http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFO51TB038I
Fact Sheet: Copenhagen Consequences: What You Need To Know
http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/upload/Copenhagen_11.pdf
http://www.nocapandtrade.com/countdown-to-copenhagen/
The United States may become subject to a new treaty that would result in a massive transfer of wealth from the United States to other nations and undermine our national sovereignty. On December 7, 2009, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will hold its last government-level conference in Copenhagen, Denmark before the Kyoto Protocol is scheduled to expire in 2012.
The Kyoto Protocol, which established the infamous treaty to combat supposed global warming, was signed by President Bill Clinton but never ratified by the U.S. Senate. This time, things could be different. The UNFCCC is putting forth a strong effort to establish a new “Copenhagen Protocol” to replace Kyoto.
....President Obama has made it clear that he intends to pursue the policies, with or without a treaty. He said that the Copenhagen talks should produce an “immediate operational effect,” even if a legally binding treaty isn’t agreed upon.
http://www.heritage.org/News/Copenhagen-Climate-Change-Conference.cfm?CFID=83293532&CFTOKEN=88094526
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama joins UN conference at crucial moment
http://en.cop15.dk/frontpage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL COPENHAGEN http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=copenhagen&ok=Search&q=quick&m=any&o=time&SX=4b1bb1903cd8a980967d390bbbea709ee1b71fa2
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
CAN MOSLEMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?
Can Muslims Be Good Americans?
Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).
Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. . .Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Note: [There is an unmentioned SIXTH pillar of Islam -- Jihad, holy war which obliges every Moslem’s participation, either as a warrior or a supporter.]
Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.
* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America !
And not only that , someone has elected a Marxist trained one as president of the U.S.A.
(Internet Email)
Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia.
Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256) (Koran).
Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically - no. . .Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day. Note: [There is an unmentioned SIXTH pillar of Islam -- Jihad, holy war which obliges every Moslem’s participation, either as a warrior or a supporter.]
Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . . Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles, and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. . . . Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.
* * * Call it what you wish; it's still the truth.
* * * You had better believe it.
* * * The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
You HAVE to be kidding?! Wake up America !
And not only that , someone has elected a Marxist trained one as president of the U.S.A.
(Internet Email)
Monday, November 23, 2009
ISLAM'S JIHADI PLAN TO CONTROL AMERICA IN 20-YEARS
This Islamic 20-year project receives strong assistance from Oba-Hussein and his actions of putting fervent Moslems into top level poistions and at his insistence offering lower level government jobs to thousands of other Moslems.
Read the response, addressed to Mr. Obama, to all this at the end of the article.
By Anis Shorrosh IHC Abstract
Dr. Shorrosh offers the following 20-point analysis of the Islamist agenda to take over America by the year 2020:
1. Replace America’s freedom of speech with “anti-hate crime” bills that silence free speech nation-wide.
2. Wage a war of words using black leaders to promote Islam as the original African-American’s religion. Strangely, no one states the fact that it was Arab Muslims who captured and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same: Abed.
3. Engage the American public on the virtues of Islam.
4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office.
5. Take control of the media and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock. [Done! They even own about 10% of FOX!]
6. Encourage the fear of imminent shut-off of Middle Eastern oil supply.
7. Protest any time Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena. [The criminal CAIR leads the way in this!]
8. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Ever notice how many doctors in America are Muslim, when their countries of origin need them more desperately?
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
· Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
· Marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually)
· Convert angry, alienated black prison inmates and turn them into militants (2000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida).
10. Mosques and student centers (now ~2000) should teach hatred of Jews, Christians and democracy. Hundreds of Muslim schools are firstly loyal to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.
11. Provide grants to colleges and universities in America to establish “Centers for Islamic studies”.
12. Tell the world that terrorists have hijacked Islam, but not the truth, that Islam hijacked the terrorists.
13. Appeal to Americans for sympathy towards the Muslims in America, who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.
14. Undermine America’s sense of security with misinformation of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
15. Instigate prison riots demanding Islamic Sharia, not America’s justice system.
16. Increase charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism. [Obama publicly stated this as one of his goals!]
17. Raise interest in Islam on college campuses by insisting that freshmen take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the instructor is American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran while stressing its peaceful, spiritual and religious aspects only.
18. Consolidate all Muslim lobbies, mosques, Islamic student centers and media via the internet and hold an annual convention to coordinate plans to propagate the faith.
19. Send intimidating messages to outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by any means.
20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US, by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethnic groups in America.
HOWEVER!
President OBAMA said in his Cairo speech: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story.
Dear Mr. Obama:
Where were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?
Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
Were they Muslims who celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.
Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.
Your own 'half brother' a devout Muslim still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves."
Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage" doesn't it Mr.Obama?
Where were your Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not
present.
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King Jr.. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present.
In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hijab' or for talking to a man that is not a direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights aren't they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler.
The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?
If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the middle east.
No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news networks that day.
Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.
To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And now we can add November 5, 2009-- the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .
That, Mr. Obama is "Muslim heritage" in America .
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .
And you, Mr. Obama, verge on being a treacherous traitor.
Read the response, addressed to Mr. Obama, to all this at the end of the article.
By Anis Shorrosh IHC Abstract
Dr. Shorrosh offers the following 20-point analysis of the Islamist agenda to take over America by the year 2020:
1. Replace America’s freedom of speech with “anti-hate crime” bills that silence free speech nation-wide.
2. Wage a war of words using black leaders to promote Islam as the original African-American’s religion. Strangely, no one states the fact that it was Arab Muslims who captured and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same: Abed.
3. Engage the American public on the virtues of Islam.
4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office.
5. Take control of the media and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock. [Done! They even own about 10% of FOX!]
6. Encourage the fear of imminent shut-off of Middle Eastern oil supply.
7. Protest any time Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena. [The criminal CAIR leads the way in this!]
8. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Ever notice how many doctors in America are Muslim, when their countries of origin need them more desperately?
9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:
· Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
· Marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually)
· Convert angry, alienated black prison inmates and turn them into militants (2000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida).
10. Mosques and student centers (now ~2000) should teach hatred of Jews, Christians and democracy. Hundreds of Muslim schools are firstly loyal to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.
11. Provide grants to colleges and universities in America to establish “Centers for Islamic studies”.
12. Tell the world that terrorists have hijacked Islam, but not the truth, that Islam hijacked the terrorists.
13. Appeal to Americans for sympathy towards the Muslims in America, who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.
14. Undermine America’s sense of security with misinformation of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.
15. Instigate prison riots demanding Islamic Sharia, not America’s justice system.
16. Increase charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism. [Obama publicly stated this as one of his goals!]
17. Raise interest in Islam on college campuses by insisting that freshmen take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the instructor is American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran while stressing its peaceful, spiritual and religious aspects only.
18. Consolidate all Muslim lobbies, mosques, Islamic student centers and media via the internet and hold an annual convention to coordinate plans to propagate the faith.
19. Send intimidating messages to outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by any means.
20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US, by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethnic groups in America.
HOWEVER!
President OBAMA said in his Cairo speech: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story.
Dear Mr. Obama:
Where were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed?
Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.
Were they Muslims who celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution?
Declaration of Independence ? Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.
Did Muslims fight for this country's freedom from England ? No.
Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves in America ? No, they did not. In fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.
Your own 'half brother' a devout Muslim still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as "pug nosed slaves."
Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family's "rich Islamic heritage" doesn't it Mr.Obama?
Where were your Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? Not
present.
There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King Jr.. or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.
Where were Muslims during this country's Woman's Suffrage era? Again, not present.
In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture. So much so that often they are beaten for not wearing the 'hijab' or for talking to a man that is not a direct family member or their husband.
Yep, the Muslims are all for women's rights aren't they?
Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler.
The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazi's in killing Jews.
Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001?
If they weren't flying planes into the World Trade Center , the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the middle east.
No one can dispute the pictures shown from all parts of the Muslim world celebrating on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news networks that day.
Strangely, the very "moderate" Muslims who's asses you bent over backwards to kiss in Cairo , Egypt on June 4th were stone cold silent post 9-11.
To many Americans, their silence has meant approval for the acts of that day.
And now we can add November 5, 2009-- the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist who was supposed to be counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan .
That, Mr. Obama is "Muslim heritage" in America .
And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the "rich heritage" Muslims have here in America .
And you, Mr. Obama, verge on being a treacherous traitor.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN-KHOMEINI CLEARLY SUPPORTING THE MULLAHS
Obama is effectively supporting the regime in Iran.
By Mona Charen:
President Obama likes to preen himself on his supposed moral superiority to his predecessor. He announced the closing of Guantanamo in his first week on the job (though, ten months on, it remains open) to advertise the new administration’s disdain for George Bush’s war-fighting tactics. And at every opportunity since, he has stressed that his policies — on taxes, on the Middle East, on health care, on “man-caused disasters,” and on “climate change” — reflect a more refined and elevated morality than has ever before held sway in Washington, D.C.
So you have to wonder how the president slept last Wednesday night.
He has known that critics in the United States regarded his posture toward the Iranian regime as weak. But on Wednesday, he heard this critique from a different quarter — one that will be more difficult to dismiss.
Every year, on November 4, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Iranian thugs took American diplomats hostage in Tehran, the government has organized a street demonstration outside the former American embassy. In the early days, the rallies may have engaged a certain number of spontaneous participants, but they have long since become utterly stage-managed government shows. The only people the regime could muster this year to chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” were non-Iranian members of Hezbollah and students bused in from the provinces for that purpose.
But that wasn’t the only demonstration in Tehran that day. Displaying awe-inspiring courage in light of the brutal tactics (including murder) the regime has used to quell opposition, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets again. Instead of “Death to America,” they shouted “Death to the Dictator,” referring to Ahmadinejad. And they trampled on photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Michael Ledeen, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, reports that demonstrations also erupted in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, and Rasht. As before, the regime used paramilitary goons on motorcycles to beat, tear-gas, and bludgeon protestors. And again the regime disrupted cell-phone service, text messaging, and the Internet to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their activities.
But this is what should awaken Obama’s conscience: The protestors chanted something new this time. As they dodged the blows of the militia they chorused: “Obama! Obama! Either you’re with them or you’re with us.”
