Friday, 6 December 2013

Mandela dies

Nelson Mandela Was Undeniably Great But He Doesn't Need a Halo

He will be forever linked with the abolition of apartheid, but he was also a friend of Gaddafi and Castro, and we must accept his shortcomings to truly fathom his accomplishments.

We will hear much in the coming days about Nelson Mandela's surplus of saintly qualities, of which there were indeed many. And we will be treated to the interminable and drippy encomiums of pundits and celebrities who couldn't differentiate the ANC from the BBC, wouldn't know Joe Slovo from Slobodan Milosevic. We can be snide about it, but they'll all start with the correct premise: Mandela was a man of unique bravery who designed the dismantling of a political system of unique evil. It was that pigheaded determination--at great personal cost--that liberated his country from the clutches of an illegitimate regime.

Indeed, it's an understatement to say that South Africa's white-minority regime, those Afrikaners who treated the country as an undifferentiated mass of plantation workers, was illegitimate. Its foundational ideology, stripped of colonialist doubletalk, was simply one of white supremacy. You needn't have been assigned Mark Mathabane's Kaffir Boy (as I was); boycotted bands who refused to boycott Sun City (an atrocious regime we hoped would be upended by an atrocious song); or slept hard in a protest "shanty town" on a manicured Amherst College lawn to understand which ones were the bad guys. It was those grim-faced, jowly white men with the harsh surnames.

And we didn't need to know much. We hated apartheid more than, say, Baathism or Castroism because it was a simple and understandable morality tale, one to which Americans could relate. As CNN flickers on my JetBlue seatback, I see an endless scroll of photos of an extraordinary political life, crossfaded with the vacant stares of activist celebrities—there's a smiling Will Smith! The severe Annie Lennox appears to be holding a clenched fist over her head, like a white and Scottish Tommie Smith! The sultry Naomi Campbell looking beautiful and dimwitted! It wasn't Mandela's fault that any number of vacuous celebrities blubbered when meeting him, while at the same time assuming they were just in the southern bit of a country called Africa. (And while we're at it, let's avoid being too hard on Nelson for his marriage to the atrocious Winnie.)

Facts and figures from Nelson Mandela's life, set to the trailer from 'Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.'

As Anthony Sampson, Mandela's authorized biographer, commented, "Cynical politicians … wipe away tears in Mandela's presence, perhaps seeing him as a secular saint who makes their own profession seem noble ... Some have warned me, 'I don't want to hear anything bad about him.'" Add to this formulation singers, actors, artists, beauty pageant contestants, and any celebrity occasioned to stand before a microphone and asked to define moral heroism. How did Mandela react to such slobbering sycophancy? Sampson quotes him rejecting beatification, simply commenting "I'm no angel."

Pull back the lens a bit and one tends to agree with Mandela. It's certainly true that he glued together a nation torn asunder by racism and authoritarianism. And contemporaneous observers predicted that South Africa would fracture, that a civil war would roil for the next decade. But as South African journalist Rian Malan, one of those doomsayers, points out, it was Mandela who prevented such an outcome. But he also bequeathed to South Africa a shaky unity, an unenviable political situation, and the disastrous and absurd regimes of Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma, both old ANC stalwarts who have claimed his mantle.

When former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died, we saw a rather different reaction, but one that invoked Mandela to demonstrate the Iron Lady's callousness. It was said, with ritualistic frequency, that she had denounced Mandela himself as a "terrorist" (she hadn't). And it was quite rightly—and quite frequently—remarked that Thatcher's unconscionable indulgence of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet should sully her reputation.

And here is where one must bring the knives out for Mandela. For a man imprisoned for his political beliefs, he had a weakness for those who did the very same thing to their ideological opponents, but were allowed a pass because they supported, for realpolitik reasons, the struggle against Apartheid. So Mandela was painfully slow in denouncing the squalid dictatorship of Robert Mugabe. He was rather fond of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro (it won't take you long to find photos of the two bear-hugging each other in Havana) and regularly referred to Libyan tyrant Muammar Qaddafi as "Brother Leader of the Revolution of the Libyan Jamahariya." It was on a return visit to Robbin Island, when Mandela, as president, announced with appalling tone deafness that he would invite both Castro and Qaddafi to South Africa.

