitutionally-protected rights made American justice unlike any other in the world. It has been one of the cornerstones of American freedom and security over freedoms and the less-certain future they offer.

We must remember that the stated goal for the total surveillance system has been that the world would be as one, carrying the same documents to assure everyone is equal, everyone is known, and everyone is legitimate. Under the system, say the proponents, security can be guaranteed.

So now the surveillance system is nearly fully in place. What are the results? Are we safer? The fact is, with all of the biometric data bases being established, RFID chips, Closed Circuit TVs, Automatic License Plate Readers, National Security Letters, State Fusion Centers, the Patriot Act, and the establishment of the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, we are not any safer than we were on the day before 9/11.

Why? First, while the government increases surveillance over every individual in he name of protection from terrorists, our borders remain wide open. Anyone wanting to do harm to the United States is able to simply walk into the country and be aided by an entire network providing shelter, money, weapons, and access to American programs for money, schools and jobs. They can illegally purchase counterfeit birth certificates and social security cards and obtain state drivers' licenses in any state. Only three states have the ability to authenticates birth certificates.

Programs like E-Verify, sold as a way to guarantee that only legal residents get jobs, actually aid those entering illegally. It makes the Social Security Number the most valuable commodity in the nation � a valuable prize. That makes it profitable for underground criminal networks to obtain and produce them. Terrorists networks have the means and the money to lead that effort. In addition, a study commissioned by DHS and performed by Westat reported that E-Verify is wrong more than it is right when dealing with a person in our country illegally is vetted out. In these situations E-Verify is wrong 54% of the time and right only 46% of the time.

And there is one more fact that renders the entire surveillance effort worthless in the fight against terrorism. Back to those E-Passports and the US demand for other nations to comply. The whole

Under REAL ID and the growing surveillance society, however, law enforcements mission is emerging to be one of "crime prevention" before it occurs. The only way such a policy could work is for government to be able to observe our every action, including monitoring phone calls, opening mail, monitor our financial transactions, monitor who we associate with and monitor our travel. The government has programs to achieve each and every one of these things. DHS and National Security Agency (NSA) have both engaged in domestic spying. The Defense Department had a program called "Total Information Awareness" (TIA) that was designed to combine and access all of the video cameras now in place in nearly every store, shopping mall and parking lot to monitor every move we make. Now on the back burner, TIA could be reactivated at any time. All that is missing is the final requirement that all Americans must carry in their pockets the document tying them into the system � the REAL ID drivers' license.

Once fully implemented, REAL ID means a "one-size fits all" policy, leading to the end of Constitutionally- protected First and Fourth Amendment rights. Proponents believe "safety" trumps "freedom" and any cost. With full implementation of REAL ID, government will finally have the laws, technologies and the ability governments throughout history have always sought to exercise total control over the people. Yet many Americans still refuse to be alarmed, seeking safety program depends on honest, reliable governments producing honest, reliable, secure documents on their own citizens. They don't.

Many Moslem countries in the Middle East consider the US to be their enemy.Pakistan's government, for one, while pretending to be our ally, is full of government workers who are either friends or members of Al- Qaeda. They have helped hide Al-Qaeda leaders since the inception of the war on terrorism. It is a known fact by US intelligence agents. Any effort made by the US to coordinate strategy with such governments fails because plans are immediately shared with the enemy by such government workers. The internal politics of these countries put the governments in an untenable position. If the leaders of these countries are perceived to be working with U.S. intelligence officials there is blowback against them for working with the "Infidels" of the United States. As a result, information from these nations, to this day, is at best questionable and unreliable.

To rely on such countries to provide honest documentation for citizens by way of passports or other identification is pure folly. It is easy for government employees to provide Al- Qaeda operatives all the "legitimate" documentation they need to travel freely inside the surveillance bubble that has been established to supposedly catch them.

Any honest observer or government leader dealing with the situation on a daily basis has to know the truth � that REAL ID and its fellow programs are not about protecting us in the war on terror. So what is the real purpose? What are we really doing?

The fact is Real ID is designed to enroll every citizen into a single global system of identification and financial control. Doubt that � then consider these words of Robert Mocny speaking for DHS when he said, "information sharing is appropriate around the world," and DHS plans to create a "Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations."

Meanwhile, Julian Ashborn speaking as the Chairman of the International Biometric Agency said, "What information do governments share? With whom is my data shared and why?" All of these questions need to be addressed by an agency with global powers"

These officials are telling openly telling us what they plan � global governance. Americans are just not listening. The truth is we are not safe. And such a system will never make us safe. But what we have done in the name of safety is to create an international surveillance system that destroys the unique American system of liberty and justice, "harmonizing" us into the same totalitarian system that controls so much of the rest of the world.

It can be stopped now- before it is fully implemented.

But once REAL ID is enforced in every state through compliant drivers' licenses, it will be too late. Every American who cherishes their Constitutionally- guaranteed rights have until May of this year to demand that their state governments stand strong and continue to oppose compliance with this international straight jacket. Our protests postponed it for several years. We must do it again.

Call now or understand that, once in place, there will be no way for this generation to pass freedom to the next. REAL ID is that great a threat.

Distributed by www.worldviewweekend.com

ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PLAGUE OBA-HUSSEIN HAS DROPPED ON THE WORLD

2011-02-25T12:00:00.000-08:00

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM JUST A COUPLE - OF A MULTITUDE - OF AVAILABLE, SIMILAR VIDEOS IN THE ARTICLE BELOW THIS, AND DETAILS HERE, OBA-HUSSEIN'S INABILITY TO SEE BEYOND HIS NARCISSISTIC CORRUPT NOSE TIP, HIS SUPPORT FOR HIS MARXIST-ISLAMIST IDEOLOGIES, HAS PLUNGED THE WORLD INTO A LIFE THREATENING AND ALTERING MODE AT THE HANDS OF HIS BUDDIES - FERVENT ISLAMISTS.

CBS international reporter Lara Logan is a well known public figure. And CBS and other media have accepted that she was brutally assaulted. However, Youtube and some Arab Websites are offering some further claimed shocking details not reported by the U.S. media and even some video about the extreme brutality of the attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan .

Reportedly, some videos did show a crowd of about 200 or more men surround and separate Lara Logan from her security, and the crowd shouted 'Jew, Jew!', and 'American bitch!'. Lara Logan is not Jewish or American, she’s a South African native.

Reportedly some of physical and sexual assault activity was caught on camera phones as well. One video purportedly involved some boy fondling the breasts of the reporter. However, another purported video that was described by a controversial YouTube video claims that a bearded man (too often a badge of an Islamist) ripped the top off the reporter and began slapping her face and breasts. He then pinned her to the ground, and by this time she stopped resisting, apparently accepting the fact that she was overpowered.

The bearded man then removed her pants and masturbated in front of her before raping her. He also reportedly clawed at her breasts with his hands. The YouTube video claims that at least six men raped her vaginally, and a number of men also raped her anally as well. She was reportedly masturbated on and urinated on by some men as well according to the YouTube video claims which was supposed to be pieced together from information and videos posted on Arab Websites and other sources.

It was claimed by various reports that the sexual assault and beatings might have lasted anywhere from 20-30 minutes on the short side, and as long as about 3 hours on the other hand. It was also claimed that her left breast might have been bitten or might even had the left nipple bitten off as well. One report claims that somewhere from 6 to about 50 men might have sexually assaulted or beat the attractive reporter.

One one hand, Lara Logan deserves her privacy. On the other hand being a major public figure, this international crime story is a very important one. It is also important to understand how anti-Americanism seemed to play a major role in the extreme level of brutality here. Reportedly, the reporter was left bloody, with semen and urine on her as the crowd shouted anti-American slogans. This reporter deserves far better respect than these claims of the brutality suggest. This mob violence against an attractive reporter who risks her life by reporting from the world’s hot spots only illustrates the type of danger that reporters potentially face when they report the news.

The assault on Lara Logan illustrates just how much order has recently broken down in the MidEast region which is now far more dangerous for Westerners. Further, some dangerous heads of Al Qaeda have been released from prison in places like Libya as rioting crowds demanded that political prisoners are released. When reporter Lara Logan heals from her injuries, she will no doubt bravely go right back to reporting on all the perils of this region.

Update: Some of the videos such as a controversial YouTube video have been recently pulled down by YouTube about this brutal attack. And reportedly, a number of camera phone videos of the attack may exist as well. But, what is known is that a crowd of perhaps 200 men were witnesses, while some participated in this crime in addition to the Egyptian women and police that were witnesses to this crime.

Yet, CBS has had a peculiar double standard as to openly reporting this news story. At first CBS ignored this major news story, first allowing other news sources to report the story before finally admitting that international reporter Lara Logan 'suffered a brutal and prolonged sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers'. This has only led to a series of stories such as the YouTube video and postings on foreign Websites that claim to have viewed camera phone videos, photos or witness accounts of this story.

Only weeks ago when Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded by a gunman at a constituent meeting at an Arizona Safeway store, CBS had no problem reporting in detail the injuries to the congresswoman and other victims of the attack. However, in the case of this attack and violence against one of their own reporters, CBS has been unusually silent, only allowing other accounts, or even possible speculation to fill the void.

Further, CBS hasn’t been helpful in answering the question about whether rape was involved. However, legally the term 'sexual assault' under U.S. law does usually stand for some form of sexual penetration.

We feel very sorry for reporter Lara Logan here. She’s an extraordinary journalist. However, CBS should be as open and honest about this story as Logan has been about her honest reports at hotspots around the globe. CBS could also be as honest and open about her injuries as they were in reporting the injuries to Rep. Giffords recently. The public wants to know how badly injured Lara Logan was. They identify with her because she’s such a popular public figure, seen in their living rooms several times a week on the CBS news.

CBS has a real opportunity to clear the air here, and honestly report the facts of this story, and not to whitewash the facts here. It appears that even the Obama Administration has pushed officials in Egypt to bring those that attacked Lara Logan to justice, strongly suggesting that real documentation of the crime, such as cell phone videos do exist which could identify those who beat or sexually assaulted the popular reporter. Meanwhile, Lara Logan continues to have our best wishes and prayers for her full and complete recovery.

WAKE UP AMERICA TO THE FACT OBAMA HAS CROSSED THE LINE OF TREASON TO THE USA - BY STUPIDITY OR ON PURPOSE - MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE.

HIS ACTIONS HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY DESTROYED OUR ALLIES , NEUTERED OUR MILITARY ABILITY TO RESPOND TO CHALLENGES FROM OUR ENEMIES AND CONTINUALLY SUPPORTED OUR ENEMIES LIKE IRAN. AND RESTRUCTURED - BY FIAT NOT CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE - OUR NATION - TO SUIT HIMSELF NOT OUR WISHES.

SAUDI PUPPETMASTER GIVES OBA-HUSSEIN MARCHING ORDERS ON EGYPT

2011-02-09T23:30:00.000-08:00

Saudis told Obama to back Mubarak
By Hugh Tomlinson n Riyadh (with editorial comment by Alan at the end)
February 10 2011

Saudi Arabia has threatened to prop up President Mubarak if the White House tries to force a swift change of regime in Egypt. In a testy personal telephone call on January 29, King Abdullah told President Obama not to humiliate Mr Mubarak and warned that he would step in to bankroll Egypt if the US withdrew its aid programme, worth $1.5 billion annually.

America’s closest ally in the Gulf made clear that the Egyptian President must be allowed to stay on to oversee the transition towards peaceful democracy and then leave with dignity. “Mubarak and King Abdullah are not just allies, they are close friends, and the King is not about to see his friend cast aside and humiliated,” a senior source in the Saudi capital told The Times.

Two sources confirmed details of the King’s call, made four days after the people of Egypt took to the streets.

===================================

ALAN NOTE:

The zig-zag Obama Egypt policy flip-flops emanated from his ignorance of delicate world power balances, even worse mishandling than idiot Carter's in 1979, was enflamed by his overwhelming desire to put his Islamic buddies the Moslem Brotherhood in controlling power in Egypt, regardless of this crashing regional and Middle East stability plus our global economy.

The struggles among his advisors to cobble together a strategy based on common sense and his narcissistic desires caused confusion around the world till Saudi Arabia's King , one of those pulling the strings on the Oba-Hussein puppet we stupidly allowed to usurp the Oval Office read Obambi the riot act and ordered him to back off on his attacks on President Mubarak. And as we have seen, Oba-Hussein, much to his own astonishment that the Saudi leader of Sunni Islam from who he expected praise for his dastardly moves to bring Islam to take over secular Egypt, would object.

Blinded by his own Islamic ideology, naive Oba-zero failed to figure out that the Moslem Brotherhood is also a formidable enemy of his Saudi mentor and boss, the Saudi King, but as a obedient vassal he announced he would not demand Mubarak leave immediately - as he had been doing in an increasingly insistent way. Revelling in anticipation of the triumph of installing the Moslem Brotherhood as the major power.

We are so far past the point of rescue, even by a Republican Congress majority that I have a wry smile when I write about Oba-Zero's policies and activities.