This exquisitely moral White House was unmoved. Incredibly, President Obama released a statement that very day commemorating (!) the 30-year anniversary of the kidnapping of America’s diplomats, taking the opportunity once again to abase himself and us. “Thirty years ago today,” the president recalled, “the American embassy was seized” — he did not say by whom. But because some anonymous agent seized the embassy, it “set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation” that Obama is determined to reverse. He wants to move beyond the past and seek “a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”
By ostentatiously using the term “Islamic Republic,” Obama tips his hand. He could have expressed his hopes for good relations with the people of Iran. That would have left the door open to a new Iranian regime that might not be politically Islamic. Instead he has signaled his eagerness to placate and, yes, appease the current malevolent Iranian leaders. “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs,” he assured them. Asked about the demonstrations flaring around Iran, the president’s spokesman Robert Gibbs hoped that “the violence will not spread,” which sounds like something you’d say about rioters. In Iran, the violence is coming exclusively from the government, which is firing upon unarmed demonstrators.
Though the Obama administration has tripled the deficit in just ten months in office, it has found one program to cut — the $3 million to support the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The tiny research organization, which kept records of the disappearances, murders, and other human-rights abuses in Iran, was abruptly defunded last month, sending a clear message of contempt to the Iranians who are putting their lives on the line to resist this vicious regime.
A successful overthrow of the nearly nuclear mullahs in Iran would be the greatest boon to world peace and stability since the fall of the Berlin Wall. After this week’s events, it can no longer be said that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to support the opposition. The people on Tehran’s streets know the truth — he’s effectively supporting the regime.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
By Mona Charen:
President Obama likes to preen himself on his supposed moral superiority to his predecessor. He announced the closing of Guantanamo in his first week on the job (though, ten months on, it remains open) to advertise the new administration’s disdain for George Bush’s war-fighting tactics. And at every opportunity since, he has stressed that his policies — on taxes, on the Middle East, on health care, on “man-caused disasters,” and on “climate change” — reflect a more refined and elevated morality than has ever before held sway in Washington, D.C.
So you have to wonder how the president slept last Wednesday night.
He has known that critics in the United States regarded his posture toward the Iranian regime as weak. But on Wednesday, he heard this critique from a different quarter — one that will be more difficult to dismiss.
Every year, on November 4, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Iranian thugs took American diplomats hostage in Tehran, the government has organized a street demonstration outside the former American embassy. In the early days, the rallies may have engaged a certain number of spontaneous participants, but they have long since become utterly stage-managed government shows. The only people the regime could muster this year to chant “Death to America! Death to Israel!” were non-Iranian members of Hezbollah and students bused in from the provinces for that purpose.
But that wasn’t the only demonstration in Tehran that day. Displaying awe-inspiring courage in light of the brutal tactics (including murder) the regime has used to quell opposition, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets again. Instead of “Death to America,” they shouted “Death to the Dictator,” referring to Ahmadinejad. And they trampled on photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Michael Ledeen, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, reports that demonstrations also erupted in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, and Rasht. As before, the regime used paramilitary goons on motorcycles to beat, tear-gas, and bludgeon protestors. And again the regime disrupted cell-phone service, text messaging, and the Internet to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their activities.
But this is what should awaken Obama’s conscience: The protestors chanted something new this time. As they dodged the blows of the militia they chorused: “Obama! Obama! Either you’re with them or you’re with us.”
This exquisitely moral White House was unmoved. Incredibly, President Obama released a statement that very day commemorating (!) the 30-year anniversary of the kidnapping of America’s diplomats, taking the opportunity once again to abase himself and us. “Thirty years ago today,” the president recalled, “the American embassy was seized” — he did not say by whom. But because some anonymous agent seized the embassy, it “set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation” that Obama is determined to reverse. He wants to move beyond the past and seek “a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.”
By ostentatiously using the term “Islamic Republic,” Obama tips his hand. He could have expressed his hopes for good relations with the people of Iran. That would have left the door open to a new Iranian regime that might not be politically Islamic. Instead he has signaled his eagerness to placate and, yes, appease the current malevolent Iranian leaders. “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs,” he assured them. Asked about the demonstrations flaring around Iran, the president’s spokesman Robert Gibbs hoped that “the violence will not spread,” which sounds like something you’d say about rioters. In Iran, the violence is coming exclusively from the government, which is firing upon unarmed demonstrators.
Though the Obama administration has tripled the deficit in just ten months in office, it has found one program to cut — the $3 million to support the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The tiny research organization, which kept records of the disappearances, murders, and other human-rights abuses in Iran, was abruptly defunded last month, sending a clear message of contempt to the Iranians who are putting their lives on the line to resist this vicious regime.
A successful overthrow of the nearly nuclear mullahs in Iran would be the greatest boon to world peace and stability since the fall of the Berlin Wall. After this week’s events, it can no longer be said that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to support the opposition. The people on Tehran’s streets know the truth — he’s effectively supporting the regime.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
JIMMUH CARTER STARTED IT, JUDGE CARTER LET IT LIVE
GLOBAL DESTRUCTION OF OUR CIVILIZED WORLD
PREZ "the treasonous idiot" CARTER the architect of global terrorism
ON TO "caving judge" CARTER the fearful
ON TO narcissist OBA-HUSSEIN-Khomeini DESTROYER of the USA
From the archives of Iran Expert, Ramin Etebar MD., dating back to 2004.
These articles of mine were lost to me till Ramin resent me his site. They were written before I had my own site and was offering my articles to the Defense & Foreign Affairs
He has just sent me a good analysis on what should be the next regime in Iran and I wil post this once I do some spell checking for him, since Google has removed this capabiilty and Ramin is a very busy doctor.
It's the least I can do to return his favor.
PEANUT FARMER ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORISTS
BY MY FRIEND ALAN PETERS
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
More on this series:
When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.
Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.
As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.
The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.
Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.
And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arranged their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.
When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."
Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and intelligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.
According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."
In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.
If the Shah had remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.
Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Carter's Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.
And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."
Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.
The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.
Labels: Historical review of the 1979 Iranian Revolution
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Exclusive:
Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,(1) GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract; Previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent management fees a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carters friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the personal management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters as well as in some US minds at the time and later that Carters actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, megalomaniac projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in state and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources. Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carters reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carters 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to buy the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US most powerful ally in the Middle East; this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carters focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by students of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Velayat Faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.(2)
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man as he was and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian pope and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic green belt to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.
According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that Reagan’s successor, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name Alan Peters is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of Ayatollah Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.
PREZ "the treasonous idiot" CARTER the architect of global terrorism
ON TO "caving judge" CARTER the fearful
ON TO narcissist OBA-HUSSEIN-Khomeini DESTROYER of the USA
From the archives of Iran Expert, Ramin Etebar MD., dating back to 2004.
These articles of mine were lost to me till Ramin resent me his site. They were written before I had my own site and was offering my articles to the Defense & Foreign Affairs
He has just sent me a good analysis on what should be the next regime in Iran and I wil post this once I do some spell checking for him, since Google has removed this capabiilty and Ramin is a very busy doctor.
It's the least I can do to return his favor.
PEANUT FARMER ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORISTS
BY MY FRIEND ALAN PETERS
Leadership: In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West.
Profile In Incompetence: Fourth In A Series
When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf.
Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators.
This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets.
As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners.
(Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 - mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists).
He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support.
The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians.
According to "The Real Jimmy Carter," a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years."
The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society.
Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment).
Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television.
Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow.
And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing."
(Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arranged their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election).
Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions.
When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him."
Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines.
(Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and intelligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons.
Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked).
Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect.
According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic.
The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe."
In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes.
If the Shah had remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place.
(Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini).
Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan.
Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Carter's Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon.
And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty.
(Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter).
And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11."
Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy. A Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980.
The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had."
Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected!
(Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts he terrorism he stupidly created.
He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.
Labels: Historical review of the 1979 Iranian Revolution
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Volume XXII, No. 46 Monday, March 15, 2004Founded in 1972 Produced at least 200 times a year© 2004, Global Information System, ISSA
Exclusive:
Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran
Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,(1) GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.
The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.
Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract; Previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.
The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.
The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent management fees a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carters friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the personal management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.
Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters as well as in some US minds at the time and later that Carters actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.
Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.
Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, megalomaniac projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.
In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehrans Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.
Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.
A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in state and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources. Not even after 25 years.
Historians and observers still debate Carters reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.
The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carters 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to buy the presidency for Carter.
In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US most powerful ally in the Middle East; this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.
According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carters next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.
Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.
Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carters focused effort to get re-elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.
Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by students of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
In 1978 while the West was deciding to remove His Majesty Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi from the throne, Shariatmadari was telling anyone who would listen not to allow Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Velayat Faghih (Islamic jurist) version of Islam to be allowed to govern Iran. Ayatollah Shariatmadari noted: We mullahs will behave like bickering whores in a brothel if we come to power ... and we have no experience on how to run a modern nation so we will destroy Iran and lose all that has been achieved at such great cost and effort.(2)
Pres. Carter reportedly responded that Khomeini was a religious man as he was and that he knew how to talk to a man of God, who would live in the holy city of Qom like an Iranian pope and act only as an advisor to the secular, popular revolutionary Government of Mehdi Bazargan and his group of anti-Shah executives, some of whom were US-educated and expected to show preferences for US interests.
Carter’s mistaken assessment of Khomeini was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic green belt to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong, and totally misjudged Khomeini as a person and as a political entity.
Today, Iranian-born, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the dominant Shia leader in Iraq faces Shariatmadari’s dilemma and shares the same quietist Islamic philosophy of sharia (religious law) guidance rather than direct governing by the clerics themselves. Sistanis Khomeini equivalent, militant Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Sadr, was gunned down in 1999 by then-Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein’s forces. Sadr’s son, 30-year-old Muqtada al-Sadr, lacks enough followers or religious seniority/clout to immediately oppose Sistani but has a hard core of violent followers biding their time.
According to all estimates, the young Sadr waits for the June 2004 scheduled handover of power in Iraq, opening the way for serious, militant intervention on his side by Iranian clerics. The Iranian clerical leaders, the successors to Khomeini, see, far more clearly than US leaders and observers, the parallels between 1979-80 and 2004: as a result, they have put far more effort into activities designed to ensure that Reagan’s successor, US Pres. George W. Bush, does not win power.
Footnotes:
1. © 2004 Alan Peters. The name Alan Peters is a nom de plume for a writer who was for many years involved in intelligence and security matters in Iran. He had significant access inside Iran at the highest levels during the rule of the Shah, until early 1979.