In 1997, he unloaded on the Clinton administration when it criticized his embrace of the Libyan dictatorship. "How can they have the arrogance to dictate to us where we should go or which countries should be our friends? Gaddafi is my friend." In 2000, the Boston Globe reported that when Iran charged 13 Iranian Jews and eight Muslims with espionage on behalf of Israel, Mandela "expressed his satisfaction with assurances from Iranian leaders that their trial would be 'free and fair.'" To those critical of his stance, he shouted that "you have not been to Iran. I have been to Iran, and your criticism has no foundation," declaring the trial "a purely domestic affair in which citizens of the Islamic Republic are being tried. Foreigners should avoid any action that may be regarded rightly or wrongly as interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state." The affairs of non-democracies, Mandela argued, were not the business of democracies.

Thankfully, not all governments indulged this brand of human rights isolationism when Mandela was jailed on Robben Island. The problem with this stance isn't merely that Mandela was wildly wrong—which he was—about the fairness and independence of the Iranian judiciary or the righteousness of the Cuban and Libyan dictatorships, but his reliance on the old debating trick of shouting "sovereignty" about a crowded political prison. This was, you might remember, the argument of both the apartheid regime and its criminal co-conspirators.

There are few people who reach the saintliness, the otherworldliness of Mandela, with the possible exceptions of the Dalai Lama, Mohandas Gandhi, and Mother Teresa (all three famously criticized by Christopher Hitchens, as Mandela was by his conservative brother Peter). And while Mandela was richly deserving of his Nobel Prize and earned the overused appellation "great man," he wasn't a saint. Politicians rarely are. And it does damage to the historical record to pretend otherwise.


On Thursday, December 5, 2013, LAF Mario wrote:
5 December 2013 Last updated at 21:54

South Africa's Nelson Mandela dies,

South Africa's first black president and anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela has died, South Africa's president says.

Mr Mandela, 95, led South Africa's transition from white-minority rule in the 1990s, after 27 years in prison.

He had been receiving intense home-based medical care for a lung infection after three months in hospital.

In a statement on South African national TV, Mr Zuma said Mr Mandela had "departed" and was at peace.

1918 Born in the Eastern Cape

1943 Joined African National Congress

1956 Charged with high treason, but charges dropped after a four-year trial

1962 Arrested, convicted of incitement and leaving country without a passport, sentenced to five years in prison

1964 Charged with sabotage, sentenced to life

1990 Freed from prison

1993 Wins Nobel Peace Prize

1994 Elected first black president

1999 Steps down as leader

2001 Diagnosed with prostate cancer

2004 Retires from public life

2005 Announces his son has died of an HIV/Aids-related illness

"Our nation has lost its greatest son," Mr Zuma said.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate was one of the world's most revered statesmen after preaching reconciliation despite being imprisoned for 27 years.

He had rarely been seen in public since officially retiring in 2004.

"What made Nelson Mandela great was precisely what made him human. We saw in him what we seek in ourselves," Mr Zuma said.

"Fellow South Africans, Nelson Mandela brought us together and it is together that we will bid him farewell."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25249520

--   Mario Huet  List Administrator  Libertarian Alliance Forum    **************************************************  *   Words cannot picture her; but all men know   *  * That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought *  **************************************************           James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night  

--
--
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: What if it was all true?..



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:



 
 
Obama's uncle said that Obama told him that he was attending Harvard as a foreign exchange student.  Obama was an adult at that time.  So if Obama did attend as a foreign exchange student, then he accepted citizenship in a foreign country as an adult and cannot be president of the USA as per US 8 definition of a natural born citizen.  
 
It has now been established that Obama lied .. about lots of stuff.... especially Obamacare.       
 
Check out the following article. 
 

 

 