America seems to have finally woken up but implementing but may not be able to find the needed defensive gambit to avoid being destroyed.

ANOTHER TRY TO CHECK OUT ELIGIBILITY

2011-02-06T12:37:00.000-08:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORN IN THE USA?

Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes
Eligibility challenge says precedents set for removing ineligible candidates

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 04, 2011

By Bob Unruh - WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit that was filed over the absence of documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to occupy the Oval Office and claims a precedent was set for removing ineligible candidates when an underage Eldridge Cleaver was taken off the ballot in 1968 is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation confirmed to WND tonight that his clients have requested in writing that he appeal the decision of the California Supreme Court.

Judges there this week got rid of the case with six words: "The petition for review is denied." That would have left standing a decision from the California Court of Appeals that if a qualified political party presents a candidate's name for inclusion on the ballot, the California secretary of state must include it.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

But Kreep confirmed that his clients, Ambassador Alan Keyes, Wiley S. Drake Sr. and Markham Robinson, will petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which so far has refused to even consider the arguments of a multitude of other challenges to Obama's eligibility, for review.

The lawsuit alleged both California Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state's electors for the Electoral College in the 2008 election failed to verify that Obama is eligible. After the Electoral College vote was adopted in Congress the lawsuit was adjusted to address future elections.

Keyes, Drake and Robinson also remain plaintiffs in a similar complaint in the federal court system. The case is now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the federal case, the plaintiffs are represented by Kreep and California attorney Orly Taitz. In the state case, only Kreep is involved.

In his petition for review, Kreep had explained that if the state Supreme Court failed to act, it would be tantamount to abandoning the clear requirements of the U.S. Constitution because a political party could nominate a candidate in violation of the Constitution, and voters might not either know or care about the result.

A commentary at Ballot-Access.org reported that the state's highest court, by leaving the appellate decision alone, revealed that the state apparently violated its own law in 1968 when then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan removed candidate Eldridge Cleaver of the Peace & Freedom Party from the presidential ballot.

He was only 33 years old at the time, while the Constitution requires a president to be 35.

"The decision, in effect, says the Secretary of State in 1968 should have listed Cleaver," said the commentary.

The decision that state Supreme Court refused to alter was one that concluded, "Section 6041 gives the Secretary of State some discretion in determining whether to place a name on the primary ballot, but she has no such discretion for the general election ballot. … With respect to general elections, section 6901 directs that the Secretary of State must place on the ballot the names of the several political parties' candidates."

Plaintiffs had argued that the 1968 case set a precedent for the state to look at the qualifications of candidates and remove them from the ballot should they fail in the constitutional requirements to be a resident for 14 years, to be 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen."

It is Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" that is being questioned. WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility, and at least 10 state legislatures this year are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. A similar proposal had been introduced in the last Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.

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."

The Certification of Live Birth posted online by the Obama campaign is a document Hawaii officials have made available to those not born in the state.

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.

Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, 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.

In the appellate decision, the court also suggested that a judicial review of a president's eligibility is a possibility.

That suggestion came in a ruling that affirmed a state district court's dismissal of a challenge to the procedures under which California's electors helped install Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

In addition to the case involving the removal of Cleaver from the ballot, the attorney who argued the case also has cited the court precedent that chief executives of government can be removed by the courts over eligibility issues.

North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible

The court precedent comes out of North Dakota, where the governor was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements.

The president's lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution's provision that presidential eligibility issues must be handled by Congress during the approval of the Electoral College vote, or a president must be removed by impeachment, which also rests with Congress.

In one case, the president's lawyers prominently argued, "The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.

"The examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.

But it was in "State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie," after Thomas H. Moodie was elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, according to court filings, "it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor."

North Dakota's historical archives document the case.

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," the state reports.

The original Obama case sought to prevent Bowen from certifying California's electors for the Electoral College vote; it later was amended to correct the deficiencies it identified in future elections.

Read more: Case putting Obama alongside Eldridge Cleaver heads to Supremes http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=259901#ixzz1DDFvMQEF

AL QAEDA ON BRINK OF USING NUCLEAR BOMB

2011-02-02T19:51:00.000-08:00

By Heidi Blake and Christopher Hope, The Daily Telegraph February 1, 2011

Al-Qaida is on the verge of producing radioactive weapons after sourcing nuclear material and recruiting rogue scientists to build "dirty" bombs, according to leaked diplomatic documents.

A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a "nuclear 9/11".

Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West.

Thousands of classified American cables obtained by the WikiLeaks website and passed to The Daily Telegraph detail the international struggle to stop the spread of weapons-grade nuclear, chemical and biological material around the globe.

At a Nato meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaida was plotting a program of "dirty radioactive IEDs", makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.

As well as causing a large explosion, a "dirty bomb" attack would contaminate the area for many years.

The briefings also state that al-Qaida documents found in Afghanistan in 2007 revealed that "greater advances" had been made in bioterrorism than was previously realized. An Indian national security adviser told American security personnel in June 2008 that terrorists had made a "manifest attempt to get fissile material" and "have the technical competence to manufacture an explosive device beyond a mere dirty bomb".

Alerts about the smuggling of nuclear material, sent to Washington from foreign U.S. embassies, document how criminal and terrorist gangs were trafficking large amounts of highly radioactive material across Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

The alerts explain how customs guards at remote border crossings used radiation alarms to identify and seize cargoes of uranium and plutonium.

Freight trains were found to be carrying weapons-grade nuclear material across the Kazakhstan-Russia border, highly enriched uranium was transported across Uganda by bus, and a "small time hustler" in Lisbon offered to sell radioactive plates stolen from Chernobyl.

In one incident in September 2009, two employees at the Rossing Uranium Mine in Namibia smuggled almost half a ton of uranium concentrate powder - yellowcake - out of the compound in plastic bags.

"Acute safety and security concerns" were even raised in 2008 about the uranium and plutonium laboratory of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the nuclear safety watchdog.

Tomihiro Taniguchi, the deputy director general of the IAEA, has privately warned America that the world faces the threat of a "nuclear 9/11" if stores of uranium and plutonium were not secured against terrorists.

But diplomats visiting the IAEA's Austrian headquarters in April 2008 said that there was "no way to provide perimeter security" to its own laboratory because it has windows that leave it vulnerable to break-ins.

Senior British defence officials have raised "deep concerns" that a rogue scientist in the Pakistani nuclear program "could gradually smuggle enough material out to make a weapon", according to a document detailing official talks in London in February 2009.

Agricultural stores of deadly biological pathogens in Pakistan are also vulnerable to "extremists" who could use supplies of anthrax, foot and mouth disease and avian flu to develop lethal biological weapons.

Anthrax and other biological agents including smallpox, and avian flu could be sprayed from a shop-bought aerosol can in a crowded area, leaked security briefings warn.

The security of the world's only two declared smallpox stores in Atlanta, America, and Novosibirsk, Russia, has repeatedly been called into doubt by "a growing chorus of voices" at meetings of the World Health Assembly documented in the leaked cables.

Courtesy Vancouver Sun

CHINESE PIANIST PLAYS ANTI-AMERICAN SONG AT WHITE HOUSE DINNER

2011-01-23T00:02:00.000-08:00

OBAMA HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THIS INSULT TO AMERICA BY CHINESE AS HE PROBABLY DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED - OR APPROVES!

Pianist Lang Lang in many ways embodies the Sino-American comity that both President Hu Jintao and President Barack Obama emphasized during their summit this past week—which is no doubt why he was chosen to perform at the White House state dinner for Mr. Hu on Wednesday.

Born in China, Mr. Lang went to the U.S. as a teenager to study at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. He is fluent in both English and Mandarin. He is probably equally adored by classical music fans in the U.S. and in China, and splits his time between the two countries.

Zuma Press
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that he is now being praised by nationalist Internet users in China for a perceived anti-U.S. slight supposedly implied in the 28-year-old’s choice of music that night.

As part of the state dinner’s “quintessentially American” program, Mr. Lang was invited along with a number of U.S. jazz musicians in an “Evening of Jazz.” He and the legendary jazz pianist Herbie Hancock played a four hands version of a Maurice Ravel song, exchanging hugs afterward (see video of the performance here, and on Mr. Lang’s website here). Journalist James Fallows, who was at the dinner, describes the evening here).

Then, the plot thickened—at least, that’s how some read it. After bilingual comments to the assembled VIPs in which he said it was a “great honor” to be playing, he proceeded to perform a solo piece, which he introduced as a “Chinese song called ‘My Motherland.’”

The song is not just any old song. As Chinese netizens have pointed out, “My Motherland” is the theme song for a famous anti-U.S. movie about the Korean War from 1956, titled “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.”

The song lyrics do not mention the war and are very peaceful, speaking of memories of a hometown and how “young ladies are like flowers.”

But the film depicts a particularly brutal battle between Chinese and American troops during the Korean War, or what the Chinese call “The War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.” The movie also depicts Chinese troops enduring freezing weather with no food or water and American soldiers using flame throwers and laughing at burning Chinese soldiers. In retaliation, there’s a lot of killing of American troops later in the film.

Lang Lang himself appears to have been blissfully unaware of the political minefield he was stumbling into. In a blogpost on Sina.com headlined “Sharing a Day at the White House”, he describes the beauty of the song and its resonance with Chinese people. “I’m deeply honored and proud that I was able to play this song that praises the strength of China and the solidarity of the Chinese people in front of many foreign guests, especially leaders from all over the world.”

He posted a string of photos on his website of him posing with the celebrities at the dinner.

Yu Jianhong, director of the movie management department of Beijing Film Academy, says “Battle on Shangganling Mountain” is a “famous movie that deeply influenced a whole generation,” especially people born in the 1940s to 1960s (Mr. Lang was born in 1982). The song, Mr. Yu says, “transcends all historic events and times,” he says. Mr. Yu thinks that the song’s main theme is not about beating American imperialism, but rather, “about the love of the motherland and the longing of peace and a happy life.”

In any case, the irony of playing an ode from an anti-American Chinese movie at a White House event dedicated to Sino-U.S. cooperation and friendliness has set the Chinese web abuzz—and more than a few people are convinced it wasn’t an accident.

Both the Sina and Sohu news portals reposted an article that they attributed to the Beijing Evening News, with the headline: “Lang Lang Played ‘My Motherland’ at White House, Flaunting National Power.”

“Those American folks very much enjoyed it and were totally infatuated with the melody!!! The U.S. is truly stupid!!” wrote a user named You’re In My Memory on Sina’s micro-blogging site. This particular post was re-posted many times.

Some speculated whether Lang Lang knew of the significance and questioned whether it was his idea to play the song. Certainly nothing about Mr. Lang’s demeanor that night suggested that he intended to send a politically charged message, however subtle. Nor is he known to be an especially political figure. And one has to wonder whether he would really jeopardize his standing in the U.S., where he has a loyal fan base and where he lives much of the time.

Mr. Lang’s representatives could not be reached. A spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing said that they were not aware of what songs Lang Lang played at the state dinner.

Regardless, Mr. Lang seems to have found himself some new fans among the patriotic set in China.

“I think Americans should also be familiar with this song, whose meaning is so notorious that you don’t even need an explanation,” wrote user Winter Frost Rain on Sina’s micro-blog. “Lang Lang is too cool.”

ANOTHER DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT SABOTAGES OUR SECURITY

2011-01-19T13:13:00.000-08:00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN

Where did that come from?
U.S. failed to detect Chinese stealth fighter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

China's J-20 stealth fighter

U.S. intelligence apparently failed to figure out how quickly the Chinese were developing their newest fifth generation J-20 stealth fighter, which U.S. government analysts now say was based on critical U.S. stealth technology transfers that happened while Bill Clinton was president, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

Alan Note: Clinton also provided China (his replacement surrogate for his defunct Soviet masters) with our nuclear secrets and Hughes MISSILE GUIDANCE technology. If you look at the global damage caused by Democrats Jimmy Carter (best Soviet President America ever had) - decades of ongoing world terrorism, - Bill Clinton (avowed Socialist/Marxist) - upgrading Chinese technology ability to destroy us, - Hussein Obama (fervent Marxist-Islamist, America hater) - you do not need to remember, just watch his destruciton of America on a daily basis.

Vice Adm. David Dorsett, director of naval intelligence, said that officials were aware of the development of the J-20, which is supposed to be comparable to the U.S. F-22 stealth fighter, but "the speed at which (the Chinese) are making progress, we underestimated."

The U.S. has halted production of the F-22 and is switching to the more advanced F-35, whose production and cost overruns make any timely operational status problematic.

The Chinese hope to deploy the J-20 by 2017.
Dorsett further indicated that intelligence failed to detect how quickly the Chinese are developing more than a dozen other weapons systems such as new and quieter submarines, long-range cruise missiles and other asymmetric warfare capabilities that differ significantly from the U.S. in terms of military power and resources.

Other military analysts say that the Chinese J-20 is an interim fighter until it can perfect a more robust jet engine that will be in a position to challenge the F-35. Experts say that the J-20 exhibits radar-evading stealth features, an advanced electronically scanned array radar and the ability to fly at supersonic speeds for long distances using less fuel.

