Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Fwd: [New post] JUDITH MILLER says, “At least 90% of media deliberately omitted the words ‘Islam,’ ‘Muslim’ and ‘Jihadist’ from their coverage of the Kenya Mall massacre”





BareNakedIslam posted: " And the stupid host on FOX News is not much better when he says, "I would think that most Muslims would be angry at what happened in a twisted version of the quran where terrorists bastardized the quran for their own violent purposes." Ignorantly, Judith"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

JUDITH MILLER says, "At least 90% of media deliberately omitted the words 'Islam,' 'Muslim' and 'Jihadist' from their coverage of the Kenya Mall massacre"

by BareNakedIslam

And the stupid host on FOX News is not much better when he says, "I would think that most Muslims would be angry at what happened in a twisted version of the quran where terrorists bastardized the quran for their own violent purposes." Ignorantly, Judith Miller agrees. Sorry, Skippy, terrorism is not a "twisted version," […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | September 25, 2013 at 4:07 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-Y9A

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/09/25/judith-miller-says-at-least-90-of-media-deliberately-omitted-the-words-islam-muslim-and-jihadist-from-their-coverage-of-the-kenya-mall-massacre/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Muslim Suicide Bombers and Western Mass Killers are Fundamentally Different







http://jewishworldreview.com/0913/confusing_evil.php3

 

Confusing evil

By Anat Berko

An Israeli criminologist who has studied suicide bombers for almost two decades and conducts research for the National Security Council peers into the mind of mass murderers --- Islamic jihadis and Western gunmen

Aaron Alexis murdered 12 people and injured at least eight more at the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard before he was shot and killed by law enforcement professionals. It is tempting to compare Alexis to a suicide bomber, especially now that we have heard rumors he opened a website under the name "Mohammed Salem." However, clear thinking demands that temptation be resisted. Let me explain why.

As an Israeli criminologist who has studied suicide bombers for almost two decades—making extensive observations of and conducting numerous interviews with those who failed, as well as with those who dispatch the bombers, with family members of suicide bombers and decision makers and elites in their society— I can say with confidence that the differences between mass killers in the West such as Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, and yes, Aaron Alexis at the D.C. Navy Yard, and suicide bombers are categorical and insurmountable.

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, Eric Lankford, an American criminal justice professor, sought to show that America's lone shooters have more in common with suicide bombers than is commonly believed. But his op-ed piece, "What Drives Suicidal Mass Killers" (New York Times, 12/19/12), is fundamentally flawed. America has certainly suffered enough with the recent Sandy Hook, Aurora and other tragedies, but clear thinking demands we realize that even if someone is characterized as a "shaheed" (a martyr for the sake of Allah, including suicide bombers), the differences between mass killers in the West and suicide bombers are categorical and insurmountable.


The overriding distinction between the two is their native cultures: the suicide bomber's education and attack preparations are diametrically opposed to that of mass killers, as is their socialization. Suicide bombers are radical Islam's celebrated heroes, its darlings, whose acts are viewed by the larger culture as exemplary and heroic; in contrast, the West's mass killers are aberrant individuals isolated from their resolutely life-affirming culture.

Specifically and most importantly, Western culture in general, and American culture in particular, cherishes life. American children are raised in the belief in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; they are raised to embrace life and respect the lives of others. Clearly there are a disturbed few who kill others, but those are not the heroes of the American people: their murders and subsequent own deaths do not bring honor to their families or elevate them in their society's collective memory.

But that is exactly what does happen in radical Islamist culture. In Gaza, for example, children collect cards of shaheeds, the same way American children collect baseball cards. It is absurd to think that anyone would propose National Park Stadium be renamed Aaron Alexis Stadium, and the absurdity illustrates and emphasizes the difference between American mass killers and Muslim suicide bombers whose names emblazon schools, sports teams, stadiums and public squares.

The Western mass killer's acts are motivated by individual pathology rather than by collective ethos. The individual's aberrant thoughts trigger the plan for a mass killing. The suicide bomber is not driven by psychological pain, although he is selected because others see him as weak or vulnerable. A culture that celebrates death and declares to the West that "we love death as you love life" is the petri dish in which suicide bombers develop.