2. See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 2, 2004: Credibility and Legitimacy of Ruling Iranian Clerics Unraveling as Pressures Mount Against Them; The Source of Clerical Ruling Authority Now Being Questioned. This report, also by Alan Peters, details the background of Ayatollah Khomeini, the fact that his qualifications for his religious title were not in place, and the fact that he was not of Iranian origin.
OBA-HUSSEIN ANTI-ISRAEL PRO-ISLAM CHOICES STRIKE AGAIN
US President Obama has named retired Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) to co-chair the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.
Hagel, who will co-chair the board with former Sen. David Boren (D-Oklahoma) was considered a critic of Israel by many pro-Israel activists during his two terms in the Senate, which ended early this year.
He told an Arab-American group in 2007 that his support for Israel was not "automatic," and in an interview for Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller's book said that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" on Capitol Hill.
He also was one of a handful of senators who frequently didn't sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256799045938
Hagel, who will co-chair the board with former Sen. David Boren (D-Oklahoma) was considered a critic of Israel by many pro-Israel activists during his two terms in the Senate, which ended early this year.
He told an Arab-American group in 2007 that his support for Israel was not "automatic," and in an interview for Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller's book said that "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people" on Capitol Hill.
He also was one of a handful of senators who frequently didn't sign AIPAC-backed letters related to Israel and the peace process during his time in the Senate and opposed additional sanctions on Iran.
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1256799045938
Monday, October 26, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN TOO EMBARRASSED & INDIFFERENT FOR BERLIN
By Michael Barone
Michael Barone finds it odd that Barack Obama can go to Oslo and Copenhagen for mainly personal reasons, but somehow can’t find the time to travel to Berlin to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall — the climax of the Cold War and the West’s triumph.
Given the key role played by the US in the collapse of Soviet Communism, people have good cause to wonder why the leader of the free world can find time to pick up an award for himself and pitch his hometown to the International Olympic Committee, but not to say a few words in honor of the free world’s vindication in Berlin. Barone theorizes that an earlier Berlin speech may be haunting Obama:
In the Tiergarten, Obama spoke of “the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan” and of the need “to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda” there. That doesn’t mesh well with his recent reconsideration of the Afghanistan strategy he announced in March and reiterated in August or with the White House spin doctors’ suggestion that the Taliban and al Qaeda aren’t necessarily allies anymore.
In the Tiergarten, Obama asserted his “resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must and to seek a partnership that extends across this whole continent.” That doesn’t mesh very well with the “reset button” policy toward Russia that looks past its attacks on Georgia and Ukraine and propitiates the Putin regime with unilateral withdrawal of missile-defense installations from Poland and the Czech Republic.
In the Tiergarten, Obama said America must “stand with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” But that message, if sent, has evidently not had the intended effect on the mullah regime, which is drawing out negotiations while presumably continuing its nuclear program apace.
Is Obama too embarrassed to give people an opportunity to compare Obama’s actions to his summer 2008 rhetoric? That seems too generous a view.
Obama has had no difficulties in reversing himself publicly here in the US, where the media is only slightly less fawning than in Europe. Our friend Jim Geraghty created an axiom about expiration dates on Obama promises, and these examples from Tiergarten are more aspirations than commitments.
I think the answer is simpler: Berlin won’t be about Obama. It will honor previous generations of stalwarts against an evil empire that Academia defended for decades. Whether Obama joined them in that effort as a student is not material; after all, there is a time and a place for foolishness, and that’s college. It’s not (necessarily) that Obama doesn’t think that the fall of the wall is a good thing, but that it has nothing to do with him, and is therefore irrelevant.
Michael Barone finds it odd that Barack Obama can go to Oslo and Copenhagen for mainly personal reasons, but somehow can’t find the time to travel to Berlin to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall — the climax of the Cold War and the West’s triumph.
Given the key role played by the US in the collapse of Soviet Communism, people have good cause to wonder why the leader of the free world can find time to pick up an award for himself and pitch his hometown to the International Olympic Committee, but not to say a few words in honor of the free world’s vindication in Berlin. Barone theorizes that an earlier Berlin speech may be haunting Obama:
In the Tiergarten, Obama spoke of “the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan” and of the need “to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda” there. That doesn’t mesh well with his recent reconsideration of the Afghanistan strategy he announced in March and reiterated in August or with the White House spin doctors’ suggestion that the Taliban and al Qaeda aren’t necessarily allies anymore.
In the Tiergarten, Obama asserted his “resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must and to seek a partnership that extends across this whole continent.” That doesn’t mesh very well with the “reset button” policy toward Russia that looks past its attacks on Georgia and Ukraine and propitiates the Putin regime with unilateral withdrawal of missile-defense installations from Poland and the Czech Republic.
In the Tiergarten, Obama said America must “stand with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions.” But that message, if sent, has evidently not had the intended effect on the mullah regime, which is drawing out negotiations while presumably continuing its nuclear program apace.
Is Obama too embarrassed to give people an opportunity to compare Obama’s actions to his summer 2008 rhetoric? That seems too generous a view.
Obama has had no difficulties in reversing himself publicly here in the US, where the media is only slightly less fawning than in Europe. Our friend Jim Geraghty created an axiom about expiration dates on Obama promises, and these examples from Tiergarten are more aspirations than commitments.
I think the answer is simpler: Berlin won’t be about Obama. It will honor previous generations of stalwarts against an evil empire that Academia defended for decades. Whether Obama joined them in that effort as a student is not material; after all, there is a time and a place for foolishness, and that’s college. It’s not (necessarily) that Obama doesn’t think that the fall of the wall is a good thing, but that it has nothing to do with him, and is therefore irrelevant.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
EMPTY CHARISMA NOT WORKING
The Limits of Charisma
by Howard Fineman
If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore . But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix.. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota .
The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.
There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.
He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.
Members of Obama's own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington , the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care.
Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major "reform" bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its "leadership." It's not like Chicago , where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.
The model is a man whose political effectiveness Obama repeatedly says he admires: Ronald Reagan. There was never doubt about what he wanted. The Gipper made his simple, dramatic tax cuts the centerpiece not only of his campaign but also of the entire first year of his presidency. Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.
That may be starting to happen. Health-care legislation is still weeks, if not months, from passage, and the bill as it stands could well be a windfall for the very insurance and drug companies it was supposed to rein in. Climate-change legislation (a.k.a. cap-and-trade) is almost certainly dead for this year, which means that American negotiators will go empty-handed to the Copenhagen summit in December — pushing the goal of limiting carbon emissions even farther into the distance. In the spring Obama privately told the big banks that he was going to change the way they do business. It was going to be his way or the highway. But the complex legislation he wants to submit to Congress has little chance of passage this year.
Doing Letterman again won't help. It may boost the host's ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.
by Howard Fineman
If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore . But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He's a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked "done." This is a problem that style will not fix.. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota .
The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.
There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.
He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.
Members of Obama's own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington , the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care.
Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major "reform" bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its "leadership." It's not like Chicago , where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.
The model is a man whose political effectiveness Obama repeatedly says he admires: Ronald Reagan. There was never doubt about what he wanted. The Gipper made his simple, dramatic tax cuts the centerpiece not only of his campaign but also of the entire first year of his presidency. Obama seems to think he'll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.
That may be starting to happen. Health-care legislation is still weeks, if not months, from passage, and the bill as it stands could well be a windfall for the very insurance and drug companies it was supposed to rein in. Climate-change legislation (a.k.a. cap-and-trade) is almost certainly dead for this year, which means that American negotiators will go empty-handed to the Copenhagen summit in December — pushing the goal of limiting carbon emissions even farther into the distance. In the spring Obama privately told the big banks that he was going to change the way they do business. It was going to be his way or the highway. But the complex legislation he wants to submit to Congress has little chance of passage this year.
Doing Letterman again won't help. It may boost the host's ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
OBA-HUSSEIN TAXING US BACK TO STONE AGE
Obama's Middle Class Betrayal
By Howard Rich
As much as the Beltway chattering class refuses to admit it, Barack Obama's electoral victory last year had nothing to do with his oft-repeated, generic pledge to bring "hope and change" to Washington, D.C. Sure it sounded good at the time, but Americans have always voted based on their wallets and pocketbooks – not lofty-sounding campaign promises or rhetorical flourishes.
The real key to Obama's victory a year ago – indeed his "signature" issue – was his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Obama promised tens of millions of Americans making $250,000 or less. In fact, candidate Obama promised the middle class billions of dollars in tax cuts, part of his whole "spread the wealth around" plan.
"If you're a family that's making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes," Obama promised. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes."
Never mind the fact that Obama's plan would have hit income and payroll providers especially hard, rendering "middle class tax relief" irrelevant to the millions of workers heading toward already-crowded unemployment lines.
No matter how you look at it, though, what a difference a year makes.
As an unprecedented string of multibillion-dollar government bailouts and a viral explosion of new discretionary spending continues to wreak havoc on the deficit, does it really surprise anyone to learn that Obama's "middle class tax cut" was the very first thing to wind up on the cutting room floor?
Of course not. "Class warfare" may have succeeded in getting Obama elected, but it cannot pay for the political promises Obama has made with our borrowed billions.
But that is just the beginning of the great middle class betrayal. Not only are middle class American families getting no tax relief, Obama administration officials are refusing to rule out the possibility that taxes on middle class families will actually increase in an effort to help the government pay for all of this new spending.
So much for Obama's plan to "bleed the rich" in order to fund middle class tax relief – now everyone must bleed as the President and his Congressional allies scramble to pay for all that "hope and change" they've created.
Aside from the obvious demerits of "Robin Hood-style" tax policy (it's never a good idea to go after the people creating the jobs, is it?), the reality is that Obama's now-scrapped middle class "tax cut" would have barely made a dent when compared to costly new government mandates being forced upon American families.
For example, according to an unreleased report prepared by Obama's own Treasury Department, the cost of the administration's "cap and trade" energy tax on the typical American household came out to $1,761 a year. On top of that, we learned this week that the latest multibillion-dollar proposal to "reform" the health care industry would cost the typical American family of four over $4,000 a year by the time the plan is fully implemented.
Altogether, that's nearly $6,000 a year in additional energy and health care costs being heaped on American families struggling to make ends meet during one of the worst recessions in our nation's history – again, with no tax relief to offset the additional financial burden.
Based on these numbers, it seems clear that the American middle class was (and is) nothing but a means to an end for Obama.