With refueling, analysts say that the J-20 gives the Chinese force projection to be able to reach Guam where the U.S. has major military assets.

The reason for the accelerated pace at which the Chinese have developed the stealth J-20 is due to critical U.S. technology transfers through joint ventures with BP America in precursors and resins; Hexcel in pre-impregnated composite fiber technology; and Sikorsky in the manufacture, layup, shaping and know-how.

Read more: Where did that come from? http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252165#ixzz1BW74pbti

ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION - IT IS A GOVERNING DOCTRINE

2011-01-05T00:03:00.000-08:00

Sharia law, the Muslim Brotherhood, and U.S. homegrown jihad are where our fight in the US has to be focused.

Sharia law is responsible for the other two. The Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sira are the basis of Sharia law, a deadly legal system for the rest of the world.

Sharia was illegal in America from the day our Constitution was ratified; We need
to keep reminding our elected officials (which includes all judges and justices) of that by producing state and federal legislation that reinforces that fact.

Whenever ANYbody says that the Islam is a theocracy based on the Qur'an and is therefore protected under the 1st Amendment, remind them that the Qur'an is the basis for Sharia law, which requires the death of America . . . which means the Qur'an does, too.

Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law

By JR Dieckmann
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27211

The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion.

Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.

Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws.

Islam has the Quran that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings.

If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.

We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam's Qur'an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values.

Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else.

How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Quran?

What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world?

If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law.

How can we call that a religion?

What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws?

No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed.

Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of).

As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation - financed by Saudi Arabia - they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government - take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved.
We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom. Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours.

We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.

What religion recruits killers and terrorists in their place of worship, then sends them off to foreign training grounds to become proficient at mass murder? I know of only one.

They are taught to kill in the name of God, but this is not the law of God who commanded "thou shall not kill" - it is the law of Mohammed who commanded kill them all who will not convert.

The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law.

The Quran blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God's law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state?

To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.

Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people?

Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in �Dreams Of My Father� - �When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims?� It is always nice to know
that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.

L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.

The same thing is happening in the southern Border States where Mexicans are taking over cities one by one. You need look no further than the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona to realize that the city government in L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.

The strong Democratic population has even elected a Mexican mayor to run the city, and half of the city council members have Mexican surnames, as do many in the California state legislature.

Although most of these legislators were born here in America, their loyalties seem to lie more with Mexico and Mexican citizens who are now invading our state along with other Border States.

These people of Mecha and La Raza believe this land is rightfully theirs and they intend to govern it for their people.

Any objections are met with charges of racism aimed at Americans who simply want to preserve the American language, culture, values, and way of life.

Los Angeles has changed a great deal since this invasion began and many American have moved out to find a new homeland.

What are we going to do when we see the same thing happening in the federal government? What are we going to do when Muslims demand that the United States respect and enforce Shariah law?

They are already doing it in England and other European countries. It is only a short time before we see it here too. Shariah is already creeping into the courts and local laws in some states.

Is that the kind of country we want? Or do we want the country that our founders created?

I have no problem with Muslims living in Islamic countries overseas where they can have the kind of society they desire, as long as they leave us alone and free to enjoy the kind of society that we desire. The two cannot be reconciled into one united society any more than capitalists can unite with communists.

It must be one or the other.

Some people think we should be bending over backwards to make nice with Muslims and make sure they feel welcome in our country because that is what America is all about, they say. Immigrants built America, they say.

To an extent, this is true if we are talking about the immigrants who migrated here to become Americans and help to build this great country over 200 years ago.

Today we have way too many foreigners coming to America not to become Americans, but instead to change America. They want to dominate instead of assimilate. They want us to accept their culture instead of them accepting our culture and becoming productive members of it.

Are you tired of being called �an immigrant� right here in your home country? I know I am.

America is a nation of immigrants, they say. Let me state this for the record. I am not an immigrant, I am a natural born American.

My parents were born here. My grandparents and great grandparents were born here. How many others in this country have the same family history? How many people reading this have known no other flag than the American flag?

We are not immigrants, we are Americans - and America is a nation of Americans - not a nation of immigrants.

How much longer will we be able to call ourselves �Americans� with foreign cultures and emphases on diversity encroaching on our country? People naturally gravitate toward their own kind, not because they are racists, but because they seek the company of others with whom they have things in common.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to relate to people here in Los Angeles who don't even speak our language. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and hostility when we see our city being taking over by foreign invaders. Now we have to lock our doors both at home an in our cars.

When America was being built, most everyone was an immigrant - from Europe.

That was over 200 years ago. We still welcome immigrants who want to become a part of America and become American - but where do we draw the line between welcoming friends and embracing our enemies?

Obviously, to those running our government, there is no line thanks largely to Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a Congress full of Democrats when they passed The Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs, Kennedy said. Oh really?

If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem.

But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line.

It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans.
Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims - and our own government - can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.

CLUELESS OBAMA AND UNVERIFIABLE, ANTI-AMERICA START TREATY

2010-12-18T18:42:00.000-08:00

Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev

Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions – described by critics as unverifiable, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

"(President Barack Obama's) demand that senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress," said Frank Gaffney who is president of the Center for Security Policy. "It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded."

Critics say the treaty could "restrict" the nation's ability to defend itself, and suggest that there may be provisions Obama doesn't want members of the Senate to analyze, and possibly oppose.

Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, is versed in START treaties; he was involved in arms reduction negotiations during the Reagan administration.

He claims that senators have not had time to review the extensive negotiating record which reflected Russian opposition to U.S. positions while the administration decided to push for its approval anyway.

He and other critics claim that the treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that will affect the treaty's terms materially – and make those changes without giving the Senate its constitutionally outlined advise and consent process.

The Senate requires a two-thirds vote, or approval by 67 members, before it is ratified.

Now, the Senate leadership has announced that it will hold a weekend session in an effort to ratify the treaty.

But critics are alarmed the treaty draft establishes a relationship between missile offense and missile defense, and as the U.S. shrinks its inventory of strategic nuclear weapons, it presents less latitude to beef up U.S. defenses against potential missile attacks not just from the Russians but other countries as well.

Critics are concerned that limitations in this treaty will preclude bolstering missile defenses against such countries as North Korea and Iran which are developing their own intercontinental ballistic missiles that soon could reach the U.S.

The net effect of any changes that could occur without U.S. approval would restrict U.S. missile defenses and make other reductions in U.S. nuclear deterrent forces, Gaffney said.

Other former leaders from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, oppose the new START.

In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they raised objections to consideration of START, especially in a lame-duck session, given all of the issues that still persist with the treaty draft.

"It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate," they wrote.

LET THE WUSS WIN OR GO TO JAIL?

2010-11-28T16:42:00.000-08:00

It took 12 stitches to sew President Barack Obama’s lips together after he received an elbow to the mouth during a pick-up basketball game at Fort McNair.

The owner of the offending elbow was wrestled to the ground by the president’s bodyguard and is presently in custody. “What charges will be filed against this individual remain to be seen,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “Attacking the president, even by accident, is a serious matter. We need to make an example that will serve as a warning to others. If the president is driving to the basket you get out of his way and let him score. If the president is guarding you let him steal the ball. This is simple common sense. Those who don’t have it may not be smart enough to be allowed to go free.”

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sought to reassure the nation that “the president is expected to make a full recovery. Contrary to what some are saying, there is no need for the Vice-President to assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.”

Others were not so sure. Vice-President Joe Biden assiduously affirmed his willingness to “step into the breach during this most perilous of times. An injury of this nature impairs the President’s ability to communicate with the people of this nation and with the leaders of foreign nations. His mellifluous voice is his greatest asset. Until his full command of it is restored our country will be at risk. It’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

Under the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, whenever the Vice-President and a majority of the members of the Cabinet declare the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office the Vice-President shall immediately assume these powers and duties as “Acting President.”

A CNN “snap poll” showed that Americans approved of the injury by nearly a two-to-one ratio. “If anybody deserves a shot to the chops it’s Obama,” said one poll respondent. “He’s running this country into the ground. I just wish I’d have been the one to let him have it.”

Another poll respondent averred that “anything that can shut this guy up for even a little while is a blessing. He is the most insufferable blatherer to ever hold the office.”

read more...

http://azconserv1.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-asks-for-broader-screening-powers/

OBAMA'S GEORGE W. BUSH FIXATION - CAN'T BLAME ME!

2010-11-22T00:22:00.000-08:00

OBAMA SUCKS! BLAMES BUSH!

by Victor Davis Hanson

Barack Obama remains fixated by George W. Bush. For nearly two years, President Obama and his team have prefaced their explanations for the tough economy, tough finances and tough situation abroad with a "Bush did it" chorus.

Apparently, they believed that most of our problems, here and abroad, either started with George W. Bush, or at least would not transcend him.

At first, it was an easy enough habit to fall into. Things were not in great shape in January 2009 when Obama took over. More importantly, Obama's started out with a nearly 70 percent approval rating.

In contrast, Bush, like the punching bag Harry Truman, left office with an approval rating in the low 30s.

(Narcissist) Obama's serial fixation with his former predecessor made little sense when he first took office -- and has now become a disastrous misreading of political realities.

Recent polls reflect that Bush and Obama are now just about even in popularity.

Obama's supporters in the House have suffered the worst Democratic shellacking since 1938. The president got out of Washington on a foreign tour immediately after the election -- only to be cold-shouldered by fair-weather foreign leaders who sensed weakness.

Bush, in contrast, is basking in endless media exposure as he expounds on his best-selling memoir -- appearing above the partisan fray, past and present.

Voters two years ago elected Obama for a variety of reasons -- from unhappiness with Bush and Iraq to the landmark novelty of seeing our first African-American president. The financial meltdown of September 2008 ended for good John McCain's small lead in the polls. That panic also reminded voters of their unease with the Bush deficits and his expansion of government.

Unfortunately, Obama misread all that, and ended up trumping many of the things that Bush did to alienate voters.

Bush deficits of $500 billion soared to $1.4 trillion ones. Vast but unfunded Bush programs like Medicare prescription drug benefits and No Child Left Behind soon were overshadowed by even bigger ones like ObamaCare.

An initial Bush bailout evolved into a gargantuan stimulus and multifaceted takeovers.

The result, fairly or not, was that Bush's financial "felonies" began looking like misdemeanors in comparison. Tea Party voters saw the Obama medicine as worse than the original Bush disease.

There was the same obsession with, but misreading of, Bush in foreign affairs.

The public was turned off by the violence and costs in Iraq -- but otherwise not especially concerned about Bush's largely traditional foreign policy or his anti-terrorism protocols.

Too bad a Bush-obsessed Obama was again blind to that simple fact. So when Iraq became largely quiet as Obama entered office, the entire "Bush did it" refrain was rendered obsolete and should have been dropped.

The antiwar Obama had campaigned on closing Guantanamo, ending tribunals and renditions, and critiquing the Patriot Act and Predator drone attacks.

But once Iraq was taken out of the equation, Obama quickly discovered that these old bogeymen Bush policies were both useful and relatively popular.

So he was forced to keep or expand them. Obama's flip-flop only confused Americans: Why, in hypocritical fashion, was he now embracing the Bush legacy that he used to constantly demonize?

When Obama tried to chart a new and much-heralded "reset-button" foreign policy in loud opposition to Bush's, the irony continued.

Most Americans did not want to try the accused architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a civilian court, replete with legal gymnastics.

They did not think that announcing artificial deadlines for troop withdrawals in wartime was an especially bright idea.

They also did not expect that the much-heralded antidote to Bush's swagger and "Dead or Alive" Texanisms would include bowing to Saudi princes and Chinese dictators, apologizing abroad for America's purported sins, or spreading mythologies about the Islamic world's contribution to the Western Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Just because Bush turned off Europe over Iraq did not mean that an "I'm not Bush" Obama could not turn it off even more by printing billions of dollars, urging European countries to borrow more in reckless American style, and downplaying old alliances with everyone from Britain to Poland.

So here is a polite suggestion for President Obama: After nearly two years of governance, free up your own policies to either succeed or fail on their own merits without chaining them to the Bush past.

In a word: Let go of a now-smiling and relatively rehabilitated Bush -- before such a fixation consumes you and your presidency.

AUSTRALIAN JIHAD BY ILLEGAL, THRICE DEPORTED CLERIC

2010-11-03T21:01:00.000-07:00

MEANWHILE

A warning in Farsi we received advises users of Yahoo inside Iran not to open an Email which offers a Free Yahoo Internet Card as it installs a KeyLogger that will from that moment on send every key stroke to "research @ irantelcom.ir" (hyperlink disabled) a Mullah regime monitoring site.

The warning Email (in Farsi) has too many links embedded for it to be posted safely here but the warning stands and should be passed on to your friends.

PREVIEW OF CHANGE IN TERROR TACTICS?

2010-10-30T17:33:00.000-07:00

By Drew Zahn

A rash of unsolved sniper shots in Washington, D.C., is resurrecting concerns that terrorists may once again be on the loose in the nation's capital, following an al-Qaida blueprint – not for large-scale bombings, but for smaller, seemingly "random" acts of violence.