Another distinction is that suicide bombers are not lone gunmen, instead, they are merely tools in a comprehensive, well-advertised terrorist production, manipulated to achieve political goals. To understand the significance of the difference, try to imagine Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris as inanimate objects whose owner chooses not only the location of the killings, but also the date, the weapons and even the victims. The suicide bombers' locations are chosen by others to ensure that the greatest possible damage will be inflicted; the bombers usually have little or no advance notice. A suicide bomber, in contrast to Adam Lanza, will never embark on his mission by first killing his own mother—the most significant and beloved person in his life.

The mass killers choose their victims, the locations and the timing of their deeds, usually planning their acts meticulously over a long period of time. For the suicide bomber, his body is the murder weapon. His death is the only way to achieve his true goal: to enter paradise physically, where 72 virgins and the rivers of wine await him, and spiritually, by bringing honor to himself and his family. All this is possible only if his corporeal being merges with the bomb fragments to bring death to others, an ideal far removed from Western moral conceptions of life and afterlife.

A Western mass killer's death is not a precondition for the mass murder; the deaths of those they have selected is what matters. The suicide bomber, however, is on a mission aimed at propelling himself toward a better future in the afterlife, where he will be able to enjoy everything he was unable to enjoy or achieve while living. America's mass killers have no future: they will be vilified and not celebrated, and in contrast to radical Islamic culture, their families will suffer ignominy and isolation. We have already heard the anguish suffered by Aaron Alexis's mother, who, in a public statement, expressed deep sorrow over the pain caused by her son. She also said she was glad her son was in a place now where he can no longer do any harm to anyone.

The West's mass killers have no recruiters, handlers or dispatchers, all of whom are essential in a world where suicide bombers are the logical means to achieve the collective end. In the United States, anywhere and at any time, the question, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" does not elicit the answer, "A mass killer (or suicide bomber)." However, the Gazan child for example, will not answer "fireman," "policeman," or even "I'm going to work in an office like Daddy." The virtually guaranteed answer is "shaheed," and his mother will likely cheer.

Radical Islam's suicide bomber is the manipulated tool of an aberrant death-glorifying culture, while the West's mass killer is an aberrant member of a robust, life-affirming culture. There are similarities between the two, but it is a mistake to put them on the same level. To blur the distinction is to insult America.

 



__._,_





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Pics and toons 9/25/13




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: When The Legend Becomes Fact, Print The Legend






When The Legend Becomes Fact, Print The Legend

Posted By Ed Driscoll On September 24, 2013

"Many of the progressive tales that Americans grew up with in the 20th century have also been proven either noble lies or half-truths," Victor Davis Hanson writes in a read-the-whole-thing column at NRO:

The American Left has canonized the narrative that anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti were framed, subjected to a show trial, and then executed as a result of widespread American prejudice, xenophobia, and reactionary fear-mongering. Their executions sparked worldwide protests, novels, and plays reacting to the intolerance of a morally suspect America. Yet decades later, most historians, while they concede that the trials of 1921 did not match jurisprudence of a near-century later — nevertheless also quietly accept that the two were indeed anarchist terrorists, and at least one was probably guilty of armed robbery and murder, and the other of being an accessory after the fact. Bigots do not always arrive at bigoted verdicts.

Liberal culture likewise assumed that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed on false charges of spying for the Soviet Union and that at least one of them had not really passed on secrets about the American atomic-bomb project. The two accused became causes célèbres as thousands worldwide rallied to save them from dangerous American know-nothings. Their messy electrocutions were supposedly likewise symptomatic of a paranoid America lashing out at easy victims in an era of Red-baiting, anti-Semitism, and rank McCarthyism.

The truth was in comparison banal. While we know that the Soviets would probably have gotten the H-bomb soon anyway, and that they claimed they were still our allies when they received top-secret American information, and while we know too that today the Rosenbergs would probably have received 20-year sentences, we also know from Soviet archives that they both worked as Soviet spies, who passed to our enemies information about nuclear weapons and other valuable classified projects.