It also seems clear that rich or poor, Obama's plan to "rescue" the American economy involves taxing all of us back to the Stone Age.
Howard Rich is chairman of Americans for Limited Government
By Howard Rich
As much as the Beltway chattering class refuses to admit it, Barack Obama's electoral victory last year had nothing to do with his oft-repeated, generic pledge to bring "hope and change" to Washington, D.C. Sure it sounded good at the time, but Americans have always voted based on their wallets and pocketbooks – not lofty-sounding campaign promises or rhetorical flourishes.
The real key to Obama's victory a year ago – indeed his "signature" issue – was his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.
"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Obama promised tens of millions of Americans making $250,000 or less. In fact, candidate Obama promised the middle class billions of dollars in tax cuts, part of his whole "spread the wealth around" plan.
"If you're a family that's making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes," Obama promised. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes."
Never mind the fact that Obama's plan would have hit income and payroll providers especially hard, rendering "middle class tax relief" irrelevant to the millions of workers heading toward already-crowded unemployment lines.
No matter how you look at it, though, what a difference a year makes.
As an unprecedented string of multibillion-dollar government bailouts and a viral explosion of new discretionary spending continues to wreak havoc on the deficit, does it really surprise anyone to learn that Obama's "middle class tax cut" was the very first thing to wind up on the cutting room floor?
Of course not. "Class warfare" may have succeeded in getting Obama elected, but it cannot pay for the political promises Obama has made with our borrowed billions.
But that is just the beginning of the great middle class betrayal. Not only are middle class American families getting no tax relief, Obama administration officials are refusing to rule out the possibility that taxes on middle class families will actually increase in an effort to help the government pay for all of this new spending.
So much for Obama's plan to "bleed the rich" in order to fund middle class tax relief – now everyone must bleed as the President and his Congressional allies scramble to pay for all that "hope and change" they've created.
Aside from the obvious demerits of "Robin Hood-style" tax policy (it's never a good idea to go after the people creating the jobs, is it?), the reality is that Obama's now-scrapped middle class "tax cut" would have barely made a dent when compared to costly new government mandates being forced upon American families.
For example, according to an unreleased report prepared by Obama's own Treasury Department, the cost of the administration's "cap and trade" energy tax on the typical American household came out to $1,761 a year. On top of that, we learned this week that the latest multibillion-dollar proposal to "reform" the health care industry would cost the typical American family of four over $4,000 a year by the time the plan is fully implemented.
Altogether, that's nearly $6,000 a year in additional energy and health care costs being heaped on American families struggling to make ends meet during one of the worst recessions in our nation's history – again, with no tax relief to offset the additional financial burden.
Based on these numbers, it seems clear that the American middle class was (and is) nothing but a means to an end for Obama.
It also seems clear that rich or poor, Obama's plan to "rescue" the American economy involves taxing all of us back to the Stone Age.
Howard Rich is chairman of Americans for Limited Government
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
REMOVAL OF ZELAYA (HONDURAS) WAS CONSTITUTIONAL
"Removal of Zelaya was constitutional": UN
13/10/2009
UN experts concluded that there was no coup in Honduras
WILL OBA-HUSSEIN, PAL OF COMMUNIST ZELAYA APOLOGIZE TO HONDURAS?
RESTORE USA ANTI-DRUG SMUGGLING FUNDS TO HODURAS HE CANCELLED BECAUSE OF ZELAYA, WHO WANTED TO BECOME PRESIDENT FOR LIFE?
AND BAN THE SALE OF THIS FLAG ON HIS MOSLEM PAL'S E-BAY?
![]()
The study of the crisis in Honduras coincided with that conducted by the Library of Congress *** The study of the political crisis in Honduras was endorsed with official information received by the UN experts in the country visit last week coincided with the foreign ministers of the OAS. Washington, USA. A study by the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Organization (UNO) on the causes of the crisis in Honduras, concluded that the removal of President Manuel Zelaya, "was constitutional under the laws of the country," confirmed officials of that agency.
This version was officially known today by senior UN officials, which also coincides with the study prepared by the Library of Congress, which looked at by his side, the situation that generated and maintained in a political crisis in Honduras.
The document of the study by the Department of Political Affairs of the UN, with other information base (another truth) received at the last visit to Honduras, where it converged with representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS) and took advantage to meet other scenarios that were unclear.
The information on this collegial resolution of these experts, was provided to hondudiario.com, official sources and pressures inferred strategies that promote the former foreign minister Patricia Rhodes and the permanent representative of Venezuela in the Permanent Council to seek more sanctions against Honduras and require the return of former President Zelaya, which warned of "an ultimatum" to this October 15.
"These gentlemen are pressing and have invoked a special assembly to the Security Council, but there has been no response to date, they were awaiting the results of their own studies on the situation in Honduras, which has remained divided Washington "spoke the interviewee.
"The conclusion of the report clearly says that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional. This confirms that there was no coup and strengthens the position of President Barack Obama, who never rushed to judge the situation in Honduras, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who rushed to condemn the Honduran people, pressed by foreign ministers the OAS, "he said.
The demands of the former chancellor Rhodes in Washington, according to experts, have been grounded in order "to the international community's sanctions against the de facto regime" and further claimed "strong" countries not to recognize the coup government under any circumstances.
"Most of the Member States of the United Nations, after meeting other settings and information now agree that they would not support any resolution of the UN General Assembly to seek penalties for Honduras," summarized by referring to this study by the Department of UN Political Affairs, which concluded that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional, the same study agrees in most points with the study prepared by the Library of Congress.
13/10/2009
UN experts concluded that there was no coup in Honduras
WILL OBA-HUSSEIN, PAL OF COMMUNIST ZELAYA APOLOGIZE TO HONDURAS?
RESTORE USA ANTI-DRUG SMUGGLING FUNDS TO HODURAS HE CANCELLED BECAUSE OF ZELAYA, WHO WANTED TO BECOME PRESIDENT FOR LIFE?
AND BAN THE SALE OF THIS FLAG ON HIS MOSLEM PAL'S E-BAY?
OUR TERRORIST IN CHIEF?
The study of the crisis in Honduras coincided with that conducted by the Library of Congress *** The study of the political crisis in Honduras was endorsed with official information received by the UN experts in the country visit last week coincided with the foreign ministers of the OAS. Washington, USA. A study by the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Organization (UNO) on the causes of the crisis in Honduras, concluded that the removal of President Manuel Zelaya, "was constitutional under the laws of the country," confirmed officials of that agency.
This version was officially known today by senior UN officials, which also coincides with the study prepared by the Library of Congress, which looked at by his side, the situation that generated and maintained in a political crisis in Honduras.
The document of the study by the Department of Political Affairs of the UN, with other information base (another truth) received at the last visit to Honduras, where it converged with representatives of the Organization of American States (OAS) and took advantage to meet other scenarios that were unclear.
The information on this collegial resolution of these experts, was provided to hondudiario.com, official sources and pressures inferred strategies that promote the former foreign minister Patricia Rhodes and the permanent representative of Venezuela in the Permanent Council to seek more sanctions against Honduras and require the return of former President Zelaya, which warned of "an ultimatum" to this October 15.
"These gentlemen are pressing and have invoked a special assembly to the Security Council, but there has been no response to date, they were awaiting the results of their own studies on the situation in Honduras, which has remained divided Washington "spoke the interviewee.
"The conclusion of the report clearly says that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional. This confirms that there was no coup and strengthens the position of President Barack Obama, who never rushed to judge the situation in Honduras, as did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who rushed to condemn the Honduran people, pressed by foreign ministers the OAS, "he said.
The demands of the former chancellor Rhodes in Washington, according to experts, have been grounded in order "to the international community's sanctions against the de facto regime" and further claimed "strong" countries not to recognize the coup government under any circumstances.
"Most of the Member States of the United Nations, after meeting other settings and information now agree that they would not support any resolution of the UN General Assembly to seek penalties for Honduras," summarized by referring to this study by the Department of UN Political Affairs, which concluded that the removal of President Zelaya was constitutional, the same study agrees in most points with the study prepared by the Library of Congress.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Could Sen. Obama’s Dire Warnings Be President Obama’s Current Plan?
IS HE DESTROYING US ON PURPOSE TO ALLOW HIS GLOBAL GOVERNMENT VISION, AS HE SPOUTED RECENTLY AT THE UNITED NATIONS, WHICH A SUPER POWER LIKE THE USA PREVENTS FROM HAPPENING?
DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
OBAMA MANGLES HISTORY - ON ISLAMIC PURPOSE - OR SHEER IGNORANCE?
US President Barack Obama's "inspirational" speech at the UN included more than a few passages about the Middle East conflict. He expressed the hope for "a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world," a wish shared by all Israelis. Upon closer look at some of the president's statements, several question marks arise.
Obama addresses the 64th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters. The speech didn't, for instance, mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, the principal reasons for instability in the Middle East and beyond. Nor did it condemn the Arab world's refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of its own.
No less problematic, his reference to ending "the occupation that began in 1967" puts history on its head, as it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This clearly inverts cause and effect.
As the writer and historian Simon Schama wrote, history should endeavor "to disentangle fact from fable," also reminding us that one of America's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had said "Facts are stubborn things." Well, the facts regarding the conflict in the Holy Land, though often deliberately or inadvertently distorted or ignored , are indeed "stubborn." Terrorist activities against Israel had started years before the "occupation," and the PLO commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state was founded in 1964
Obama addresses the 64th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters. The speech didn't, for instance, mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, the principal reasons for instability in the Middle East and beyond. Nor did it condemn the Arab world's refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of its own.
No less problematic, his reference to ending "the occupation that began in 1967" puts history on its head, as it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This clearly inverts cause and effect.
As the writer and historian Simon Schama wrote, history should endeavor "to disentangle fact from fable," also reminding us that one of America's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had said "Facts are stubborn things." Well, the facts regarding the conflict in the Holy Land, though often deliberately or inadvertently distorted or ignored , are indeed "stubborn." Terrorist activities against Israel had started years before the "occupation," and the PLO commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state was founded in 1964
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
UNMASKING OBA-HUSSEIN
It is now abundantly clear that the image of Barack Obama sold to the American electorate was tightly edited, air-brushed, and exaggerated. He has worn a series of masks -- eloquent orator, brilliant scholar, centrist, and literary sensation. All of these masks are coming off as he copes with a job for which image will not suffice. For instance, hiding behind the eloquent orator mask is a guy who says "uhh" a lot when he is winging it,
and who makes lots of factual and grammatical mistakes. JUST HOW SMRT IS HE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/just_how_smart_is_obama.html
FULL ARTICLE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/unmasking_obama.html
and who makes lots of factual and grammatical mistakes. JUST HOW SMRT IS HE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/just_how_smart_is_obama.html
FULL ARTICLE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/unmasking_obama.html
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
WHY - APART FROM HITLER LOOK ALIKE AXELROD.......