According to a Fox News report, the FBI is investigating four nighttime shootings from over the past month, including incidents in which an unknown gunman has taken aim at military buildings, using a high-powered rifle to leave bullet holes in the windows of the Marine recruiting station in Chantilly, Va., the Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, Va., and the Pentagon.

FBI spokeswoman Katherine Schweit has suggested the shooter is simply a "struggling" individual.

"This guy hasn't hurt anybody. We don't think he wants to," she says. "We're hoping that he'll turn himself in."

But a Washington Times editorial worries the shootings are "reminiscent" of the Beltway Snipers, a pair of Muslim men named John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who killed 13 people in D.C. in the fall of 2002.

Notably, authorities in 2002 consistently denied Muhammad and Malvo's connections to terrorism, even after it was revealed they spoke sympathetically about the Sept. 11 hijackers and Malvo filled nearly 100 pages with sketches obsessed with jihad and shedding American blood for Islam.

Get "Muslim Mafia," the book that exposed the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations like the Council on American Islamic Relations from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!

The Times editorial, however, isn't allowing questions about the new sniper's motives and potential ties to terror to be so easily dismissed.

"The Islamic duo has since been held up by al-Qaida as an example of the kind of low-tech, low-cost terrorism that gets results," the Times editorial states of the Beltway Snipers. "Now, someone is following [orders by Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud to target American cities] and attempting to implement a new small-arms offensive."

Indeed, only a month before Muhammad and Malvo began their sniper attacks, WND reported on an al-Qaida training tape that was captured in Afghanistan and revealed terrorists planning not only attacks with weapons of mass destruction but also with drive-by shootings, home break-ins, ambushes of law-enforcement officers and targeted assassinations.
John Holschen of Insights Training Center, produced a report on the 2002 tape for military and law enforcement officials.

"The major take-home lesson here," Holschen wrote, "is that although the enemy is known to be seeking the ability and opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction and of an unconventional nature, such as hijacked airliners, they are also spending a lot of time training to carry out attacks the old-fashioned way – attacks executed by small groups of dedicated personnel equipped with little more than small arms."

The training video showed al-Qaida operatives practicing the following kinds of assaults:

using pickup trucks with shooters concealed in the bed of the trucks;

using motorcycles as a shooting platform for drive-bys and assassinations;

execution of prisoners;

ambushes of law-enforcement officers

residential assassinations;

assassination on a golf course using a rocket-propelled grenade and rifle fire;

drive-up kidnapping of target walking on a street;

use of tunnels, storm drains and sewers for infiltration during urban raids;

rappelling from rooftops of buildings to make entry on upper floors;

use of motorcycles for grenade attacks; and

raids on buildings with large numbers of occupants – perhaps schools or office buildings.

When asked if these techniques are intended for use in the U.S., one military intelligence operative said without hesitation, "Yes."

In one scenario on the video, terrorists pretend to be stranded on a six-lane highway, their vehicle disabled. When a police officer stops to assist, shooters concealed in the trunk of the car open fire.
Hole drilled in trunk of Beltway Snipers' car to permit gunfire

Similarly, when Muhammad and Malvo were finally apprehended, police discovered the duo carried out their sniper fire from the trunk of a car, through a hole drilled near the license plate.

Ever since the large-scale attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, however, the growing incidence of "freelance" Islamic terror across America has often been regarded officially as the work of "criminals" or "deranged individuals," not jihadists and certainly not as an orchestrated attempt to spread terror with small-scale attacks.

For example, the police chief of Bellingham, Wash., where federal agents searched a school that Malvo attended briefly, said the FBI assured him the 2002 D.C. snipers were not acting with any group.

"It appears they have acted on their own," said the chief.

And following the Nov. 5, 2009, Ft. Hood shooting by Islamic American soldier Major Nidal Malik Hassan – who reportedly cried out "Allahu akbar" before killing 14 and wounding dozens of others – President Obama refused to call the Ft. Hood massacre an act of "terrorism," but instead suggested to ABC news that Hassan's shooting may have merely been an instance "in which an individual cracks" under "severe stress."

American Civil Rights Union Senior Fellow Ken Blackwell blasted the administration for its official wrap-up of the incident:

"The Obama administration promised us an 'investigation,'" Blackwell writes. "What they delivered is nothing more than a whitewash of years of bureaucratic coddling of terrorism and winking at treason. It didn't even mention Islamism or jihad."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., also released a commentary in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting, concerned that Americans "underestimate the threat" of a web of terrorists at work in the U.S.

"There has been a troubling refusal by Obama officials to acknowledge that the shooting likely was an act of homegrown terrorism," Hoekstra wrote. "I fear that our nation is returning to the naive security outlook of Sept. 10, 2001, when radical Islamic terrorist attacks were considered law-enforcement and criminal problems and not threats to our national security."

He continues, "The president said it is inconceivable that this would happen in America. Wrong. It is not inconceivable and is a growing global problem that needs to be addressed."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Note: If you look at Obama's actions to defend and protect Islamic terrorism by BANNING use of Islam and terror in the same document and even the use of the word terror, not only is it CONCEIVABLE but being encouraged by the current Administration to take root and flourish.

WHY DEMOCRATS ARE SO CONFIDENT OF WINNING THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS

2010-10-25T22:53:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration (an arguably criminal enterprise) hastens thousands of Union and Acorn and Islamic operatives, deployed and deploying around America with tactical and strategic plans to illegally steal the mid-term elections.

WARNING FROM NEVADA - JUST ONE OF MANY SIMILAR EVENTS HAPPENING ALL AROUND THE USA AS THE GEORGE SOROS TACTIC OF TAKING CONTROL OF THE SECRETARIES OF STATE TO FACILITATE CORRUPTION OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS.

I have some very grave news for you. We are leading Harry Reid in the polls and meeting our early vote goals--and yet, Sharron Angle could still lose... Two days ago, the Democratic Secretary of State announced that voters can be provided "free food" at "voter turnout events." Harry Reid has been offering free food and, according to other reports, some Democratic allies such as teachers' unions are reportedly offering gift cards in return for a vote for Reid... Harry Reid intends to steal this election if he can't win it outright.

As a result, we need to deploy literally dozens of election law attorneys and poll watchers to combat these tactics ... clearly illegal.

Nevada law (NRS 293.700) provides that, "A person who bribes, offers to bribe, or use and other corrupt means, directly or indirectly, to influence any elector in giving his or her vote or to deter the elector from giving it is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130."

However with a tame DEMOCRAT Nevada Secretary of State running interference and OBAMA'S lapdog DEMOCRAT Eric Holder of the DOJ refusing to prosecute what is in fact a FEDERAL crime, Obama is probably getting away with his high crimes and criminal treachery.

SHARE THIS WARNING TO PROTECT AMERICA AND OUR FREEDOM

"DARK HEART" BOOK CENSORSHIP A BIT STRANGE

2010-10-05T16:58:00.000-07:00

BEHIND THE CENSORSHIP OF OPERATION DARK HEART By censoring Anthony Shaffer's new book "Operation Dark Heart" even thoughuncensored review copies are already available in the public domain, theDepartment of Defense has produced a genuinely unique product: arevealing snapshot of the way that the Obama Administration classifiesnational security information in 2010.

With both versions before them, readers can see for themselves exactlywhat the Pentagon classifiers wanted to withhold, and can judge forthemselves whether the secrecy they tried to impose can be justified onvalid national security grounds. In the majority of instances, theresults of such an inspection seem disappointing, if not very surprising,and they tend to confirm the most skeptical view of the operation of theclassification system.

The most commonly repeated "redaction" in Operation Dark Heart is theauthor's cover name, "Christopher Stryker," that he used while serving inAfghanistan. Probably the second most common redactions are references tothe National Security Agency, its heaquarters location at Fort Meade, Maryland, the familiar abbreviation SIGINT (referring to "signalsintelligence"), and offhand remarks like "Guys on phones were always greatsources of intel," which is blacked out on the bottom of page 56.

Also frequently redacted are mentions of the term TAREX or "TargetExploitation," referring to intelligence collection gathered at asensitive site, and all references to low-profile organizations such asthe Air Force Special Activities Center and the Joint Special OperationsCommand, as well as to foreign intelligence partners such as New Zealand. Task Force 121 gets renamed Task Force 1099.

The code name Copper Green, referring to an "enhanced" interrogation program, is deleted.

Perhaps 10% of the redacted passages do have some conceivable , including the identity of the CIA chief of station in Kabul, who has been renamed "Jacob Walker" in the new version, and a physical description of the location and appearance of the CIA station itself, has been censored.

Many other redactions are extremely tenuous. The name of character actor Ned Beatty is not properly classified in any known universe, yet it blacked out on page 15 of the book. (It still appears intact in the Index!) In short, the book embodies the practice of national security classification as it exists in the United States today. It does not exactly command respect.

OBAMA SPOKESMAN FOR DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL

2010-09-30T13:44:00.000-07:00

TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND

Obama warns: Support 'Palestine' or 'more blood' will flow

Comment prompts question whether "Palestinians" are distinct from other Arabs

----------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily

Without world support for establishing an independent Palestine, President Obama warned the United Nations General Assembly today that "more blood will be shed" and "Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state."

Though couched with references to Israeli security and a "neighbors who are committed to coexistence," Obama's observation prompted a provocative question and little known insight into the Palestinian-Zionist identity conflict from the author of a bold new book about the Nazi links to Islamic jihadists.

"Are the Palestinian Arabs a distinct people apart from other Arabs?," asks Chuck Morse, author of "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj. Amin Al-Husseini."

Before 1948, Morse explained, the term "Palestinian" described "Jews and was used interchangeably with the term Zionist."

"The Arab residents of Palestine," he says, "most of whom emigrated there alongside the Jewish emigration and did so in order to take advantage of the increased economic opportunities that accompanied the Jewish immigration, considered themselves to be either part of the emerging Jewish state or as part of a greater Arab state."

The "underreported" role of al-Husseini "reveals volumes" about the confusion and controversy, says Morse. The founder of Arab Palestine, al-Husseini, was appointed as Mufti of Jerusalem and as the head of the Arab Higher Committee by the British in the Palestine Mandate in 1921.

Before the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, Morse continued, the region – named Palestine by the British – spent more than four centuries as part of the Ottoman province of Syria.

"Husseini," said Morse, "was a pan-Arabist who viewed the region first as part of Syria and later as part of the Ummah, or the Arab motherland."

During World War II, Husseini stayed in Berlin where "after meeting with Hitler, he was regarded by the Nazis as the exiled head of a future Nazi-Arab state."

Husseini, Morse says, raised "the profile of Jerusalem as a site important to Islam."

"He raised funds in Arab and Islamic countries to gold plate the Dome of the Mosque known today as the Dome of the Rock by claiming that there was a Jewish conspiracy to blow it up," Morse says.

In researching "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism," which reveals the forgotten roots of Islamic radicalism during World War II and documents how Hitler's ideology still impacts the Middle East today, Morse reached some stark conclusions about Islam's "deceptive nature and merciless intents."

Even an ardent critic of Morse's claimed "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism," was a "well-researched and, strangely enough, factually accurate though its conclusions are questionable [since it links] elements of Middle Eastern Islam with the original Nazi Party, and was able to bring the influence forward to the modern day, however questionably."

Interestingly, Morse says, the main holy sites of Islam are Mecca and Medina and the few references to Jerusalem and Israel in the Quran "actually call for the creation of a Jewish state."

Winston Churchill, says Morse, divided the British Mandate of Palestine along the Jordan River into East Palestine – or Trans-Jordan – and West Palestine or Cis-Jordan.

Trans-Jordan, Morse continues, "would be recognized by the U.N. as the Kingdom of Jordan in 1947" and was to be exclusively Arab Palestine, while Cis-Jordan, or Palestine, "would likewise be recognized as Israel by the U.N. in 1947."

From the 1948 Israel war of Independence and until the 1967 Six Day War, the region west of the Jordan River that was occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan was known as West Jordan and the Arabs living there were Jordanian citizens, said Morse.

"Ahmad Shukairi – the founder of the PLO – stated in 1969 that 'Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan,'" said Morse. "PLO member Abu Iyad recounted in his memoir 'Palestinian without a Motherland' that he and other PLO members had been advised by the North Vietnamese to develop the 'two-state' idea in 1973."

So the North Vietnamese, said Morse, actually "advised Iyad to 'stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.'"

Soon, he said, the "Soviet-sponsored PLO continued their war against Israel both through terrorism" and through promoting the "diplomatic artifice that has become known as the 'two-state solution.'"

"But always," said Morse, "the movement for Palestinian Arab sovereignty west of the Jordan River remains nothing more than a vanguard movement seeking the eventual destruction of the State of Israel.

And President Obama is simply its latest spokesperson."