There was no greater liberal icon than Alger Hiss, a smooth, debonair diplomat and foundation head, who likewise was supposedly ground up by the right-wing buzz saw with unfounded charges of spying and treason. While we are still not sure of the degree of damage that Hiss actually did, it is clear that he was at some point in his life a Soviet spy — a damning fact for an American diplomat at times entrusted with matters of the nation's security during the early Cold War. That disturbing truth, however, was minor in comparison to the larger untruth that the Hiss case represented the dangerous excesses of reactionary America. [Just ask former Hillary spokeswoman turned MSNBC analyst Karen Finney, who is still rather "hung up" about the case -- Ed.] So Hiss became a sort of progressive Great Gatsby, a fake, self-inventing himself into something grand that he was not.

In recent memory, several popular icons of revolutionary resistance have been revealed as frauds and worse. Che Guevara — locks, beard, and motorcycle — was a psychotic thug who enjoyed executing his political opponents. Bill Ayers by his own admission was "guilty as hell" of being a violent terrorist; until he had the bad luck of hawking on 9/11 his memoir of his terrorist days, he was on the road to canonization. Rigoberta Menchú was not quite a gifted author who revealed the horrors of right-wing repression in a cry-of-the-heart memoir of resistance. More likely, she fabricated stories in service to her perceived higher calling of exposing brutal reactionary class violence against the poor.

VDH brings the leftwing mythmaking up to the current day with the media's recent blackouts of the actual facts of George Zimmerman's trial, the recent book alleging that the murder of Matthew Shepard was not an anti-gay hate crime, and all of the distortions initially broadcast concerning "African-American, pro-Obama, Buddhist, Thai-speaking Aaron Alexis, who murdered without an AR-15″ at the DC Navy Yard, as Hanson writes.

Back in 2006, at Tech Central Station, historian and columnist Lee Harris explored the concept of "The Sorelian Myth," named after leftwing French philosopher Georges Sorel (1847-1922):

Sorel, for whom religion was important, drew a comparison between the Christian and the socialist revolutionary. The Christian's life is transformed because he accepts the myth that Christ will one day return and usher in the end of time; the revolutionary socialist's life is transformed because he accepts the myth that one day socialism will triumph, and justice for all will prevail. What mattered for Sorel, in both cases, is not the scientific truth or falsity of the myth believed in, but what believing in the myth does to the lives of those who have accepted it, and who refuse to be daunted by the repeated failure of their apocalyptic expectations. How many times have Christians in the last two thousand years been convinced that the Second Coming was at hand, only to be bitterly disappointed — yet none of these disappointments was ever enough to keep them from holding on to their great myth. So, too, Sorel argued, the myth of socialism will continue to have power, despite the various failures of socialist experiments, so long as there are revolutionaries who are unwilling to relinquish their great myth. That is why he rejected scientific socialism — if it was merely science, it lacked the power of a religion to change individual's lives. Thus for Sorel there was "an…analogy between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even the reconstruction of the individual — a gigantic task."

Which is another way of saying, as the line goes in the 1962 film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance starring Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

And it also helps to explain why, as Stacy McCain recently wrote, "The Left Suppresses Its Own History."

The Sorelian myth and leftwing mythmaking in general and its massive use of the Memory Hole, particularly to erase Progressivism's less-than-savory activities during the first half of the 20th century, were recurring themes in Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.

Thanks to social media and the diversity of the Web, it's much easier today to speak out about being run over by leftwing attempts to create its own myths and/or sloppily write "the first draft of history." And those who have been the victims of such heavy-handed propaganda efforts are, not surprisingly, none-too-happy about going under the steamroller:

Then shortly after noon, he got a phone call from someone who said they were with ABC News. "They asked me if I knew Rollie Chance," Rollie Chance said. "Then they said, 'Did you know Rollie Chance was the perpetrator of the Washington Navy Yard shootings?'"

Chance, 50, thought the call was a joke. He told the caller, "I guarantee you 100 percent Rollie Chance didn't do it," and hung up.

Moments later, FBI agents arrived at his home. Soon after, reporters began piling up at the curb. And on Twitter, reporters for both NBC and CBS named Chance as the now-deceased killer. CBS also identified Chance on national radio. ABC, which called Chance, did not report any connection.

The two network news outlets quickly retracted their tweets and CBS corrected its radio report. But Chance is wondering how he will ever erase the accusatory Internet trail that led to his door and is trying to work through days of anxiety for his family, including his 9-year-old daughter, whom he held out of school for a day.