AP Photo/Evan VucciAs appalled and outraged as I was to learn recently that a sitting U.S. president illegally ordered a private company to stop pointing out facts about his policies (facts confirmed by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office), such blatant assaults on dissent are nothing new for this president.
Of the many, many examples I have copiously documented of Obama giving liberty-minded citizens reasons to keep comparing him to Hitler, here are the top 10:
10. The fact that he enlisted law enforcement officials to "target" anyone who ran campaign ads against him that he didn't like.
9. The fact that he blacklists any news media outlet that actually bothers to question him.
8. The fact that he threatened the broadcasting license of a Pennsylvania station just for considering airing an ad on his extreme anti-gun record.
7. The fact that he has repeatedly branded dissenters as right-wing terrorists.
6. The fact that his administration was caught planting fake "experts" at health care town halls.
5. The fact that he keeps illegal enemies lists.
4. The fact that his administration repeatedly sent its hired union rent-a-mobs to shout down and intimidate dissent.
3. The fact that he tried to prosecute Bush attorneys for daring to write legal opinions that Democrats disagreed with.
2. The fact that he corrupted and politicized the Census Bureau for partisan gain.
1. His support for Card Check and the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Obama's Constitution-trampling war on dissent is why so many Americans are increasingly rejecting his scams for power and control (ObamaCare, Cap-and-Trade, etc.) as the sleazy partisan ploys they are. These actions are the signature of a Third World dictator, not an American president.
Of the many, many examples I have copiously documented of Obama giving liberty-minded citizens reasons to keep comparing him to Hitler, here are the top 10:
10. The fact that he enlisted law enforcement officials to "target" anyone who ran campaign ads against him that he didn't like.
9. The fact that he blacklists any news media outlet that actually bothers to question him.
8. The fact that he threatened the broadcasting license of a Pennsylvania station just for considering airing an ad on his extreme anti-gun record.
7. The fact that he has repeatedly branded dissenters as right-wing terrorists.
6. The fact that his administration was caught planting fake "experts" at health care town halls.
5. The fact that he keeps illegal enemies lists.
4. The fact that his administration repeatedly sent its hired union rent-a-mobs to shout down and intimidate dissent.
3. The fact that he tried to prosecute Bush attorneys for daring to write legal opinions that Democrats disagreed with.
2. The fact that he corrupted and politicized the Census Bureau for partisan gain.
1. His support for Card Check and the "Fairness" Doctrine.
Obama's Constitution-trampling war on dissent is why so many Americans are increasingly rejecting his scams for power and control (ObamaCare, Cap-and-Trade, etc.) as the sleazy partisan ploys they are. These actions are the signature of a Third World dictator, not an American president.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS
JAG HUNTER HERE with SERGEANT OF MARINES TIMOTHY JOSEPH HARRINGTON:
HEY!
LISTEN UP!
Do we need to tell you that a legitimate president of the United States can not during term of office collaterally hold any other government position under the constitution of a foreign sovereign state?
Do you need to be told--without recognizing for yourself--the president of the United States and U.S. commander in chief cannot be at the same time president of the United Nations Security Council?
SOETORO-OBAMA and his treasonous partners are subjecting Americans and the United States Constitution to death by a thousand cuts.
We must stop the knife sharpening and carving here and now as SOETORO and his ilk are very close to inflicting the terminal, fatal wound.
SOETORO-OBAMA the whore, SOEHO shall we call him, is scheduled to assume the title and duties of the principal officer of a principal "organ" of the United Nations in days.
Would that our United States Constitution be operative!
SOEHO would not hold the White House in occupation this moment, nor would he be in a position to surrender United States sovereignty to an ever emerging and ever strengthening modern day world government boasting as it promises to subject Americans to international sovereignty, international governance, and international jurisdiction.
As for TREASON: SOEHO IS THE ENEMY!
This devil of a man is a foreign agent who has infiltrated U.S. constitutional government with the very specific purpose of quietly, insistently, insidiously injuring the Constitution unto death giving way to the new international order.
Has it occurred to anyone that SOEHO'S appearance before the United Nations will set an international precedent that the United States chief executive can be a citizen of any country, let's say for example Britain, or Indonesia?
WE SAY AGAIN!: SOEHO's swearing in as president of the U.N. Security Council sets an international precedent that the United States chief executive and commander in chief can be a citizen of any county, leading a nation reduced to state status under the U.N. secretary general and U.N. constitution (charter).
You must comprehend, as it stands, we citizens of the United States must know SOEHO is a foreigner. No one can claim ignorance. Our silence as an American people--manifested in our impotence to oust SOEHO as a foreign born domestic enemy--is our agreement before the international community that the United States Constitution is formally decommissioned.
It is in this context that SOEHO is being allowed to swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign advancing SOEHO's commitment to bring Americans ever so carefully under the international constitution known as the United Nations Charter.
In discussions with Marine Sergeant Harrington, Tim pointed out that SOEHO's accepting a foreign government position under the United Nations flag perfectly demonstrates an act of TREASON legally defined as:"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
It must be offered as well a person can commit TREASON against the U.S. as either a U.S. citizen or as a foreigner otherwise owing allegiance to the United States of America.
SOEHO took an oath to the Constitution back in January 2009 as Tim and I both recall. Then there's SOEHO's former state and federal performances as a senator worthy of remembrance.
SOEHO's swearing an allegiance under the U.N. flag is yet another step in the process manifesting the treasonous purposes obsessing SOEHO and his criminal partners.
SOEHO and his band of treasoners are dedicated to replacing U.S. government as based upon the U.S. Constitutional with an international government subservient under and obedient to the United Nations Charter.
THE GRAVITY OF OUR SITUATION CANNOT BE MADE MORE CLEAR!
SOEHO AND HIS TREASONOUS PARTNERS ARE ABOUT THE "WHOLESALE TRANSFER OF UNITED STATES SOVREIGNTY TO THE UNITED NATIONS!"
SOEHO is a FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY and FOREIGN AGENT, who's infiltrated U.S. government at it's highest position and is subject to and must suffer the same fate as any other TRESONER-INFILTRATOR. SOEHO is a common variety street punk hooligan, a thug, a self-possessed career criminal!
HERE ENDETH THE LESSON!
WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?
HEY!
LISTEN UP!
Do we need to tell you that a legitimate president of the United States can not during term of office collaterally hold any other government position under the constitution of a foreign sovereign state?
Do you need to be told--without recognizing for yourself--the president of the United States and U.S. commander in chief cannot be at the same time president of the United Nations Security Council?
SOETORO-OBAMA and his treasonous partners are subjecting Americans and the United States Constitution to death by a thousand cuts.
We must stop the knife sharpening and carving here and now as SOETORO and his ilk are very close to inflicting the terminal, fatal wound.
SOETORO-OBAMA the whore, SOEHO shall we call him, is scheduled to assume the title and duties of the principal officer of a principal "organ" of the United Nations in days.
Would that our United States Constitution be operative!
SOEHO would not hold the White House in occupation this moment, nor would he be in a position to surrender United States sovereignty to an ever emerging and ever strengthening modern day world government boasting as it promises to subject Americans to international sovereignty, international governance, and international jurisdiction.
As for TREASON: SOEHO IS THE ENEMY!
This devil of a man is a foreign agent who has infiltrated U.S. constitutional government with the very specific purpose of quietly, insistently, insidiously injuring the Constitution unto death giving way to the new international order.
Has it occurred to anyone that SOEHO'S appearance before the United Nations will set an international precedent that the United States chief executive can be a citizen of any country, let's say for example Britain, or Indonesia?
WE SAY AGAIN!: SOEHO's swearing in as president of the U.N. Security Council sets an international precedent that the United States chief executive and commander in chief can be a citizen of any county, leading a nation reduced to state status under the U.N. secretary general and U.N. constitution (charter).
You must comprehend, as it stands, we citizens of the United States must know SOEHO is a foreigner. No one can claim ignorance. Our silence as an American people--manifested in our impotence to oust SOEHO as a foreign born domestic enemy--is our agreement before the international community that the United States Constitution is formally decommissioned.
It is in this context that SOEHO is being allowed to swear allegiance to a foreign sovereign advancing SOEHO's commitment to bring Americans ever so carefully under the international constitution known as the United Nations Charter.
In discussions with Marine Sergeant Harrington, Tim pointed out that SOEHO's accepting a foreign government position under the United Nations flag perfectly demonstrates an act of TREASON legally defined as:"...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.
It must be offered as well a person can commit TREASON against the U.S. as either a U.S. citizen or as a foreigner otherwise owing allegiance to the United States of America.
SOEHO took an oath to the Constitution back in January 2009 as Tim and I both recall. Then there's SOEHO's former state and federal performances as a senator worthy of remembrance.
SOEHO's swearing an allegiance under the U.N. flag is yet another step in the process manifesting the treasonous purposes obsessing SOEHO and his criminal partners.
SOEHO and his band of treasoners are dedicated to replacing U.S. government as based upon the U.S. Constitutional with an international government subservient under and obedient to the United Nations Charter.
THE GRAVITY OF OUR SITUATION CANNOT BE MADE MORE CLEAR!
SOEHO AND HIS TREASONOUS PARTNERS ARE ABOUT THE "WHOLESALE TRANSFER OF UNITED STATES SOVREIGNTY TO THE UNITED NATIONS!"
SOEHO is a FOREIGN BORN DOMESTIC ENEMY and FOREIGN AGENT, who's infiltrated U.S. government at it's highest position and is subject to and must suffer the same fate as any other TRESONER-INFILTRATOR. SOEHO is a common variety street punk hooligan, a thug, a self-possessed career criminal!
HERE ENDETH THE LESSON!
WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
NOT FRENCH BASHING - BASHING AMERICA BASHERS LIKE OBA-HUSSEIN
At a time when our president and other politicians tend to apologize for our country`s prior actions,here`s a refresher on how some of our former patriots handled negative comments about our country.