PRAVDA HAS JOINED THE BIRTHERS (FULL ARTICLE)

2010-09-18T22:33:00.000-07:00

AKA Obama fans: All together now – say OMG!!
by Sam Sewell

1. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

It isn't hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA lives with, day in and day out. Much has been written about AKA OBAMA's behavior that reminds mental health experts and others of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) A frequent manifestation of such a disorder is The Narcissist, as Liar and Con-man.

This disorder is frequently misunderstood as "self-love." A more accurate understanding is love of a reflection of one's self. Abused, abandoned and neglected children will compensate for damaged egos by creating an ideal reflection of themselves that they then embellish and vigorously defend. A person with NPD is quite capable of a mind twisting position like, "I have nothing to hide, but I am hiding things anyway."

AKA OBAMA certainly fits the model of having such a childhood. While I am not in the position to deliver an official In Absentia diagnosis of a full strength NPD case, many of the indicators are present.

If AKA OBAMA were not in a position of public trust, most of us would probably overlook such deception and secrecy. For those of us who care about our Constitution and the rule of law, the issue becomes clear in this article that appeared in on-line Pravda by international columnist Mark S. McGrew, The Mysterious Shadow: Code Name Obama.

Most Americans do not want their president to be secretive about his past. However, if one is living a lie to preserve the ego compensating, idealized reflection of self, one will go to great lengths to hide things that most would routinely reveal.

For the person who has NPD tendencies, the lies used to create the reflection become so numerous that eventually the man in the mirror cracks, and so does the real human being hiding behind the reflection.

A useful tool in evaluating things that are not known with certainty is Occam's razor. When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

I condense this to the simple question: what is most likely? In our discussion of the documents which AKA has hidden, most of this article is an examination of which explanation is most likely.

For example, which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?

What we know with certainty is that AKA OBAMA is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure. " The biggest question, and the biggest reason for asking more questions, is the fact Obama has enlisted law firms across the nation to battle every attempt to access, among other documents, his birth, schooling, immigration or passport records." New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo

There are so many potential sources that can end AKA OBAMA's Presidency that it is impossible to keep them all quiet.

It's just a matter of time. As columnist Davvy Kidd says, IMPOSTOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: VICTORY WILL BE SHORT LIVED. First, let's think of all the lawyers and support staff involved in keeping the birth certificate issue quiet. Isn't it likely that some of them know what they are hiding? Isn't it likely that several people at the Hawaiian Department of Public Health know what is, or is not, on the original birth certificate that AKA OBAMA refuses to release?

Did you know that there is a one million dollar reward offered for AKA OBAMA's Hawaiian birth certificate?

2. Please get this straight:

Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA's place of birth. What they have said is that they "have the original document" on file. They haven't offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor's signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit?

The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from "our" Chicago con-man. Recently a Hawaiian government official stepped over the legal line and overtly stated that AKA Obama's "vital records" showed that he was born in Hawaii.

It is entirely possible for the "vital records" of Hawaii to show than a person was born in Hawaii when in fact that person could have been born elsewhere.

Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii.

Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.

One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy was the president of the first Chinese republic. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States.

The wording on Sun Yat-sen's Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he "made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands." Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?

The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.

Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

The records of hospitals in Hawaii have been searched and there is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child.

In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya Soetoro told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu.

After it was concluded in February 2008 that Obama and his mother were never there , Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.

Obama and Mom were never there either. AKA Obama has said he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center yet no hospital official has suggested that their facility should be designated as the birth place of a President. Odd!

Which is most likely?

• AKA Obama is hiding a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital and signed by a doctor?

• AKA Obama is hiding a birth certificate attested to by witnesses with no hospital or doctor mentioned?

3. The birth document published on AKA Obama's web site isn't adequate evidence of place of birth even if it isn't a forgery

The Certification of Live Birth that was published on AKA OBAMA's campaign web site is not a Birth Certificate. It is easy to tell the difference between the two types of documents. It is very likely that the COLB used by AKA OBAMA's campaign is a fraudulent document. Several forensic document examiners have carefully scrutinized the COLB and declared it suspicious or an obvious forgery.

Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:

Sandra Lines says, "I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the "Daily Kos," the Obama Campaign, "Factcheck.org" and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm.

Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document." Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.

Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born" at FactCheck?

Joe Miller and Jess Henig, that's who! They are a couple of partisan Obots -- just what you'd expect -- Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph. Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it -- and so do Henig and Miller.

Here is another thing to consider. Birth Certificates might be protected by privacy laws in Hawaii but transactions for purchase should be available as public record. The COLB that AKA Obama offers as his proof (and has been deemed unreliable) just showed up without explanation.

There is nothing from the State of Hawaii about AKA Obama requesting a copy of his BC. Obama, nor the DNC has come forward with evidence of a request for the copy so where did it come from?

These cost $10 to get and if requested via the phone someone would have had to use a credit card or sent a check or money order by mail, yet, nothing is, or ever has been, offered as proof of even a request for the copy. Someone could have said here is a CC receipt, or a canceled check, or the remitter's copy of a money order.

Someone should have this without a doubt. Has anyone asked the State of Hawaii if there is a record of payment for a COLB from AKA Obama?

This is something that could even be forged easily but not even a forged receipt or record of payment of any kind has been offered.

Could the reason for this be that Obama's COLB is a forgery and no one even thought to forge a receipt for it from Hawaii?

To be continued

PART TWO

Q: Is that COLB a false document like some people are claiming?
A: No, of course not, here is the receipt (non-existent) for the COLB from the State of Hawaii.

And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama's COLB is different than other COLBs

AKA Obama COLB Filed But Never Accepted - Click Image For Full View

4. No Evidence of a Hawaiian Birth for AKA Obama – What About Kenya?

As for AKA Obama’s birth in Kenya we hear this from attorney Mario Apuzzo “We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator's affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, O8-cv-04083: Obama's step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama's success story, that she witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by "Kweli Shuhubia" and one of the grandmother's grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice her grandson intervened, saying "No, No, No, He was born in the United States." During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.

The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to "Barack Hussein Obama, III" in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then "spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General's Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information."

It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.”

That is a real mind bender. Let’s see; AKA Obama wasn’t born in Kenya but his birth place is declared to be “top secret” by Kenyan officials. There are no records of AKA Obama being born in Kenya and those nonexistent records are being withheld and are “top secret”. That sounds so much like what the official position of AKA Obama could be; “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”

5. The Crux of the Legal Straw That Can Break AKA Obama’s Back
Another piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases, all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “Discovery” phase. Before a trial starts, both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush.” The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden, the case will be decided by court-ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial; they only need to get a trial.

For those of you who think ridicule and name calling are effective debate tactics, I refer your kool-aid drenched, tin foil protected brains (a dose of your own medicine) to this article from American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate .

6. Enough on the Hidden Birth Certificate and Forged Documents. What if AKA Obama was Actually Born in Hawaii?
What about the legal team that is keeping AKA OBAMA’s college records hidden? Several people probably know what they are hiding. The best guess as to what is so secret isn’t likely to be bad grades. More likely his admission papers will say he was a foreign student, or that he was receiving financial aid as a foreign student. How many people do you estimate already know what is on AKA OBAMA’s college documents? Those records were handled routinely for more than 20 years. How many personnel in the registrar’s offices of Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University have seen AKA OBAMA’s records and know what is in them? How many of those people would be willing to talk about it, or maybe even “leak” just one sheet of paper that would put even more cracks in AKA OBAMA’s mirror? Is that number likely to be zero? Do you think that AKA OBAMA worries about how many people know something that could destroy his career? Fear of being “found out” is an obsession for NPD types. The Cost to hide Obama's past now 1.35 million.

7. THE CATALOG OF HIDDEN DOCUMENTS FROM AKA OBAMA’S PAST
So far we have only talked about the original birth certificate, supposedly locked up in Hawaii, and AKA OBAMA’s draft and college records. Already the potential sources for leaks are numerous. And you can bet that AKA OBAMA and his lawyers are concerned about many more possible leaks than these.There is a long list of vulnerability points for leaks, and there is a story behind every one of them. This list is one of many available and comes from one of my favorite blogs

Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — $15.

Certification of Live Birth — Released – Counterfeit – Case and Affidavits

Admitted British citizenship at birth — Confirmed via FactCheck.org/FightTheSmears.com

Birth Announcement — Alleged to be a forgery

Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Obama/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Soetoro adoption records — Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)

Punahou School records — Not released

Soetoro/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)

Selective Service Registration — Released – Counterfeit – Document Locator Number update – another FOIA request

Occidental College records — Not released

Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser

Columbia College records — Not released

Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” – Not released

Harvard College records — Not released

Harvard Law Review articles — None

Illinois Bar Records — Not released.

Baptism certificate — None

Medical records — Not released

Illinois State Senate records — None

Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost

Law practice client list — Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

Kindergarten records – this” lost or hidden” incident deserves more detail:

8. THE MISSING KINDERGARTEN RECORDS AND THE MYSTERIOUS NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT
“Obama began his education in Hawaii's public schools. He was enrolled in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. He was only there a couple or three months before he was off to Indonesia.

The first little boy in the third row, left is "Barry Obama." Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng confirms that the boy is Obama.

The two white girls in the same row are probably the Nordyke twins. They were not identical twins, but they did have the same smile. They were born the same time as Obama. I still want to know what happened to their birth announcement. Twins, being born to a prominent physician is news. More specifically, I want to know what happened to the space their birth announcement was in.Or am I expected to believe that Vital Statistics included Obama's name on their announcement list, and forgot the Nordyke Twins? Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here: Birth Announcement here -- expand to regular size to read.

Those who strive to legitimize AKA Obama have made much of the questionable “birth announcement” that may have been published in the Hawaiian newspapers. This “evidence” if so flimsy that refuting it may actually lend substance to the claim.

There are literally dozens of anti-Birther articles in the media that continue to claim that AKA Obama's birth announcement was in "two different newspapers". These two newspapers are printed by the same publisher and share the same stories and sources. The purpose of this “two newspaper” claim is to falsely imply that these newspapers are independent of each other, and therefore, unlikely to run the same birth announcement.

Birth announcements were called in or mailed in all the time. The Nordyke twins were announced, then recently (about a year ago) that announcement was replaced with the AKA Obama one. And the original owner of the “birth” residence died about 2 years, before the newly discovered birth announcement was touted by the Obama campaign after AKA Obama's Hawaiian 'birth” was challenged. There is also evidence of splicing in the microfilm. The most likely scenario is that the Nordyke twin’s birth announcement was spliced out and replaced by a post-dated AKA Obama announcement. The fact that the home address in the fake AKA Obama announcement was never occupied by Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, and that the birth announcement just happened to appear right after the actual tenant of the home died, pretty much drives a stake though the heart of this story. Here is WND's story about the birth address.

A more comprehensive analysis debunking the birth announcement claim; Here is “jbjd’s” answer:

There isn't one single, credible source that has any concrete facts whatsoever, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?template=zoom&Site=M1&Date=20090728&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=907280345&Ref=V3

Eleanor Nordyke of Manoa shows the birth certificates of her twin daughters. They were born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the day after Obama was born

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/assets/gif/M1139416728.GIF
Here's a surprise! Hawaii's Department of Education has been unable to find AKA Obama’s Kindergarten records. By this time maybe you are no longer surprised.

Obama's Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of chronological "coincidences" that obscure AKA Obama’s history.Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School (next item) -- and that document was discovered by independent investigators.

This is an important feature because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:
1. Obama's REAL Birth Certificate.
2. An application with the following:
• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)

It also is important for two additional reasons:
A. The Department of Education does not "lose" the records of one particular student. (So, who paid whom what sum to make this record disappear?)
B. There would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide that could possibly "excuse" the quashing of public school Kindergarten entry records. For the rest of his life he attended very expensive private schools and has had his records legally sealed to deny the public his true life story.

This is different. Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. State and federal tax dollars paid for his initial year of education. Why is there no documentation?

This is the beginning of an intentionally erased life of a fraud and conman and it reeks of complicity by officials within the State of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health and Dept. of Education.” Hat tip to Don Fredrick at http://www.colony14.net/

International columnist Mark S. McGrew sums up AKA Obama’s missing history succinctly: “With all of Obama’s different names, with his documented long term relations to convicted criminals, with his active efforts to prohibit us from knowing where he was born, with his active efforts to keep us from seeing his credentials, with his documented registration to practice law, professing to have only one name, with his being an ex-attorney not authorized to practice law, but representing himself as such, with his non-existent “Office of The President Elect,” with the dozen or so lawsuits against him to determine his citizenship status, with the various promises he made to voters and on which he has since reneged, with his documented lack of respect to America, with his refusal to salute the American flag with others on stage or even to stand at attention, and his other disrespectful actions, with his many millions of dollars in campaign funds suspected to be from foreign sources, with campaign donations accepted from possible terrorists groups, . . . Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can not in any way, shape or form be trusted.”

I would ask the reader to accept the premise that there are many potential leaks from those things that are being kept hidden by a man who promised transparency in government. But there are other problems from sources that are not hidden.

9. What we know for sure that makes AKA Obama ineligible
AKA OBAMA himself has made it known that his father was from Kenya.