"Verify before you vilify," Chance implored in an interview Friday with his lawyer Mark Cummings. He joined a list of innocent people wrongly connected to high-profile crimes, to include the brother of the Newtown school shooter, two Boston men wrongly linked to the Boston Marathon bombings, and security guard Richard Jewell at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing.

Shortly before dying at age 44 in 2007, Richard Jewell gave a haunting interview, in which also discussed what it feels like to be at the center of a media hurricane when the media is hellbent to get the story wrong:

It's a very safe bet that George Zimmerman concurs with those sentiments as well. Which helps to explain why he's suing NBC for what appears — very much appears, particularly based on the network's recent history — to be deliberate malice on their behalf to create their own Sorelian myth, that of Trayvon Martin, heroic victim of white racism:

Related: Oh, and speaking of the Memory Hole, not surprisingly, "Networks Censor Disgraced IRS Hack Lerner's 'Retirement,'" the Media Research Center reports today. And Brit Hume tweets that the Washington Post "buries Lois Lerner's ouster (retirement) from IRS on page 15, below an article devoted to political trivia."

Which may explain why, based on the Post's loss in financial value over the last decade from two billion dollars to $250 million, the paper, which long ago gave up reportage for leftwing political flacking (and whose journ-o-lists have endorsed the concept of the Sorelian myth themselves), is well on the way to becoming increasingly trivial itself.

Earlier: Robert Reich: The Next Al Gore of Film?


Article printed from Ed Driscoll: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/09/24/print-the-legend/

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] CAIR’s Legitimacy Undermined by its Criminal Money Laundering Scheme





creeping posted: "via American Freedom Law Center. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which bills itself as "the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization," released a so-called report last week entitled, "Legislating Fear: Islamophob"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Creeping Sharia

CAIR's Legitimacy Undermined by its Criminal Money Laundering Scheme

by creeping

via American Freedom Law Center. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which bills itself as "the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization," released a so-called report last week entitled, "Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States," which purports to identify dozens of organizations "dedicated to promoting anti-Islam prejudice in America." […]

Read more of this post

creeping | September 25, 2013 at 11:15 AM | Tags: cair, Creeping Sharia, fbi, finance, hamas, islam, Jihad, law, Life, Media, Muslim, News, Obama, Politics, Random, Religion, Sharia, youtube | Categories: Creeping Sharia | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-fEe

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/cairs-legitimacy-undermined-by-its-criminal-money-laundering-scheme/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] SAUDI ARABIA: Ethiopian migrants turned a deserted water well into a large liquor factory





BareNakedIslam posted: "The enterprising Ethiopians managed to sell massive quantities to the local market before it was discovered and busted by the Gulf Kingdom's police.  Emirates Newspapers described the well-turned-brewery as the largest alcoholic drinks factory to be foun"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

SAUDI ARABIA: Ethiopian migrants turned a deserted water well into a large liquor factory

by BareNakedIslam

The enterprising Ethiopians managed to sell massive quantities to the local market before it was discovered and busted by the Gulf Kingdom's police.  Emirates Newspapers described the well-turned-brewery as the largest alcoholic drinks factory to be found in the western town of Taif and surrounding areas. Police descending into the well found a large number of liquor-filled barrels […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | September 25, 2013 at 2:57 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-Y9m

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/09/25/saudi-arabia-ethiopian-migrants-turned-a-deserted-water-well-into-a-large-liquor-factory/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

The Handshake That Never Happened


The Handshake That Never Happened
Obama to Iran: Buzz off!
by Justin Raimondo, September 25, 2013

The world waited with bated breath as the day approached: would President Obama's speech to the UN General Assembly reflect positively on Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's " charm offensive" (as the Israelis derisively dub it)? Would the two meet up at a luncheon arranged by Ban Ki-Moon and – gasp! – actually shake hands?

We now know the answers to these two questions: no, and certainly not.

It's funny how subjective impressions can be. People often hear their hopes rather than what is actually being said: here 's Phil Weiss, over at the militantly anti-Zionist MondoWeiss web site, who sees in Obama's speech evidence of a "bold opening to Iran," all but proclaiming the beginning of a new era in US-Iranian relations. On the other hand, here's Max Fisher over at the Washington Post with a much more sober – and, I would say, more accurate – assessment.