Posted By Roger L Simon On December 4, 2013 @ 11:23 pm In politics,Presidential Election 2008,terrorism | 155 Comments
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/files/2013/12/obama_lies_big_12-4-13-2.jpg[1]
I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist. For me it was always Oswald by himself from the Texas School Book Depository and nothing in the intervening fifty years has disabused me of this notion. For the most part, I'm an Occam's Razor kind of guy — the most obvious explanation is likely to be true.
Moreover, conspiracy theorists from Mark Lane to Jerome Corsi (more of him in a moment) have always seemed to me a little bit, well, off.
Maybe it's the temper of the times, however, the incessant presidential lying recently unmasked, but a brief Washington Post article linked on the Drudge Report Tuesday caught me up short. The headline told much of the story — "Obama's uncle contradicts White House, says Obama stayed with him in 1980s. [2]"
Obama's uncle is Onyango "Omar" Obama, 69, a Kenyan national who has been living illegally in this country for five decades. Omar, the manager of a liquor store, was caught driving under the influence recently and faced deportation.  The judge apparently let him off.  What's interesting is that Omar testified [2] during his trial that the future POTUS stayed at Onyango's apartment in Cambridge in the 1980s while Barack attended Harvard Law.  Obama has previously denied ever having even met Omar.  But the Kenyan's landlord corroborated under oath Barack Sr.'s brother's testimony. The White House, as is its wont these days, isn't commenting.
Now, as a devotee of the aforementioned William of Ockham ("the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected"), I tend to believe, in fact I almost certainly believe, Obama's father's brother and his landlord, not the president. It makes little sense that Obama as a young Harvard grad student would not at least have looked up his father's brother, when they were living in the same town for three years. Indeed, it makes good sense that he might have crashed on Omar's couch for a few days or weeks while looking for an apartment. Many, if not most, of us have done something similar.
Furthermore, although there might be some incentive for Omar to lie about his relationship with the president to curry favor with the judge, what incentive would his landlord have had?  To be indicted for perjuring himself?  No wonder the White House is silent.
Around Obama there is an unprecedented silence, almost a media omertà.  So much remains unknown about this man, although we do know, through the debate surrounding David Maraniss's failed and tentative biography [3], that the president lied about his personal history on multiple occasions in his autobiography Dreams from My Father.
Of course, Bill Ayers — the semi-retired terrorist — has claimed on similarly multiple occasions that he was the true author of Dreams, which would make it a lie about a lie about a lie or something like that. The permutations of this are mindboggling.
Which leads me back to Jerome Corsi.  A few years ago, in Chicago for a conference, I was introduced to the author-presidential gadfly who had rented a limo for the day to tour Obama and Obama-related real estate properties in that city's Hyde Park district.  He asked me to come along and, never one to refuse a free invitation, I went [4], but although I found Corsi personally engaging, I kept thinking quietly that the man was cracked.
No longer.  Years and a multiplicity of deceptions later, I think what Corsi said and says is mostly (as in more than fifty percent) true.
That doesn't mean I believe that Obama was born in Kenya. I remain unconvinced of that. And I don't even much care if he was. I would vote in a heartbeat for a foreign born person if I thought he or she were the best candidate, assuming it was all legal and public, which in this case it wouldn't have been, but you get my point.
Nevertheless, in the wake of the serial lies about Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS, Fast and Furious, media surveillance, the NSA, Syria, Iran, etc., etc., I'm now prepared to believe many things of which I might initially have been at least somewhat skeptical.
To put it bluntly, Occam's Razor has moved. Things that were once possibilities now seem almost certainties to me.
Principal among those is that Obama's academic records are perpetually unavailable for a reason — and that reason is most likely that they reveal he received financial preferences, scholarships and/or loans, as a foreign student.  They probably also reveal academic mediocrity, but that's par for the course for many of our politicians (except it becomes embarrassing in Obama's case where he has the reputation of being brilliant).
But that's only one area of accusation.  What if they were all true — or, if not all, say thirty, forty or even fifty percent? What if this were actually demonstrated while he was still in office to the degree that the standard spin that all politician lie no longer applied? What if we could prove that it had gone well beyond that, beyond Nixon and Clinton far into the realm of an invented man? What it would that mean, exactly?  Should his opponents rejoice?  Would a new era and truth, beauty and prosperity be upon us?
Not likely.  Great damage has been done. Consider for a moment that whatever theories we have about Obama, whatever prevarications and deceptions of which we are aware or unaware, are known equally to our adversaries — the intelligence agencies of China, Russia and Iran. Even if they were too dumb to figure it out for themselves, which they're not, they read our newspapers and blogs.
These totalitarian — or near totalitarian, depending on how you want to parse it — states depend on lies for their existence.  In Obama they have found a partner in crime, a semblable, as Baudelaire [5] would say. They are currently exploiting this.  In all likelihood our world will never be the same.  This is no cause for celebration by any American.
UPDATE:  According to the Boston Globe [6], as of  today Thursday, Obama now acknowledges having lived with his uncle.

--
--
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: Happy Holidays!