We know that records indicate that AKA OBAMA’s biological father was Barack Obama SR, a Kenyan native, and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.

That same act governed the status of Obama SR’s offspring. We know that the geographical location of AKA OBAMA’s birth is not considered by British law. Who the father was determines citizenship, not where you are born. Had AKA OBAMA been born in Tokyo or Texas he would still be a citizen of the United Kingdom under The British Nationality Act. A similar practice governs who is considered a citizen in several countries. Judaism is matrilineal, meaning that your mother’s, lineage determines whether you are a Jew. That is why Jews from all over the world can claim Israeli citizenship.

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.In other words, at the time of his birth, AKA OBAMA might have been a U.S. citizen (by virtue of his allegedly being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), becomes a citizen of Kenya on the 12th of December, 1963.

As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.

So we know for sure that, if OBAMA Sr is in fact his legal father, then AKA OBAMA was a citizen of the United Kingdom and then Kenya. Given all the efforts to keep his birth certificate hidden, it is reasonable to assume that he is not a citizen of the United States, but even if he were born in downtown Denver he would still have triple citizenship, and is thus ineligible to hold the office of President.

Undocumented "WORKER"??

One thing he does NOT DO is work. Not even in between his multiple vacations. He does what his puppeteers (mostly Marxist-Islamic ones) tell him to do.

There is a similar problem with AKA OBAMA’s possible Indonesian citizenship. School records have surfaced that clearly indicate AKA OBAMA being listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.

So AKA OBAMA has been a citizen of the UK, Kenya, and there are inconclusive documents indicating that he was also a citizen of Indonesia. The missing birth certificate may be a false clue that leads away from the big crime. Even if Obama were born in Hawaii* he would still be ineligible to serve as President because of his dual (perhaps triple) citizenship.

*not likely, given the effort expended to keep the information about his birth a secret. By AKA OBAMA's and Bob Bauer, AKA OBAMA's Lead Lawyer's, own reports, AKA OBAMA has spent Hundreds of thousands of Dollars on legal fees defending against lawsuits claiming that he is not eligible.

Why would AKA OBAMA spend that much money to hide a $10 Birth Certificate?

10. Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:

"Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesian issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth,” just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President." Leo C. Donofrio

The facts are clear, and the law is clear. All it will take is for a judge to issue a ruling. Do you think AKA OBAMA and his lawyers fret about this? They certainly are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this issue. So far, no court or judge has issued a ruling on the merits of any legal case against AKA OBAMA. Cases have been dismissed on legal technicalities, but no actual case has yet been heard.

There are other potential leaks that come from AKA OBAMA’s international history. If Obama was born in Kenya, there should be a record of that birth in UK records. There are probably people in England and Kenya who already have information that would put cracks in AKA OBAMA’s distorted reflection of himself, and there is other information that can be mined from archives. The same is true for Indonesia.

In the unlikely outcome that none of the people talk, and none of the documents surface, would AKA OBAMA than be free of obsessive fear of being found out? No, even if none of his secrets are revealed and none of his lies are exposed, he will continue to remain vulnerable.

11. AKA Obama’s crimes

Because of the way AKA OBAMA ran his campaign; donations from Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, donations from illegal foreign sources, and ACORN’s crimes; More than half the voter registrations turned in by ACORN canvassers during the last election were not valid, according to testimony to be presented before a House Judiciary subcommittee, etc, AKA Obama is subject to criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, federal campaign finance laws, and laws against voter registration fraud, according to a memo by Cleta Mitchell, co-chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. In spite of all this Congressional Democrats still want ACORN to be eligible for federal money.

This is the first president in history to flout election campaign laws and receive millions from foreign countries (including Gaza), blockbusting stories that broke at Atlas all during the campaign.

“Obama’s overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up.”

The contributions had come from over 50 specifically named countries and major cities.
“Thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents.” U.S. contributors very rarely contribute in anything other than whole dollar amounts, so the reason why contributions would end with anything other than “.00″ would almost always involve foreign currency translation.

Regardless of how lively an election season might be, a new study shows that more 3.3 million voters on current registration rolls across the country are dead. Another 12.9 million remain on voter registration lists in an area where they no longer live. The analysis was conducted by the Aristotle International Inc., a technology company specializing in political campaigns, developing software and databases for politicians. In total that means about 8.9 percent of all registered voters fall under the category of "deadwood" voters on the rolls, the term for voters who should no longer be eligible to vote in a precinct. The data is here . . .

You may have noticed that the usual role of the media in ferreting out high jinks in high places has not been mentioned. There is no “All the President’s Men” movie in the making. No one is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for investigating AKA OBAMA. Is journalism dead in America? Well no, not quite.

Somebody, a major news outlet executive, has done the Pulitzer research. On his To The Point News website, Dr. Jack Wheeler said he will “Let the source of the information reveal it, in his own time. "...the details of what he told me are for him to reveal when he chooses, not me. I can tell you it is OMG wild."So get ready folks. One of these days I will be asking all of you AKA Obama fans to, “All together now, say OMG!”

12. Citizen Grand Juries Are the Power of the people when the government is corrupt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In United States vs. Williams (USSC 1992) Justice Scalia :
“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history...the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” In other words the power of the Grand Jury is assigned to We the People in order that we may maintain a "more perfect Union."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Obama has been indicted by Citizens Grand Juries in several States. It is just a matter of time before our judiciary is compelled to issue arrest warrants pursuant to the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Amendments of the United States Constitution. Keep in mind that the role of a grand jury is to determine if enough evidence exists to refer a case to the courts for trial. Can any objective person review information like that presented above and reject the premise that this case needs to be referred to the courts for prosecution?

One example of state laws defining the power of Grand Juries is Texas: “The grand jury's investigation of any matter may be initiated by the court, the district attorney, its own members, or any credible person. The grand jury may summon witnesses by subpoena and examine them under oath. On completion of an investigation the grand jury determines by vote whether or not an indictment should be presented to the court; nine votes are necessary for a decision to indict, and nine members also constitute a quorum.”

Constitutional scholar Gerry Donaldson has given speeches and conducted workshops on how citizens can form their own Grand Juries without judicial initiation or oversight.
It is very likely that the Citizens Grand Jury effort will result in an indictment by a conventionally impaneled Grand Jury.

The Citizens Grand Jury was designed by our Founding Fathers to provide We the People with the Power to control our government.

A Sleeping Giant has been awakened in this Country with Patriots all across America voicing their outrage over the illegalities of the Obama campaign at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings. Our Founding Fathers would be proud of these Patriots. Our Founding Fathers will be prouder still when these Patriots discover the Power of the Citizens Grand Jury.

Our Founding Fathers gave We the People the Fourth Branch of Government, the Citizens Grand Jury, in Our Bill of Rights. These 12 Simple Steps were created by an advising attorney and are the way for Patriots to keep control of the Government and Clean up Corruption in Washington:

“Do not even hint at the target of investigation or indictment. Grand Juries must be formed without bias. If a potential Grand Jury Member has any hint of who is about to be indicted that Grand Jury member may be biased and should not be allowed to serve.”

1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.

1) Find the CROOKED politicians in your City or Town that supported BO.
2) Link these CROOKED politicians to crimes committed by the BO Campaign.
3) Charge CROOKED politicians and BO as co-conspirators in the commission of campaign crimes and you have a Criminal Case against BO that can be prosecuted in Court in your County Seat.
4) Of course, you add all the other Crimes that BO committed elsewhere to your INDICTMENT also. But to prosecute BO in your State you have to link him as a co-conspirator to crimes committed in your State.

All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.” The case against AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first step in a criminal complaint. The goal of the project I support is to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and why he doesn’t want us to know it. Our goal will be achieved before any trial or verdict. It will be achieved as soon as one honest judge in one State orders AKA to submit all of the documents that he has been hiding from the American People for the past two years.

Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:

50 States

3,007 entities named “County”16 Boroughs in Alaska11 Census Areas in Alaska (areas not organized into Boroughs)64 Parishes in Louisiana42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia.

For a total of 3,191 opportunities to bring criminal charges against offending politicians.

Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” or report crimes, that is no small thing.

Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional grand juries to indict AKA OBAMA.

Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President? Once the Citizen Grand Jury presentments or indictments are issued, it is likely that many prosecutors and judges will want a copy of the evidence.

The Citizen Grand Jury Process with which I am affiliated is using recognized expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic testimony. The guiding principles for the project are the usual protocols of epistemology, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Any prosecutor or judge who ignores such evidence and testimony is at risk of being seen as acquiescent.

Rev. Sewell, an ordained Christian clergyman, a Pastoral Psychotherapist, a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He is a frequent commentator on religious and political issues.

FBI NEWS

2010-09-05T15:53:00.000-07:00

cold cases

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel10/editorial083010.htm

top ten stories

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel10/topten_090310.htm

southwest border

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/august10/border_083010.html

healthcare fraud

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/botox_090110.html

fake funerals for insurance

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/fraud_090310.html

HONEST CONFESSIONS OF MOSLEM SCHOLARS

2010-08-29T17:46:00.000-07:00

A look at what Imam Rauf wants to add to Ground Zero - insult to injury!

Brutal & Inhumane Islamic Law (Sharia) is Totally Against Our Laws and our Constitution.

The Builder of the Ground Zero Mosque Wants to Apply Sharia Here!

The New York Times mentioned on August 22, 2010 that it is not just the Taliban who stone adulterers, but also Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Pakistani, Sudanese, Somalian and even Nigerian Muslims. Why? Because this simply is Islamic law, “Sharia”.

In front of me now is a book called The Ordained Penalties of the Sharia Law, published by the most prominent and influential Islamic University, Al-AZhar of Egypt. This book is distributed to all Mosques in the United States. It says on pages 9 and 25 that adultery should be punished by stoning to death. Mohammad himself stoned men and women by his own hands. The Taliban are not extremists, but rather are genuine in that they want to apply Islamic Law.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam leading the effort to build the Ground Zero Mosque, wants to apply Islamic Law. What is this law all about? What is literally included in this book written by Al-AZhar? Indeed, Americans need to know some basics facts that top Islamic universities confess, including that Islam:

- Is not peaceful at all and rejects freedom of religious and human rights.
- Degrades and dehumanizes women, and discriminates and persecutes Jews and Christians.

Authorized Muslim scholars have openly confirmed that their “prophet” Mohammad taught the following:

1. He was ordered by God to fight all people until they say that he is His messenger. “If they say that I am not, I am allowed to shed their blood, seize their property, and capture their women.”
2. If any Muslim converts to become a Christian or a Jew, he should be killed. (Law of Apostasy).
3. If anyone steals even an egg, his hand should be cut off. (Law of Theft).
4. If anyone drinks any alcohol, he should be flogged with 40 lashes.
5. Only the blood of Muslims is made equal. Consequently, if any Muslim kills one of another faith he will be required only to pay money to the family, but not be killed. However, the penalty for killing another Muslim is death. (Burkari, Vol. 9)
6. “Hang the whip where your wives can see it.” (According to Al-Zomokhshori, in his popular book The Revealer, while explaining the Quran, Sura 4:34).
7. A wife is considered to be a slave to her husband (See AL Gazyia, Volume 5), and he said that all Muhammad’s friends including Omar, his successor, confirmed what Muhammad said.

Note: It is well-known that Mohammad not only owned slaves, but was a slave trader in the market of Mecca, especially after he became a “prophet” (according to Al Gawzyyia in his book Zad Al-Miad, page 160, part 1). He said also that he bought more than he sold, and he liked for all his friends to have Female slaves for sex.

References

Egypt – Al-AZhar University

In page 30 of the abovementioned book, the “prophet” Mohammad said that anyone who runs away from Islam should be killed, whether they adopted another faith or not. A woman called Um Marawan renounced Islam. Mohammad ordered that if she failed to repent, that she should be put to death. All of Mohammad’s successors continued this practice. It is well-known that the first successor killed thousands of Arabs who renounced Islam after Mohammad’s death. Junior High students in Islamic countries are taught about this War of Apostasy.

Saudi Arabia – Islamic University

In 1974 A.D. the Muslim professor Ibn baz wrote a book to threaten the former president of Tunisia, Borkeba, as an apostate (one who renounces Islam) because he said that the Quran is filled with a lot of contradictions and fictional stories. Borkeba also degraded Muhammad and prohibited polygamy.

Kuwait and The Qatar Islamic University

The Muslim scholar Dr. Ahmad of Qatar said boldly and literally in the book Individual Guarantee in Islamic Law that “We reject the United Nation’s Article 18 pertaining to Human Rights which states that anyone has the right to change his or her religion because Islam does not acknowledge this type of freedom.”

Also see the weekly Kuwaiti magazine Islamic Society, April 17, 1989 – Dr. Jabir, who confirmed this.

If you are looking for more references, search The Law of Apostasy Must Change, a book by Reverend Bassam Madany, and also an article in the New York Times, May 12, 2008, about President Obama, titled, “The Apostate President.” The article stated that according to Islamic Sharia Law, any Muslim country may not punish any individual who tries to kill President Obama because he (Obama) was raised as a Muslim.