Rouhani never showed up at the luncheon, and therefore the handshake that was supposed to have shaken the world never happened. Maybe he'd had a big breakfast and just wasn't that hungry – or maybe he lost his appetite after listening to Obama's speech. I'm betting on the latter.

I'll pass over the obvious lies – obvious, at least, to those who follow these issues closely – such as the one about how "all our troops have left Iraq" ( not so), and this real knee-slapper:

"We have limited the use of drones so they target only those who pose a continuing imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible and there's a near certainty of no civilian casualties."

Oy. And here's one that sticks out like a sore Snowden: according to Obama, we're reviewing "the way that we gather intelligence so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share."

Suuu re ya are!

But never mind the lies, let's look at where he's being truthful. We'll have to leave out the part where he claims the only concern that prompted him to call for a military strike on Syria was the alleged use of chemical weapons by the regime of Bashar al-Assad – because we all know the US and its Saudi ally have been engaged in a regime change operation there for at least a year if not more. But there was a glint of truth amid the smoke and mirrors when Obama said:

"It's an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack."

Notice the careful wording: "this attack." The Ghouta incident is separate from three others – one in the village of Khan al-Asal, outside Aleppo, where the regime (and their Russian backers) contend the rebels used some kind of poison gas to take the town. (The location of the other two incidents were kept under wraps " for security reasons.") This was the reason the Assad government let the UN inspectors in to begin with: Damascus was hoping the UN team would verify their accusations, when it just so happened that the Ghouta incident occurred not four miles from where the inspectors were staying.

Oh, but never mind: that was then, and this is now. Citing the agreement with Putin to iron out the terms of dismantling Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, Obama takes a hard line:

"Now there must be a strong Security Council resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments. And there must be consequences if they fail to do so. If we cannot agree even on this, then it will show that the United Nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws."

This is aimed directly at the US Congress, and specifically at those members of his own party who refused to sign on to the Syria strike: he's saying "See, we're trying to do it multilaterally, just like you wanted!" Many liberal Democrats, such as my own congressman, Rep. Jared Huffman, said they opposed military action not so much because they're against the idea per se, but because of the lack of a UN mandate or support from our NATO allies. Liberal imperialism means giving inter-state aggression a "legal" gloss.

The President goes on to opine that he wants the chemical weapons agreement to "energize a larger diplomatic effort to reach a political settlement within Syria," and immediately contradicts himself by saying:

"I do not believe that military action by those within Syria or by external powers can achieve a lasting peace. Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria. That is for the Syrian people to decide."

If external powers can't achieve a lasting piece, then why have a "larger diplomatic effort" to accomplish just that? As for the utility of military action by Syrian forces to settle the question of who shall rule – history disproves the President's contention. Our own bloody civil war certainly did settle things: and, given all the blood shed, the cities burned, and the untold human misery unleashed, who are we to judge what is happening in Syria?

Yes, "that is for the Syrian people to decide" – but, hey:

"A leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country. The notion that Syria can somehow return to a pre-war status quo is a fantasy. It's time for Russia and Iran to realize that insisting on Assad's rule will lead directly to the outcome that they fear: An increasingly violent space for extremists to operate."

Translation: the Syrian people will not be allowed to choose Assad over the rebels, and it's time Russia and Iran woke up and smelled the Turkish coffee. The US and its regional gendarmes are intent on regime change, and the UN – which exists only to rubberstamp and "legitimize" the actions of the Big Powers – isn't going to say boo about it. It's only the "aggression" of nations outside an exclusive club that concerns the Security Council.

A big part of Obama's peroration is about how the UN must begin intervening in "civil wars" – i.e. conflicts instigated by US-backed "rebels" – in order to reach a "political settlement" that ousts the targeted government. One can only imagine the look on the faces of the Russian and Chinese representatives as Obama delivered these remarks.

Addressing his critics at home as well as abroad, Obama outlined the parameters of American policy in the region, and the news is not good. In short, nothing's changed.

"The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War."

Interesting that he should invoke the first Gulf War – George Herbert Walker Bush's invasion of Iraq, dubbed "Operation Desert Storm," launched to keep the Emir of Kuwait on his royal throne. Of course, Obama couldn't very well invoke the Second Gulf War – Bush Junior's contribution to the history of American military disasters – and so he had to reach farther back in history to find an acceptable template. Yet the question arises: acceptable to whom?