These are good
JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaule said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?
DeGaule did not respond.
You could have heard a pin drop
When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush..
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:
'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people;
they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities;
they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day;
they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day;
and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.
We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.
He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.
"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."
"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look.
Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are proud to be an American, pass this on! If not, delete it.
I am proud to be of this land, AMERICA
These are good
JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaule said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?
DeGaule did not respond.
You could have heard a pin drop
When in England , at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush..
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly:
'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people;
they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities;
they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day;
they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day;
and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.
We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.
He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brit's, Canadians, Aussie's and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...
Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.
"You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically.
Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously.
"Then you should know enough to have your passport ready."
The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."
"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !"
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look.
Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you are proud to be an American, pass this on! If not, delete it.
I am proud to be of this land, AMERICA
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Islam Is Fire to Burn You
By Amil Imani
The Islamic fire, fueled by immense oil income, is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and is ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, live and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture; a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down by Muhammad some 1400 years ago.
It is true that most religions are intended to attenuate human fears. They are based on natural fears, many of which are irrational...but natural nonetheless. For example, many pagan religious practices were focused on the seasonal cycles related to the harvest. Why? Because if the harvest was poor, their entire civilization could perish, or be weakened to the point where a neighboring tribe would kill them off. While they misunderstood the scientific basis for weather, they created natural (yet irrational) religious beliefs about weather and harvest. In this sense, religions were psychologically useful and inevitable in addressing natural conditions.
But some religions establish for themselves fears of things which do not exist...which the religion itself invented in order to create and perpetuate fear, and then artificially addressed it in order to establish a political regime. The political nature of Islam transcends personal spiritualism and becomes a cult of oppression. This is fraud. This is evil. This is Islam.
Islam essentially invents the idea that Christians, Jews, and pagans are abominations and offensive to Allah, and that their very existence represents an attack upon the self-defined Islamic right to reign over the world. Allah thus enlists Muslim believers to eradicate by force those who offend him and by disbelieving, prevent his rule. True Muslim believers therefore become the enforcers, hit men and mercenaries for their god, in order to establish a global Caliphate for their parasitic clergy. Their targets are artificially constructed adversaries. Believers are instructed to fear the “great Satan.” and are told that if they do not live up to Allah’s calls to Jihad, they are themselves offensive to Allah and to their families. It’s a “you’re either for me or against me” strategy.
Contrast this with say, Christian fears. Christians too fear offending God, because they believe that God will judge their lives when their bodies die. So their fears are reduced by atoning in personal alignment with the teachings of the Bible.
So, as a political religion, Islam creates artificial fear of alien groups, and then eliminates the fear through war and coercion. Islam pleases Allah with brutality and Jihad. Islam seeks to instill a political regime to enforce its provisions. When such a political doctrine declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to corporeal enforcement by people.
Personal religions acknowledge natural fears, and then use light, wisdom, and the capacity for human nobility to eliminate them through a positive, spiritual exercise. Other religions encourage voluntary, personal spiritual alignment. The only “coercion” in a religion based on personal spiritualism is the conveyance of the natural idea of a soul and judgment. If you believe in these things, you change and atone, perhaps out of fear. If you do not, you accuse the evangelizer of being fraudulent...but a fraud is a demonstrable deception not an opinion, and the one who disbelieves in a personal religion cannot prove his point of view, so fraud is not in play as a driver of personal spiritualism. When a personal religion declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to spiritual enforcement by God.
This is the difference between day and night, between good and evil. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shi’as. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.
Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam, through religious divines, controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.
Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraish, he was ridiculed as a crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.
Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom were men of power and influence, such as Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, except the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger. Then Allah’s messenger, Muhammad, set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.
The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable verses. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s way or the highway. This radicalism is very much in action today.
In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Sharia. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted. But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosives. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in fifty-four or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Iran threw off its oppressive theocratic rule and established a government “of the people”, with room for all beliefs? Iran could be a powerful nation and a peaceful one, an example for the rest of the developing world of how to thrive without Islamic politics. However, the road to freedom is perilous. Nothing as worthwhile as freedom can be purchased easily. But the cause is worth it.
While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general. I believe communism as an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man. To me, it is Satan’s “denial” play...that there is no God. But Satan and his minions work in multiple theaters simultaneously. Islam is Satan’s chief “deception” play. Rather than deny God exists, it asserts that God does in fact exist, but that God does not desire men worship out of love or free will, but through rote, fear, and guilt, and through the sins of pride, envy, and chauvinism.
It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam...“submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth. Atheism, materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same. Fascism is fascism.
We live in a society which worships “experts” and specialists. However, our distorted society of “experts” has continually failed us. Almost nothing they have told us has turned out to be true. Thus, I am a revisionist in that I believe much of what we believe is true is utterly false. I also believe in good and evil, a notion sadly obsolete in our nihilistic time. I don’t think Satan is any more a metaphor than is God.
Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.
Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as an instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.
To cut to the chase, we need to eliminate some disinformation and myths about the “war on terror”:
1) We are not fighting terrorism. We are engaging in an ideological battle between freedom, conservatism, democracy, individual rights, capitalism, “Christian” ethics and Islamofascism, communism-socialism, theocracy, and tyranny. There are also internationalist, dictatorial, globalist forces that seek to use the conflict to create an international government and a unification of all religions by the destruction of nationalism, patriotism, individual rights and sectarianism.
2) It is not “fanatical”, “radical”, or “extreme” Islam that we are fighting, but normal, orthodox, canonical, typical, accepted, traditional Islam, straight from the mouth of the Muhammad. Islam is violent in direct proportion to its mission and scripture. The so-called fanatics are only upholding the truth of their principles. There are those who do not openly engage in terrorism or warfare, but are in support of it, or are working in other ways to spread Islam by force or fraud.
3) Islam is evil, by any accepted definition of that word, and must be seen as such by all rational non-Islamists. There is no such thing as “peace” in Islam except the peace that comes after a successful war against infidels.
4) Islam can work by brute force and by the lengths to which the believers will go to perpetuate it. Its theology and practices make it inherently evil and dangerous to all of mankind. It has already spread and infected the world like a cancer. How do you nuke it out of existence? You can’t...in fact, they will nuke us first, and I guarantee it. When this happens, all hell will break loose, and most freedoms will be up in smoke. Ask yourself how the Palestinian problem can ever get resolved. There are only two ways; either they are gone for good or converted from Islam. Otherwise, the war will never end. The Israeli-Palestinian war is not about the land, it never has been. It is about the eradication of the Jews; right to the last one of them because Muhammad had prescribed it and is eternal.
We must begin to declare Islam evil, not from a sectarian perspective, but from a universal, humanist one. Every encroachment of Islam as a religion must be rejected, harassed and discouraged by all people everywhere. Any leftist attempts to give aid and comfort to this religion of hate must be denounced and frustrated at every turn. Otherwise, get used to your radioactive suit and your fallout shelter, a standard of living—and a level of freedom of 1/10th what of you have today.
Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you Take a Stand at denouncing the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system.
Islam is Fire
The Islamic fire, fueled by immense oil income, is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and is ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, live and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture; a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down by Muhammad some 1400 years ago.
It is true that most religions are intended to attenuate human fears. They are based on natural fears, many of which are irrational...but natural nonetheless. For example, many pagan religious practices were focused on the seasonal cycles related to the harvest. Why? Because if the harvest was poor, their entire civilization could perish, or be weakened to the point where a neighboring tribe would kill them off. While they misunderstood the scientific basis for weather, they created natural (yet irrational) religious beliefs about weather and harvest. In this sense, religions were psychologically useful and inevitable in addressing natural conditions.
But some religions establish for themselves fears of things which do not exist...which the religion itself invented in order to create and perpetuate fear, and then artificially addressed it in order to establish a political regime. The political nature of Islam transcends personal spiritualism and becomes a cult of oppression. This is fraud. This is evil. This is Islam.
Islam essentially invents the idea that Christians, Jews, and pagans are abominations and offensive to Allah, and that their very existence represents an attack upon the self-defined Islamic right to reign over the world. Allah thus enlists Muslim believers to eradicate by force those who offend him and by disbelieving, prevent his rule. True Muslim believers therefore become the enforcers, hit men and mercenaries for their god, in order to establish a global Caliphate for their parasitic clergy. Their targets are artificially constructed adversaries. Believers are instructed to fear the “great Satan.” and are told that if they do not live up to Allah’s calls to Jihad, they are themselves offensive to Allah and to their families. It’s a “you’re either for me or against me” strategy.
Contrast this with say, Christian fears. Christians too fear offending God, because they believe that God will judge their lives when their bodies die. So their fears are reduced by atoning in personal alignment with the teachings of the Bible.
So, as a political religion, Islam creates artificial fear of alien groups, and then eliminates the fear through war and coercion. Islam pleases Allah with brutality and Jihad. Islam seeks to instill a political regime to enforce its provisions. When such a political doctrine declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to corporeal enforcement by people.
Personal religions acknowledge natural fears, and then use light, wisdom, and the capacity for human nobility to eliminate them through a positive, spiritual exercise. Other religions encourage voluntary, personal spiritual alignment. The only “coercion” in a religion based on personal spiritualism is the conveyance of the natural idea of a soul and judgment. If you believe in these things, you change and atone, perhaps out of fear. If you do not, you accuse the evangelizer of being fraudulent...but a fraud is a demonstrable deception not an opinion, and the one who disbelieves in a personal religion cannot prove his point of view, so fraud is not in play as a driver of personal spiritualism. When a personal religion declares that “resistance is futile”, it is referring to spiritual enforcement by God.
This is the difference between day and night, between good and evil. Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shi’as. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of government represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.
Islam is and has always been political, in the form of Imamate, Caliphate or by proxy where Islam, through religious divines, controlled the state. Saudi Arabia, for instance, does not even have a constitution. The Quran is the constitution. The country has a king. Yet, the king is the supreme enforcer of the laws dictated by Islam.
Islam is so radical that even the term “radical” does not adequately depict its true character. The founder of Islam, Muhammad, behaved in extreme ways whenever he could. Early on, in Mecca, among his tribe of Quraish, he was ridiculed as a crazed Poet. Ordinary residents of Mecca scorned him in their habitual way of treating the mentally deranged. What did Muhammad do? He personified meekness itself. He put up with extreme indignities, did not fight back and suffered abuses.