No Compulsion in Religion – What Does This Verse Mean?

In his popular volume Al Muhalla, Ibn Hazm said in volume 8, part 2, that any Christian or Jew is free to be a Muslim or not. There is no compulsion. But if he becomes a Muslim, then he is not free anymore to renounce Islam, and if he does he should be killed. He also added on page 196, that Mohammad used to force the Pagan Arabs to embrace Islam or be killed. AL-Sharawy of Egypt said the same.

Another very popular Muslim scholar, Al Shafi in his book The Ordinance of Quran, part 2, page 50, stated that Mohammad used to capture and kill Jews and Christians until some of them were forced to be Muslims. He imposed large taxes and humiliation on the others.

Islam Is Not a Peaceful Religion

A very honest confession comes from one of the top contemporary Muslim scholars, Dr. Al-Buti, in his frequently printed book Jurisprudence of the Mohammad Biography. in the English edition, 1988, page 73, he says, “It is a wrong statement to say that Islam is a peaceful and loving religion.” I hope Obama, Bush, Bloomberg, Ron Paul, and Congressman Keith Ellison will learn this. In the same book he keeps repeating that jihad and the holy war in Islam are basically offensive, not defensive, to expand the religion because Mohammad said, “I was ordered by God to fight all people.” Actually that is what has happened throughout Islam’s history.

What About the Verses of Peace in the Quran?

In his very popular book Exactness – Itqan in Quaranic Science, part 3, pages 61 – 69, Imam Al-Suyiti himself said that the verses of peace in the Quran were issued first in Mecca when Muslims were few and weak, but when they became strong in Medina they were ordered to fight and all these earlier verses were abolished, “abrogated”, and replaced by the verses of the sword!

Islamic Law of Theft

In The Ordained Penalty of Sharia, page 5, the author said upon the first offense that the right hand should be amputated. Upon the second offense, the left foot should be amputated. All of this is according to the Quran, Sura 5:38.

That Mohammad used to hang the amputated hand on the thief’s neck and make him walk around the city is written in the book Zad Al Miad-Gawzyaa, volume 5, pages 52-56, Library Al Minara Al Islamyia.

About Beating the Wife

In his book You Ask and Islam Answers, page 94, the Muslim scholar Mushtahari commented on Sura 4:34 about beating the wife. He said that many wives are the sort of women who need punishment and beating to bring them back to their senses. Dr. Ahmad of Qatar Islamic University in his above-mentioned book Individual Guarantee also agrees with this statement. No wonder that Liberal Muslim women protest as does Taslima Nasrin in her popular novel, SHAME. Of course she escaped Bangladesh to avoid death.

About women in general, Mohammad said also that they have a deficiency in their mind and they are the cause of an evil omen and have crooked character, and most of the people that are going to hell are women. (Listed in the hadith of Bukhari, volume 7, and in the English translation as well.)

Tolerance Versus Intolerance

We should definitely have love and tolerance towards all peace-loving Muslims, but inhumane Islamic Sharia Law is very intolerant toward human rights and women. It is contrary to and violates our laws and our Constitution which provides respect for women and grants freedom of religion to us all. We have every right to be intolerant toward the religion of Islam while still being tolerant and loving towards Muslims.

Before building the Ground Zero Mosque or any other Mosque in our land, those who build it should be required to state that they renounce and will not permit or promote the establishment of any aspect of Sharia Law in the United States.

We must never, never, ever tolerate any aspect of Islamic political ideology that calls for the conquest of all nations and imposition of sharia and theocratic rule. These go far beyond a religion and must not be accorded the freedom we grant to religions.

Nor should we ever tolerate or even permit the advocacy of Islam’s so-called religious teachings or beliefs which run contrary to our established laws regarding such issues as polygamy, underage marriage, punishments, rights of inheritance, divorces, honor killings, family law, testimony of women in courts, rights of non-Muslims to testify in court, lying under oath, etc. Sura 4:11 in the Quran states that women can inherit only half that of a man. Sura 2:282 states that court testimony must include two men, or one man and two women; testimony that does not include a man is not allowed. Muslims who insist on following or advocating teachings or beliefs that are contrary to or violate our laws should be deported to a nation where they can live under sharia laws.

We must recognize that Muslims who are terrorists — or who support terrorism in any way — are not simply “radicals” as we are so often told; rather, they are simply being truly obedient Muslims who are following the example of Muhammad, obeying the doctrines of the Qur’an, and observing the tenets of Sharia developed from the Qur’an and the sunnah. These are not “moderate Muslims”. They are, without exception as we have seen, a threat to our freedoms, our way of life, and our Constitution.

If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Congressman Ellison of Minnesota, or others who have stated they would like to see the United States governed by Islamic law want to live under Sharia, they should move to a Muslim country – even though they will surely lose some of the freedoms they enjoy here. If they have become citizens of the U.S., they agreed when they swore their Oath of Allegiance, “…I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”.

1992 -COMMUNIST READIED INFILTRATOR ALREADY ON RADAR

2010-08-20T00:12:00.000-07:00

The First Time I Heard of Barack
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=88439

The First Time I Heard Of Barack

By Tom Fife 11-20-8

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning.
One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice- president and you didn’t do it.”

The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”

“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African’”, she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”
She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it’s definitely anecdotal. It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

Tom Fife

Marine met Mulatto Muslim Abomination (in 1980)
http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/barack-obama-sighting-hawaii-1980-revised/

While back in Hawaii by late June of 1980, we went back to Honolulu for liberty. I don’t remember the exact address, or the exact business, but one August night, early August 1980, I stopped at a small shop that was either on Kalakaua Blvd, now called Ala Moana, or the street just north of it, one block north. I struck up a conversation with a young man, Mulatto, about 18, all teeth, smiling, skinny, short hair that I remember, at least short for the year we lived in.

We struck up a conversation simply because he was at the same place as I was. He appeared to be either an employee there on his off day or was visiting the other older Black American man working there. “Hey, are you a military dependant or do you live here?” I asked. He told me he lived in Hawaii. Not too many black Americans lived in Hawaii at all then, so his being there was an oddity in itself. Heck, my hometown of 16,000 in Connecticut had only three or four Black families until 20 years ago. I asked if he was in the service and he said no. I told him that I was a Marine and had recently gotten back from float. We spoke of world travel at this time and I told him the places we went to.

What strikes me most is what he said as to where he grew up: Indonesia. Having stopped in the Philippines and Thailand that previous deployment made me curious and I asked him if Indonesia was as poor as the Philippines, but he hadn’t been to the Philippines so he didn’t know. We had spoken of how both our travels abroad had given us great perspectives in how we viewed the world.

For myself, I admit that things I had heard of how superior the United States was were proven accurate and also proven false. Our nation was surely the greatest in economic power, with technical jobs for those who searched it out, with higher pay for our labors. Many other places I had been to in the western Pacific had complete poverty; mothers who take their daughters into the field where Marines are deployed and try to prostitute them for money so they have food to eat, women who believe there is no better way to advance their own lot in life than to become a prostitute themselves and try to marry an American who is lonelier than another and would take her home as a bride. But the people, I expected something different, I can’t put a word to the emotion or expectation, but because of my travels, I learned that the heart of man is identical across the world.

People want something better for themselves and they want something better for their children and many are willing to go to great lengths to find it, using methods that we would find repulsive, but be sympathetic to because of their poverty. I used to think of Americans as “better people”, that our nation was superior, but I learned that we are different because we were blessed, not because of whom we are but despite whom we all are inside. The persons I met were no different than anyone I met here at home in their basic character, they were just living in a culture that either allowed them to naturally succeed or one that forced them, or appeared to force them, to do things to survive that our American culture has long forgotten about.

I asked this Indonesian immigrant of these things but he told me those things were not common where he grew up. Our conversation drifted to our dreams of what we are going to do once we are “all grown up”. I replied that I was not sure and most likely would either re-enlist in the Marines or go home to attend college on the GI Bill.

He told me he wanted to be President of the US someday. I remember lightly smiling and commenting that maybe by the time he gets to be 40 or so, America will be ready for a Black man to be President and I wished him luck. We spoke of the racial tensions I saw at home while growing up, of the outright hostility of Hawaiians toward white Americans and black Americans and I asked him if he ever saw that overseas or since he returned back to Hawaii. I don’t remember his answer, but we spoke more of his time overseas and his thoughts on life and philosophy of government.

He made some strange comments to me; it was obvious he never set foot for any time on continental United States and I told him he better realize that he is making judgments about the United States when he himself never actually lived there. I told him, “Hawaii aint the United States!”

He also told me something that I never forgot, for it caused me to do some other things later in an effort to be nice to him. Since we spoke of where I had been and the world as I saw it, I told him I had been to Africa, Mombassa specifically, and he said to me abruptly, “I was born there.”

I told him he is not eligible to be president if that was true, but I remembered he said his mom was an American, so, maybe it was okay. But it was what I did after that makes this a true memory: I went back to the barracks and told others of this guy and suggested we all grab our photo albums and visit him again and show him pictures of Mombassa so he could see where he was from.

No one wanted to go, and before that time, my camera had failed the weeks before we hit Mombassa. It was late August or early September until I had borrowed someone else’s pictures to develop myself so I had copies of pictures of where I was. But I never forgot meeting that man for those reasons. I was going to do him a favor and show him his home country of birth. And I never went back for some reason, most likely I forgot to or just felt that a one time chance encounter would be meaningless to both of us and didn’t mean we were friends.

In the light of what is called the ‘Birther’ movement these memories are foremost in my mind. While I cannot swear it was Barak Obama, nor can I prove it beyond doubt, all the details I do remember of that chance encounter fit the profile of the man who some people claim was born in Kenya and others claim he was born in Hawaii.

The man I met was about 18, thin, Mulatto, told me he was born in Mombassa, raised in Indonesia, was living in Hawaii and hadn’t yet been to many places in the world outside of those places, mostly, hadn’t been to the mainland of America for any long time period if at all. And he openly told me he wanted to be President.

And I remember that face, the face of a young man who sat on a table or countertop to my right front, his hands resting on the edge, him leaning forward, his grin; all teeth. It was Barak Obama. I don’t know if I’d bet my life on it, but I am willing to tell people openly at the risk of my ridicule. I was there, and saw him, spoke to him, and he openly told me he was born in Mombassa, Kenya, not Hawaii.

Does it matter? Of course it does. It should not have to be explained why it matters.

OBAMA INTENT ON DESTROYING ISRAEL

2010-08-17T15:55:00.000-07:00

Standing on a landmine [Caroline Glick on why Obama is like a landmine]
Jerusalem Post ^ | 8/17/2010 | Caroline Glick

Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 8:26:46 AM by HearMe

Obama’s stance on the Ground Zero mosque should signal to Israel that the president is so wed to his ideology that he will push it regardless of political conditions.

US President Barack Obama’s warm endorsement of the plan to build a mosque by the ruins of the World Trade Center tells Israel – and its enemies – everything we need to know about the president of the United States of America.

Speaking during a Ramadan fast breaking meal at the White House to an audience of people affiliated with various Muslim Brotherhood- related groups in the US, Obama couched his support for the mosque at Ground Zero in constitutional terms.

In his words, “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. Our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.”

Of course, none of those who have voiced opposition to the mosque project at Ground Zero have claimed that the Islamic group behind the mosque project is acting unlawfully in seeking to construct a mosque. The nearly 70 percent of Americans who oppose building a mosque at Ground Zero oppose the mosque because they believe it is wrong to build a mosque at the site where less than a decade ago Muslims acting in the name of Islam murdered nearly 3,000 people in an act of war against the US and an act of terror against the American people.

Obama has been pilloried by his opponents for his position. And his fellow Democrats, facing the likelihood of massive defeats in the Congressional elections in three months, are reportedly deeply frustrated by his statements. Indeed, the uproar Obama’s pro-mosque remarks has unleashed has been so harsh it raises the question of why he made it.

THERE ARE two possible explanations for Obama’s move. Either he was motivated by politics or he was motivated by ideology. The view that Obama was motivated by politics is easily dismissed. With more than two-thirds of Americans telling pollsters they oppose the Ground Zero mosque project, it makes no political sense for a politician to strike out a position in favor of the mosque. Indeed, major Democrats have either refused to state a position on the issue or, like New York Governor David Paterson, they have recommended that the mosque builders construct their mosque elsewhere.

Perhaps Obama thought he could he could get away with making his statement. However, with his polling numbers consistently eroding, it is hard to imagine Obama’s advisers would have told him that was a realistic view.

This leaves ideology. But what ideology motivates Obama to embrace such an unpopular initiative at such an explosive political juncture? Obama and his supporters would like us to believe this is a civil rights issue. In his defense of the Ground Zero mosque, Obama claimed his position was based on the American values such as, “The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect towards those who are different from us.”

But if Obama is motivated by a belief in civil rights that is so strong it propels him to take on deeply unpopular causes in an election season, then one could reasonably expect that his support for civil rights would be absolute. That is, one could expect him to use the same yardstick for all groups, in all places and at all times.