While the kings of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states may be reassured by such rhetoric, this ought to make Americans uneasy. Are we really going to go to war in order to keep the royal dictator of, say, Qatar, from falling victim to a Shi'ite uprising? Must Americans die so that King Abdullah and his harem can lord it over a system renown for its cruelty and corruption?

Oh, but we'll be doing it to "ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world," says Obama. As if the oil would just sit in the ground, which it most certainly would not. What this vow to use force really means is that our military has become the private police force of the oil industry, whose profits are guaranteed by the mightiest armed forces the world has ever seen.

The list of rationalizations for US military intervention continues as Obama plays the "terrorist" card, vowing to "dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people." Forget all that malarkey about "sovereignty" and multilateralism: "When it's necessary [to] defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action."

How hard is it to imagine the appearance of a sudden "terrorist" threat in Syria, one that might credibly be accused of planning acts of terrorism on US soil? After destabilizing the country by supporting "moderate" rebels – who just happened to be aligned with Al Qaeda – we now have a full-fledged "terrorist haven" in Syria. Can US troops be far behind?

Finally, the President gets to the part we've all been waiting for, and the lead in isn't promising:

"And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction. Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security, we reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region and undermine the global nonproliferation regime."

Iran is still in America's crosshairs, as Obama made quite clear:

"So what does this mean going forward?

"In the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and …."

Let's stop the film right there.

The whole issue between the US and Iran is whether or not Tehran is in fact pursuing nuclear weapons: yet Obama states that they are indeed doing so as a given. This in spite of our own intelligence community's best assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate issued during the Bush administration which assures us "with high confidence" that they abandoned their nuclear weapons program in 2003 and haven't restarted.

In staking out this hard line, Obama is essentially taking the Israeli position, and that's the intended audience for this part of the speech: Netanyahu and his American amen corner.

Addressing the strenuous effort made by Rouhani and his government to reach some kind of understanding with the US, Obama puts on onus on Tehran:

"Conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable. After all, it's the Iranian government's choices that have led to the comprehensive sanctions that are currently in place. … The world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future."

What choices were those? The Iranians insist they are pursuing their right, guaranteed under the terms of the same Nonproliferation Treaty cited by Obama, to have a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. The "bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" crowd has yet to prove otherwise: various attempts to do so, by Israel, their Washington lobby, and the crazies of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, have all turned out to be transparent hoaxes.

As for Iran's alleged evasion of its supposed responsibilities: the maddening vagueness of this accusation is a smokescreen that covers up the real regional malefactor, which is Israel. At least Iran has signed the NPT and the chemical weapons treaty: Israel has done neither. But Tel Aviv has no responsibilities to fulfill – only demands to make.

Enough already. I'm done with analyzing the maze of lies and half-truths that make up this compendium of rhetorical folly. To add insult to injury, the administration is claiming the Iranians refused to meet with them on the side of the UN confab, but that the offer was made. What they somehow neglect to mention is that so many conditions wee attached to the offer that the Iranians decided to pass it up. Every time these people open their mouths, another falsehood leaps out at us. They couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it: the best they can come up with is the "least untruthful" explanation for their policy of untrammeled aggression in the region – with the threat of more to come.


http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/09/24/the-handshake-that-never-happened/

Is Iran the Fourth Reich?


Is Iran the Fourth Reich?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
September 25, 2013

In the fall of 1956, Nikita Khrushchev threatened to rain rockets down on London for the British invasion of Suez and sent his tanks into Budapest to drown the Hungarian Revolution in blood.

He blew up the Paris summit in 1960, banged his shoe at the U.N., and warned Americans, "We will bury you!"

He insulted John F. Kennedy in Vienna, built the Berlin Wall, and began secretly to place missiles in Cuba capable of annihilating every city in the Southeast, including Washington.

Those were sobering times and serious enemies.

Yet in the Eisenhower-Kennedy years, living under a nuclear Sword of Damocles unlike any the world had ever known, we Americans were on balance a cool, calm and collected crowd.

How then explain the semi-hysteria and near panic in circles of this city over the possibility President Obama might meet with President Hassan Rouhani and hold negotiations over Iran's nuclear program?