Time was on Muhammad’s side. Before long, he attracted followers, some of whom were men of power and influence, such as Umar, Uthman and Abu Bakr. Then the pendulum swung. The long-suffering meek became the tyrannical avenger. He ordered all the idols in the idolatry of Mecca destroyed, except the one called Allah. Yet, he selected the same name for a non-corporeal deity who commissioned him as his messenger. Then Allah’s messenger, Muhammad, set out to systematically exterminate people he perceived as his tormentors and enemies—Jews of Medina, among others.
The Quran is full of black and white, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable verses. Men who didn’t convert to Islam were labeled infidels and slaughtered; their women and children were taken along with all their belongings as booty. It was either Islam’s way or the highway. This radicalism is very much in action today.
In another Islamic country, Iran, where the mullahs rule, the constitution is squarely based on the Quran. Many laws are strictly drawn from the Sharia. The mosque is the state and no other competing political ideology is permitted. But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosives. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at the people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in fifty-four or so countries which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Iran threw off its oppressive theocratic rule and established a government “of the people”, with room for all beliefs? Iran could be a powerful nation and a peaceful one, an example for the rest of the developing world of how to thrive without Islamic politics. However, the road to freedom is perilous. Nothing as worthwhile as freedom can be purchased easily. But the cause is worth it.
While I desire freedom in Iran, I am a committed anti-Islamist and anti-communist in general. I believe communism as an expression of materialist naturalist philosophy is atheistic, representing a desire by man to dominate both nature and man. To me, it is Satan’s “denial” play...that there is no God. But Satan and his minions work in multiple theaters simultaneously. Islam is Satan’s chief “deception” play. Rather than deny God exists, it asserts that God does in fact exist, but that God does not desire men worship out of love or free will, but through rote, fear, and guilt, and through the sins of pride, envy, and chauvinism.
It is a mentality of enslavement that drives Islam...“submission” in which man subdues other men in order to establish a kingdom of oppression and hatred on earth. Atheism, materialism and Islam appear as contradictions with respect to each other, but when you peel away the veneer of their pretense, you see that their aims are the same. Fascism is fascism.
We live in a society which worships “experts” and specialists. However, our distorted society of “experts” has continually failed us. Almost nothing they have told us has turned out to be true. Thus, I am a revisionist in that I believe much of what we believe is true is utterly false. I also believe in good and evil, a notion sadly obsolete in our nihilistic time. I don’t think Satan is any more a metaphor than is God.
Islam is theocracy, the rule of the clerics. The authoritarianism runs from the top to the bottom in a strict hierarchy with Allah at the top, to his Prophet, to the Caliphs or the Imams, to the lesser men of cloth along the chain of command. No one is allowed to contest or dispute the word and actions of the authorities. Islam and democracy, therefore, are inherently irreconcilable. In some Islamic circles Muslims speak of Islamic Democracy—an oxymoron.
Jihadists are the army of Allah. The use of violence as an instrument of policy has been and continues to be central to Islam. Muslims war under the firmly-believed and widely-cherished set of ideas that are rabidly militaristic. No matter which side is killed, Islam is the victor, “You kill them, you go to paradise; you get killed, you go to paradise,” are two examples of exhortation to jihadism and war.
To cut to the chase, we need to eliminate some disinformation and myths about the “war on terror”:
1) We are not fighting terrorism. We are engaging in an ideological battle between freedom, conservatism, democracy, individual rights, capitalism, “Christian” ethics and Islamofascism, communism-socialism, theocracy, and tyranny. There are also internationalist, dictatorial, globalist forces that seek to use the conflict to create an international government and a unification of all religions by the destruction of nationalism, patriotism, individual rights and sectarianism.
2) It is not “fanatical”, “radical”, or “extreme” Islam that we are fighting, but normal, orthodox, canonical, typical, accepted, traditional Islam, straight from the mouth of the Muhammad. Islam is violent in direct proportion to its mission and scripture. The so-called fanatics are only upholding the truth of their principles. There are those who do not openly engage in terrorism or warfare, but are in support of it, or are working in other ways to spread Islam by force or fraud.
3) Islam is evil, by any accepted definition of that word, and must be seen as such by all rational non-Islamists. There is no such thing as “peace” in Islam except the peace that comes after a successful war against infidels.
4) Islam can work by brute force and by the lengths to which the believers will go to perpetuate it. Its theology and practices make it inherently evil and dangerous to all of mankind. It has already spread and infected the world like a cancer. How do you nuke it out of existence? You can’t...in fact, they will nuke us first, and I guarantee it. When this happens, all hell will break loose, and most freedoms will be up in smoke. Ask yourself how the Palestinian problem can ever get resolved. There are only two ways; either they are gone for good or converted from Islam. Otherwise, the war will never end. The Israeli-Palestinian war is not about the land, it never has been. It is about the eradication of the Jews; right to the last one of them because Muhammad had prescribed it and is eternal.
We must begin to declare Islam evil, not from a sectarian perspective, but from a universal, humanist one. Every encroachment of Islam as a religion must be rejected, harassed and discouraged by all people everywhere. Any leftist attempts to give aid and comfort to this religion of hate must be denounced and frustrated at every turn. Otherwise, get used to your radioactive suit and your fallout shelter, a standard of living—and a level of freedom of 1/10th what of you have today.
Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you Take a Stand at denouncing the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic system.
Friday, September 11, 2009
BORROWED MONEY KILLLING AMERICANS?
Fiat (FIAT, borrowed, not Flat) Money: How Else You Gonna Kill 600,000 Americans?
Mises Daily by Robert P. Murphy Posted on 9/11/2009 12:00:00 AM
A few years ago on these pages, I harshly criticized an article urging New Yorkers to "eat local," and went so far as to dub the young lady's column, "The worst economics article ever." I am here to report that her record has been smashed. Floyd Norris's recent New York Times article on the greenback is hands down the worst economics article I have ever read. Not only is it jam-packed full of false history, but it uses the falsehoods to justify monstrous crimes, both in the past and present.
Read full article with graphs at:
http://mises.org/story/3701
The reader with a strong stomach will have to click the above link to appreciate the full enormity of Norris's accomplishment, but for those with limited attention spans I'll detail some of its biggest problems below.
Mises Daily by Robert P. Murphy Posted on 9/11/2009 12:00:00 AM
A few years ago on these pages, I harshly criticized an article urging New Yorkers to "eat local," and went so far as to dub the young lady's column, "The worst economics article ever." I am here to report that her record has been smashed. Floyd Norris's recent New York Times article on the greenback is hands down the worst economics article I have ever read. Not only is it jam-packed full of false history, but it uses the falsehoods to justify monstrous crimes, both in the past and present.
Read full article with graphs at:
http://mises.org/story/3701
The reader with a strong stomach will have to click the above link to appreciate the full enormity of Norris's accomplishment, but for those with limited attention spans I'll detail some of its biggest problems below.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ANTI-ISLAMIC REGIME OF IRAN CASE OPENED AT THE HAGUE
The IRI file number at Hague court was issued. Complaints against the IRI will be kept under this number: OTP-CR-777/09 .
PLEASE PASS THIS NEWS AROUND SO ALL CAN BEGIN SHARING THEIR COMPLAINTS WITH THE HAGUE. THIS IS A MAJOR COUP FOR US. DARFUR, THE CONGO, SLOBODAN MILOSEVICH... ALL GO THROUGH THIS PATH SO THE FACT THAT WE GOT THIS CASE APPROVED, AND AGAINST THE REGIME ITSELF... IS GOING TO HELP US IN OUR LONG TERM VISION OF OBTAINING JUSTICE.
Secular News reports: On August 18th a press conference featuring hundreds of personalities and thousands of individuals who were known to have withstood brutal torture, took place in front of the International Criminal Courts in The Hague (ICC).
Farshad Hosseini, Mina Ahadi, Shiva Mahboubi, Fareed Arman, Akram Beeronvand, Saeed Partow and Fereshteh Moradi participated in the press conference and discussed at length, the most recent as well as thirty years of crimes committed by the Islamic regime; those crimes include torture, rape, execution of minors and children, assassination of regime opposition members inside and outside Iran.
Demonstrators who turned up at 2 p.m. braving the rainy weather, carried placards of images of those who lost their lives; they gathered to represent all the deceased, those who were tortured and raped by the regimes criminal officials, as well as the families of the victims and whose loved ones blood was spilled for the freedom of Iran, and finally the millions of Iranians whose wish is to prosecute the heads of the Islamic regime. A manifesto was also read by Hosseini, Ahadi, Moradi, Partow and Arman in Farsi, English and Dutch.
During the demonstration Mina Ahadi and Farshad Hosseini who represented the International Committee Against Stoning and International Committee Against Execution met and held discussions and deliberated with officials from the ICC prosecution unit. Other than the presentation of a detailed report of the crimes committed by the Islamic Republic during the last thirty years, a request for an investigation of said crimes as crimes against humanity, by the ICC was also made. A separate report based on the recent crimes which consisted of a list of one hundred names of those who are known to have been killed during the recent months as well as the illegal and secret burials in mass graves was also presented to said ICC officials. The issue of the tortures performed on detainees in prisons, rapes of political prisoners were mentioned as well. Ms. Ahadi and Mr. Hosseini also reitereated the nature and severity of the crimes perpetrated by the Islamic regime against humanity and explained that any delay or compromise in this matter, where a concrete and effective international action plan for halting this course of genocide, whatever the reason, will lead to the continuation of these crimes. Every day the ICC delays the investigation of these crimes, will be another day will be an extension for the criminals perpetrating said crimes. Today international organizations who head up the ICC’s role is to stand as a buffer and is duty-bound to prosecute criminals and as such they must act swiftly in taking action against those responsible for such atrocities. The request to prosecute the heads of that Islamic regime is the request of millions of Iranian and hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, in either a personal, political or public form.
The officials from the prosecution unit of the ICC responded with diligence and readiness in accepting the reports presented to them; therefore based on the presented information a file for the investigation of the leaders of the Islamic regime was opened and the case number will be provided on August 31st which will then be distributed. The officials from the prosecution unit also explained the legal methodology of the complaint process and in response stated that the accelerated steps taken against the Islamic regime was as a result of the large and continued complaints against the government of Iran and as such immediate action will be taken to examine the evidence. The officials from the prosecution unit also added that additionally they are currently addressing four cases of crimes against humanity in countries such as Uganda, The Congo, Sudan and Central Africa.