But for Obama, there are some groups who must be denied the same civil rights he upholds as absolute in his defense of the plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero. As Obama has made clear since his first days in office, he believes that Jews should be denied the right to their property in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews.

OBAMA IS so firm in his belief that Jews should be denied civil rights in Israel’s capital and in the heartland of Jewish history that he has provoked multiple crises in his relations with Israel to advance this bigoted view. Almost from his first day in office Obama has struck out a radical position in which he has insisted that Jews must be prohibited from building anything – synagogues, homes, nurseries, schools – in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria on land they own. Jews – Israeli and non-Israeli – should be barred from exercising their property rights even if their construction plans have already been approved “in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

At the same time, Obama has insisted that Israel take no action to enforce its “local laws and ordinances” against illegal structures built by Arabs in Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria.

Next month the deeply discriminatory and legally dubious 10-month moratorium on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria that Obama coerced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into instituting is set to end. So now Obama is putting the full weight of the White House on Israel to again coerce Netanyahu into prolonging the discriminatory ban that denies the civil rights and property rights of Jews simply because they are Jewish.

Obama claims to be embracing the nullification of Jewish civil right in the interests of peace. In his stated view, to forge peace in the Middle East it is necessary for the Palestinians to achieve statehood. But it hard to see how the establishment of a Palestinian state squares with Obama’s purported dedication to civil rights.

In a briefing with the Egyptian media last week Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas told reporters that no Jews will be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state. He also said that while he would agree to allow NATO forces to deploy in the future Palestinian state, he would not permit any Jewish soldiers to serve in the NATO units stationed on the territory of such a state. As he put it, “I will not agree that there will be Jews among NATO forces and I will not allow even one Israeli to live amongst us on the Palestinian soil.”

The notion that an inherently anti-Semitic Palestinian state, predicated on Jew hatred that strong, could possibly live at peace with Israel is simply ridiculous. But tellingly, in all the American pressure that has been placed on Abbas to begin direct negotiations with Israel, at no time has the administration been reported to have insisted that Abbas abandon his anti-Semitism. Obama has made no statement addressing the fact that the Palestinians demand that Jews be barred from living in the future Palestinian state. He has certainly not objected to this position although it squares with none of the American values of tolerance and property rights he upheld so strongly in his remarks on the Ground Zero mosque.

SO THE ideology Obama holds so strongly that it provokes him to take positions antithetical to the political interests of his party during an election season is not civil rights. Rather it has to do with his commitment to advancing the interests of a specific group or groups over the interests of other specific groups. In the case of the Ground Zero mosque he prefers the rights of Muslims over the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. In the case of the Palestinians, he prefers their anti-Semitic nationalism over the civil rights of Jews.

Obama’s behavior tells Israel’s leaders something very important about how they should think about their relations with the Obama administration. It tells them that Obama is so wed to his ideology that he will push it regardless of political conditions. This means that for Israel, dealing with Obama is like standing on a landmine. Just as a landmine can explode at any minute, Obama can attack Israel at any moment. He is so ideologically bound to the Palestinian cause against Israel that he is liable to provoke a crisis when it is least politically advantageous – from his perspective – for him to do so.

This lesson is particularly urgent on the eve of yet another round of direct negotiations with the Palestinians and as the freeze on Jewish property rights is about to expire. Obama’s ideological fanaticism means that nothing Israel does in the upcoming talks will help us.

As Obama’s media surrogates like Tony Karon at Time magazine have made clear in recent weeks, the anti-Israel narrative has already coalesced. Everything that happens regarding those negotiations is Israel’s fault. It is Israel’s fault that they haven’t begun. It will be Israel’s fault when they falter. It will be Israel’s fault when they fail. And if they succeed, Israel will still be blameworthy.

Facing this US President and his radical ideology, Netanyahu and his deputies must understand that they cannot appease him. They cannot convince him of Israel’s good intentions.

The US leader who has rejected the expressed views of 68 percent of his fellow citizens in favor of the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero is not going to be moved by reason. The American president who defends the Ground Zero mosque builders even though their leader refuses to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization and has claimed that the US had the Sept. 11 attacks coming to it; and the American president who upholds the Palestinian cause even though it is virulently, and often genocidally anti-Semitic is not going to be appeased by Israeli building freezes and other confidence building gestures.

What this means is that Netanyahu and his deputies must concentrate on defending Israel and advancing its national interests. It is in Israel’s national interests to guarantee the civil rights and property rights of Jews. It is in Israel’s national interests to forthrightly set out and defend Israel’s legal rights in Judea and Samaria and its sovereignty in united Jerusalem. It is in Israel’s national interest to enforce its laws without prejudice towards all its citizens and expect all its citizens to respect its laws.

We are dealing with a self-consciously radical President who intends to remake the US relationship with the Muslim world. We will find no understanding from him.

Alan Note: we are dealing with a radical Moslem usurper of the White House, who hates America as much as he hates Israel and wants to destroy both in different ways. Totally destroy Israel and Jews and scatter any live ones left, to the four winds.

America he wants to enslave just as the Communists enslaved the people of the USSR (Russia and dependant States)

Guide to the Perplexed [about Obama]

2010-08-15T14:38:00.000-07:00

Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations?

Israel’s leaders are reportedly concerning themselves with one question today. Are there any circumstances in which US President Barack Obama will order the US military to strike Iran’s nuclear installations before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal? From Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu down the line, Israel’s leaders reportedly raise this question with just about everyone they come into contact with. If this is true, then the time has come to end our leaders’ suspense.

The answer is no.

For all intents and purposes, there are no circumstances in which Obama would order an attack on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent Iran from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Exceptions to this statement fall into two categories: Either they are so implausible that they are operationally irrelevant, or they are so contingent on other factors that they would doom any US attack to failure.

Evidence for this conclusion is found in every aspect of Obama’s foreign policy. But to prove it, it is sufficient to point out point three aspects of his policies.

First of all, Obama refuses to recognize that an Iranian nuclear arsenal constitutes a clear and present danger to US national security.

Obama’s discussions of the perils of a nuclear Iran are limited to his acknowledgement that such an arsenal will provoke a regional nuclear arms race. This is certainly true. But then, that arms race has already begun. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the UAE and Kuwait have all announced their intentions to build nuclear reactors. In some cases they have signed deals with foreign countries to build such facilities.

And yet, while a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is bad, it is far from the worst aspect of Iran’s nuclear program for America.

America has two paramount strategic interests in the Middle East. First, the US requires the smooth flow of inexpensive petroleum products from the Persian Gulf to global oil markets.

Second, the US requires the capacity to project its force in the region to defend its own territory from global jihadists.

Both of these interests are imperiled by the Iranian nuclear program. If the US is not willing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will lose all credibility as a strategic ally to the Sunni Arab states in the area.

For instance, from a Saudi perspective, a US that is unwilling to prevent the ayatollahs from fielding nuclear weapons is of no more use to them than Britain or China or France. It is just another oil-consuming country. The same goes for the rest of the states in the Gulf and in the region.

The Arab loss of faith in US security guarantees will cause them to deny basing rights to US forces in their territories. It will also likely lead them to bow to Iranian will on oil pricesetting through supply cutbacks. In light of this, the Iranian nuclear program constitutes the greatest threat ever to US superpower status in the region and to the well-being of the US economy.

Then there is the direct threat that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes for US national security. This threat grows larger by the day as Iran’s web of strategic alliances in Latin America expands unchallenged by the US. Today Iran enjoys military alliances with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil and Bolivia.

As former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton has argued, at least the Soviets were atheists. Atheists of course, are in no hurry to die, since death can bring no rewards in a world to come. Iran’s leaders are apocalyptic jihadists. Given Iran’s Latin American alliances and Iran’s own progress toward intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran makes the Cuban missile crisis look like a walk in the park.

In the face of this grave and gathering threat, Obama canceled plans to deploy antiballistic missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. He has shunned the pro-American Honduran and Colombian governments in favor of Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has welcomed Brazil’s anti-American president to the White House. He cancelled the F-22.

THE FACT that Obama fails to recognize the danger an Iranian nuclear arsenal poses to the US does not in and of itself prove that Obama would not attack Iran’s nuclear installations.

After all, the US has fought many wars and launched countless campaigns in its history against foes that posed no direct threat to the US. In most of these cases, the US has fought on behalf of its allies.

In the case of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, because the Iranians have openly placed Israel first on their nuclear targeting list, US debate about Iran’s nuclear program has been anchored around the issue of Israel’s national security. Should the US attack Iran’s nuclear installations in order to defend Israel? Given the distorted manner in which the debate has been framed, the answer to that question hinges on Obama’s view of Israel.

Three recent moves by Obama and his advisers make clear that Obama takes a dim view of Israel. He views Israel as neither a credible ally nor a credible democracy.

First, there is the character of current US military assistance to Israel and to its neighbors.

In recent months, the Obama administration has loudly announced its intentions to continue its joint work with Israel toward the development and deployment of defensive anti-missile shields. Two things about these programs are notable. First, they are joint initiatives.

Just as Israel gains US financing, the US gains Israeli technology that it would otherwise lack. Second, as Globes reported last week, Obama has actually scaled back US funding for these programs. For instance, funding for the Arrow 3 anti-ballistic missile program – intended to serve as Israel’s primary defensive system against Iranian ballistic missiles – was cut by $50 million.

The defensive character of all of these programs signals an absence of US support for maintaining Israel’s capacity to preemptively strike its enemies. When the Pentagon’s refusal to permit Israel to install its own avionics systems on the next generation F-35 warplanes is added to the mix, it is difficult to make the argument that the US supports Israel’s qualitative edge over its enemies in any tangible way.

An assessment that the US has abandoned its commitment to Israel’s qualitative edge is strengthened by the administration’s announcement this week of its plan to sell Saudi Arabia scores of F-15 and F-16 fighter jets for an estimated $30 billion. While the US has pledged to remove systems from the Saudi aircraft that pose direct threats to Israel, once those jets arrive in the kingdom, the Saudis will be able to do whatever they want with them. If one adds to this equation the reduced regional stature of the US in an Iranian nuclear age, it is clear that these guarantees have little meaning.

Obama’s moves to reduce Israel’s offensive capacity and slow its acquisition of defensive systems goes hand in hand with his rejection of Israel’s right to self-defense and dismissive attitude toward Israel’s rule of law. These positions have been starkly demonstrated in his administration’s treatment of Israel in the wake of the IDF’s takeover of the Turkish- Hamas Mavi Marmara terror ship on May 31.

In the face of that blatant display of Turkish aggression against Israel as it maintained its lawful maritime blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza’s coastline, Obama sided with Turkey and Hamas against Israel. Obama demanded that Israel investigate its handling of the incident. Moreover, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that Israel was incapable of credibly investigating itself, and so required Israel to add non-Israeli members to its investigative committee.

Yet even Israel’s acceptance of this US humiliation was insufficient for Obama. His UN envoy Susan Rice then demanded that Israel accept a UN investigative panel that is charged with checking to see if the Israeli committee has done its job. And if the UN panel rejects the Israeli commission’s findings, it is empowered to begin its own investigation.

As to the UN, as former Obama and Clinton administration officials Ray Takeyh and Steven Simon explained in an article in the Washington Post last week, Obama’s national security strategy effectively revolves around subordinating US national security policy to the UN Security Council. In the remote scenario that Obama decided to use force against Iran, his subservience to the UN would rule out any possibility of a surprise attack.

Although in theory the US military’s capacity to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is much greater than Israel’s, given its practical inability to launch a surprise attack, in practice it may be much smaller.

All of these factors constitute overwhelming evidence that there are no conceivable circumstances under which Obama would order a US strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to forestall Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. And this reality should lead Israel’s leaders to three separate conclusions.

FIRST, AND most urgently, Israel must attack Iran’s nuclear installations. Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be set back at least until 2017, the latest date at which a new – and hopefully more rational – US administration will certainly be in office.

Second, given the fact that the US will not take action against Iran’s nuclear installations, there is no reason for Israel to capitulate to US pressure on lesser issues. The Obama administration has nothing to offer Israel on this most important threat, and so Israel should not do anything to strengthen its position. Among other things, this conclusion has clear implications for Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, Israel’s future responses to Lebanese aggression, and Israel’s continued cooperation with the UN probes of the Turkish- Hamas terror ship.

Finally, Obama’s behavior is a clear indication that Israel was wrong to allow itself to become militarily dependent on US military platforms.

Former defense minister Moshe Arens wrote recently that Israel should strongly consider abandoning plans to purchase the F-35 and restore the scrapped Lavi jetfighter to active development. Arens suggested that in doing so, Israel may find willing collaborators in the Indians, the French and even the Russians.

No, the US has not become Israel’s enemy – although the Obama administration has certainly struck an adversarial chord. Polling data suggests that most Americans disagree with Obama’s treatment of Israel and recognize that Iran is a threat to the US.

But polls aside, the answer to Israel’s desperate queries is that it is up to us. If the Obama administration teaches us anything, it teaches us that we must rely first and foremost on ourselves.