We hear talk of Hitler in the Rhineland, of a new Munich, of America failing to act as Britain failed to act, until, back to the wall, it had no choice but to fight. The old Churchill quotes are heard once again.

But is the Ayatollah Hitler? Is Rouhani von Ribbentrop? Is Iran the Fourth Reich? Should we be very very afraid?

Iran, we are told, is the most dangerous enemy America faces.

But is this true?

Depending on one's source, Iran's economy is 2 to 4 percent of ours. After oil and gas, its big exports appear to be caviar, carpets and pistachio nuts. Inflation is unbridled and Iran's currency is plummeting.

Here is the New York Times last month:

"Rouhani's aides describe Iran's economic situation as the worst in decades. … The signs of woe abound.

"Lacking money, Iran's national soccer team scrapped a training trip to Portugal. Teachers in Tehran nervously awaited their wages, which were inexplicably delayed by more than a week. Officials warned recently that food and medicine imports have stalled for three weeks because of a lack of foreign currency."

Should Iran start a war, the sinking of its coastal navy would be a few days' work for the Fifth Fleet. Its air force of U.S. Phantoms dating to the Shah and few dozen MiGs dating to the early 1990s would provide a turkey shoot for Top Gun applicants.

In 30 days, the United States could destroy its airfields, missile sites and nuclear facilities, and impose an air and naval blockade that would reduce Iran to destitution.

And Iran is not only isolated economically.

She is a Shia nation in a Muslim world 90 percent Sunni, a Persian nation on the edge of a sea of 320 million Arabs. Kurds, Azeris, Arabs and Baluch make up close to half of Iran's population. War with America could tear Iran apart.

Why then would Tehran want a war ­ and with a superpower?

Answer: It doesn't. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has attacked no nation and gone to war once ­ to defend herself against Saddam Hussein's aggression that had the backing of the United States.

In that war, the Iranians suffered the worst poison gas attacks since Gamal Abdel Nasser used gas in Yemen and Benito Mussolini used it in Abyssinia. Iran has thus condemned the use of gas in Syria and offered to help get rid of it.

Last year, Iran's departing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frightened so many, made a simple logical point about Iran's supposed bomb program:

"Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?"

Yet, still, the beat goes on. "There is no more time to hold negotiations," says Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, Iran is only six months from developing an atom bomb.

Yet the New York Times reports Monday, "American intelligence experts believe Iran is still many months if not years away from having such a weapon." Time to clear this up.

Congress should call James Clapper, head of national intelligence, and pin him down publicly on these questions:

Has Iran made the decision to build an atom bomb? Does Iran even have all the ingredients for a bomb? If Iran made a decision to build a bomb would we know about it? And how long would it take for Iran to build and test a nuclear device?

Americans were misled, deceived and lied into one war. Let's not follow the same crowd into another.

Obama is being urged not to meet with Rouhani, as the man has a checkered past. Yet U.S. presidents met three times with Stalin, three with the Butcher of Budapest, once with Chairman Mao.

Compared to these fellows, Hussein Rouhani looks like Ramsey Clark.

Query: If Iran has the scientific and industrial capacity to build a bomb ­ and all agree it has ­ what could conceivably be the reason Iran has not yet done so?

Perhaps, just perhaps, Iran doesn't want the bomb.

Talk to the man, Mr. President.

http://buchanan.org/blog/iran-fourth-reich-5892

Fwd: These new breakfast cereals just keep getting better









--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Senate Gallery

I was there from 730 am until noon

They confiscate all electronics so you can't film or photo

Given how Durbin and the other senators behave (reading catalogues, chit chatting) off camera I see why

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Keith In Tampa wrote:
I wish I could have been there to have participated.   I have not been a big Ted Cruz fan up until now, but after this filibuster and the criticism that he has received from the likes of John McCain and Chinless Boy Lindsey Graham,  Cruz has my full support!


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
First go to Dirksen Senate Office Building 191 Cruz's office and pick up a visitor pass

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amy Kremer
Date: Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Subject: Senate Gallery



Hey Bruce!
Have you been to the gallery tonight?  If not, do you have any interest in going? We need to get ppl over there to support Cruz.

Any interest or do you know who we can rally at this hour?




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.