The International Committee Against Execution continues its activities to inform public opinion on the topic of the executions and the general crimes committed by the Islamic Republic. For more information or assisting us regarding this case, please contact us.
Mina Ahadi
minaahadi@aol.com
0049 177 569 24 13
Farshad Hoseini
farshadhoseini@yahoo.com
0031-633602627
The International Committee Against Execution
29 August 2009
PLEASE PASS THIS NEWS AROUND SO ALL CAN BEGIN SHARING THEIR COMPLAINTS WITH THE HAGUE. THIS IS A MAJOR COUP FOR US. DARFUR, THE CONGO, SLOBODAN MILOSEVICH... ALL GO THROUGH THIS PATH SO THE FACT THAT WE GOT THIS CASE APPROVED, AND AGAINST THE REGIME ITSELF... IS GOING TO HELP US IN OUR LONG TERM VISION OF OBTAINING JUSTICE.
Secular News reports: On August 18th a press conference featuring hundreds of personalities and thousands of individuals who were known to have withstood brutal torture, took place in front of the International Criminal Courts in The Hague (ICC).
Farshad Hosseini, Mina Ahadi, Shiva Mahboubi, Fareed Arman, Akram Beeronvand, Saeed Partow and Fereshteh Moradi participated in the press conference and discussed at length, the most recent as well as thirty years of crimes committed by the Islamic regime; those crimes include torture, rape, execution of minors and children, assassination of regime opposition members inside and outside Iran.
Demonstrators who turned up at 2 p.m. braving the rainy weather, carried placards of images of those who lost their lives; they gathered to represent all the deceased, those who were tortured and raped by the regimes criminal officials, as well as the families of the victims and whose loved ones blood was spilled for the freedom of Iran, and finally the millions of Iranians whose wish is to prosecute the heads of the Islamic regime. A manifesto was also read by Hosseini, Ahadi, Moradi, Partow and Arman in Farsi, English and Dutch.
During the demonstration Mina Ahadi and Farshad Hosseini who represented the International Committee Against Stoning and International Committee Against Execution met and held discussions and deliberated with officials from the ICC prosecution unit. Other than the presentation of a detailed report of the crimes committed by the Islamic Republic during the last thirty years, a request for an investigation of said crimes as crimes against humanity, by the ICC was also made. A separate report based on the recent crimes which consisted of a list of one hundred names of those who are known to have been killed during the recent months as well as the illegal and secret burials in mass graves was also presented to said ICC officials. The issue of the tortures performed on detainees in prisons, rapes of political prisoners were mentioned as well. Ms. Ahadi and Mr. Hosseini also reitereated the nature and severity of the crimes perpetrated by the Islamic regime against humanity and explained that any delay or compromise in this matter, where a concrete and effective international action plan for halting this course of genocide, whatever the reason, will lead to the continuation of these crimes. Every day the ICC delays the investigation of these crimes, will be another day will be an extension for the criminals perpetrating said crimes. Today international organizations who head up the ICC’s role is to stand as a buffer and is duty-bound to prosecute criminals and as such they must act swiftly in taking action against those responsible for such atrocities. The request to prosecute the heads of that Islamic regime is the request of millions of Iranian and hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs, in either a personal, political or public form.
The officials from the prosecution unit of the ICC responded with diligence and readiness in accepting the reports presented to them; therefore based on the presented information a file for the investigation of the leaders of the Islamic regime was opened and the case number will be provided on August 31st which will then be distributed. The officials from the prosecution unit also explained the legal methodology of the complaint process and in response stated that the accelerated steps taken against the Islamic regime was as a result of the large and continued complaints against the government of Iran and as such immediate action will be taken to examine the evidence. The officials from the prosecution unit also added that additionally they are currently addressing four cases of crimes against humanity in countries such as Uganda, The Congo, Sudan and Central Africa.
The International Committee Against Execution continues its activities to inform public opinion on the topic of the executions and the general crimes committed by the Islamic Republic. For more information or assisting us regarding this case, please contact us.
Mina Ahadi
minaahadi@aol.com
0049 177 569 24 13
Farshad Hoseini
farshadhoseini@yahoo.com
0031-633602627
The International Committee Against Execution
29 August 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
ALL OBAMA KNOWS HOW TO DO IS TALK AND WE ARE SICK OF IT
By Jonah Goldberg
ABC News reports that Barack Obama has returned to Washington, only to step off the plane and "into his next domestic crisis." He "planned to leave the details of health care reform to Congress, but today the White House says he'll play a much stronger role." The Associated Press says Obama is "backing away" from his "'it's-all-on-the-table' approach" and is "prepared to get louder and more involved in the details of a health care overhaul." "This weekend," NBC Nightly News explained in its lead story, "the president signaled an aggressive stance to put his personal stamp on the sweeping legislation."
There's only one problem. These stories were all reported nearly three months ago upon Obama's return from his largely failed European mission. And yet, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Obama's planned address to a joint session of Congress next week "will insert the president into the heated debate in a way he has avoided all summer." The Washington Post informed readers that the "White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines." A "senior aide" to Obama says the president will be "much more prescriptive."
Why the White House press corps didn't just change the date on their old copy and run it again is beyond me. And I'll leave it to others to ponder the media's seemingly infinite capacity to give Obama as many do-overs as he might need.
Why the Obama administration is determined to do the time warp again is easier to decipher. Obama's advisors think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by "cowbell" you mean "Obama." It's like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the "Saturday Night Live" skit about Blue Oyster Cult (if you don't know the reference, Google "cowbell").
Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, "No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription ... is more Obama!"
But is that really what the doctor ordered?
Obama's address next week will be his third prime-time appeal in three months and the fifth in his 7-month-old presidency. The networks are chagrined about this, not least because the ratings half-life of these events is severe. (Fox's broadcast network beat out the other networks by running "So You Think You Can Dance" instead of his last prime-time press conference.) More relevant, they haven't done Obama much good.
His July 22 press conference was billed as perhaps Obama's last chance to save health care reform. It tanked (partly because Obama's attack on the Cambridge police dominated the press). Afterward, public support for ObamaCare dropped significantly. A Pew poll taken that week found that more people opposed the proposals being considered by Congress than supported them, and that Obama's overall approval had dropped 7 points from the previous month. Other polls showed similar declines.
Now, more than a month later, things look even worse. The obvious solution? Even more cowbell.
But what is lacking is not cowbell, it's substance the American people can support. Obama will reportedly be "more specific," but he won't commit himself to any particular piece of legislation. This suggests that the White House still thinks it has a communication problem, and if only it dispels the cloud of "lies" belched up by the opposition, there will be nothing but blue skies ahead.
Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.
And so, rather than change the substance of the message, they're grabbing an even bigger megaphone: an address to a joint session of Congress. Three out of the last four presidents gave just one address to a joint session of Congress, and all but one of them reserved such occasions for major international events, like a war or, in Ronald Reagan's case, a breakthrough with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Only Bill Clinton used such a venue for a domestic priority: health care reform.
That didn't work out so well either.
Just seven months into Obama's presidency, the White House is turning up the speakers on the cowbell as loud as they will go. And, heck, if you love cowbell, it's going to be a real treat. But in all the ways that matter, it may just end up being more noise.
ABC News reports that Barack Obama has returned to Washington, only to step off the plane and "into his next domestic crisis." He "planned to leave the details of health care reform to Congress, but today the White House says he'll play a much stronger role." The Associated Press says Obama is "backing away" from his "'it's-all-on-the-table' approach" and is "prepared to get louder and more involved in the details of a health care overhaul." "This weekend," NBC Nightly News explained in its lead story, "the president signaled an aggressive stance to put his personal stamp on the sweeping legislation."
There's only one problem. These stories were all reported nearly three months ago upon Obama's return from his largely failed European mission. And yet, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Obama's planned address to a joint session of Congress next week "will insert the president into the heated debate in a way he has avoided all summer." The Washington Post informed readers that the "White House is scrambling to take control of the health-care debate after watching from the sidelines." A "senior aide" to Obama says the president will be "much more prescriptive."
Why the White House press corps didn't just change the date on their old copy and run it again is beyond me. And I'll leave it to others to ponder the media's seemingly infinite capacity to give Obama as many do-overs as he might need.
Why the Obama administration is determined to do the time warp again is easier to decipher. Obama's advisors think the answer to every problem is more cowbell, if by "cowbell" you mean "Obama." It's like Obama guru David Axelrod is the Christopher Walken character from the "Saturday Night Live" skit about Blue Oyster Cult (if you don't know the reference, Google "cowbell").
Every time someone comes up with an alternative to throwing Obama on TV, Axelrod says, "No, no, no. Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription ... is more Obama!"
But is that really what the doctor ordered?
Obama's address next week will be his third prime-time appeal in three months and the fifth in his 7-month-old presidency. The networks are chagrined about this, not least because the ratings half-life of these events is severe. (Fox's broadcast network beat out the other networks by running "So You Think You Can Dance" instead of his last prime-time press conference.) More relevant, they haven't done Obama much good.
His July 22 press conference was billed as perhaps Obama's last chance to save health care reform. It tanked (partly because Obama's attack on the Cambridge police dominated the press). Afterward, public support for ObamaCare dropped significantly. A Pew poll taken that week found that more people opposed the proposals being considered by Congress than supported them, and that Obama's overall approval had dropped 7 points from the previous month. Other polls showed similar declines.
Now, more than a month later, things look even worse. The obvious solution? Even more cowbell.
But what is lacking is not cowbell, it's substance the American people can support. Obama will reportedly be "more specific," but he won't commit himself to any particular piece of legislation. This suggests that the White House still thinks it has a communication problem, and if only it dispels the cloud of "lies" belched up by the opposition, there will be nothing but blue skies ahead.
Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.
And so, rather than change the substance of the message, they're grabbing an even bigger megaphone: an address to a joint session of Congress. Three out of the last four presidents gave just one address to a joint session of Congress, and all but one of them reserved such occasions for major international events, like a war or, in Ronald Reagan's case, a breakthrough with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Only Bill Clinton used such a venue for a domestic priority: health care reform.
That didn't work out so well either.
Just seven months into Obama's presidency, the White House is turning up the speakers on the cowbell as loud as they will go. And, heck, if you love cowbell, it's going to be a real treat. But in all the ways that matter, it may just end up being more noise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