Yep.....I thought we were reading pornography!


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
I am glad I did not need to pee when I got to the last line.


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

I saw you across a crowded room, among all the others that were there. The
lights seemed to shine down on you alone. I knew then I had to have you for my
own. Willingly, you came home with me. From the car, I carried you and threw
open the door.

Looking at you, I admire your body, your well shaped legs, and chest. Slowly I
remove what wraps around your body so tightly, fitting you like a glove. I
expose your tender white skin, remove the charms from your neck, and carry you
off to the warm water that awaits.

The water cascades down your neck, flowing over your taut skin, making your legs
glisten with wetness. My hands rub your body, making the beads of water trickle
down your body. I place my fingers inside you. You are warm and moist, so ready.
I lay you down so that I can put inside you what was well prepared to enter you
before we even came through the door.

As soon as I lay you down, your legs spread open wide. You are ready now and so
am I. I put a little in slowly at first, getting a feel for how much you can
take. Then I put in more, you take it willingly. In anticipation, faster and
faster I put it in, pushing it in deeply as I can, until I can't put any more
in. You are so tight. Your legs are wrapped tightly, not wanting to release any
of it.

I make you so hot for a very long time, until your sweet juices escape from
within. Then I taste you, with my tongue at first, your skin is so soft and
tender. I taste more of you with my mouth, you are so hot and moist, you taste
so good. Your juices coating my mouth, making me drool in anticipation of eating
you more, with every taste. "Oh yes", I say to you, I must say Grace "Thank God for Butterball Turkey"




--
--
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.

Fwd: Dare We Say It? The Mullahs Must Go







 

 

 

Protesters marching on Tehran's Azadi Tower during Iran's Green Revolution, June 15, 2009. Photo: Hamed Saber / Wikimedia

Dare We Say It? The Mullahs Must Go

Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

In dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat, there are many options besides capitulation and war.

Sanctions and diplomacy have thus far failed to induce the Iranian regime to cease its nuclear weapons program. We shouldn't be surprised by this. Top Iranian leaders, from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei down, have repeatedly said that Iran will never abandon its "right to enrich uranium," a process essential to building nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Iranians are now claiming that the Interim Agreement reached in Geneva by Iran, the U.S., and five other nations accepts this "right," and the text seems to support their interpretation.

However you parse the agreement, there is no doubt that the U.S. has agreed to ease sanctions on Iran for at least the next six months. And even that time limit is more of a hopeful request than a hard and fast deadline. At the time of this writing, we are told that there are still some technical details to be hammered out, and the clock won't start ticking until there is a final agreement. At the same time, Iran has already opened talks with American, European, Asian, and Turkish business concerns, especially the big oil companies, in anticipation of an end to the sanctions regime. Once those business connections take effect, there will be little enthusiasm for renewing the sanctions, whether after six months or six years.

 

So now what? Are we doomed to suffer endless negotiations, without any realistic hope of ending the Iranian nuclear program? Some American political leaders believe that if tough sanctions got us this far, tougher sanctions will get us farther. But the White House is having none of it. The president warns that such a move would undermine progress toward a final agreement and bring the West closer to war with Iran.

 

Are we, then, faced with the terrible choice once formulated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy: "Iran with the bomb, or bomb Iran"?

Not at all. Western strategy need not be limited to these two fearsome options. Instead, Western leaders should listen to the Washington Posteditorialists who spelled out a third option two years ago: Change the Iranian regime. "By now," the Post wrote in November 2011, "it should be obvious that only regime change will stop the Iranian nuclear program."

Green Revolution protesters, June 17, 2009. Photo Hamed Saber / Wikimedia

Green Revolution protesters, June 17, 2009. Photo Hamed Saber / Wikimedia

For this third option to work, it must meet two conditions: First, it must be plausible. That is, there must be good reason to believe that the downfall of the regime—without waging a full-scale war against Iran—can be accomplished. And second, there must be good reason to believe that a new regime in Tehran will be better than the old. As my clear-eyed Russian grandmother used to remind me, things are never so bad that they can't get worse. We certainly wouldn't want that.

To understand the possibility of democratic change in Iran, one must remember that revolution is an Iranian national tradition. Over the last century, there have been no less than three political revolutions in Iran, the last of which created the Islamic Republic in 1979. There have also been two failed uprisings against the current regime: First in the summer of 2003, in response to which Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the United States did not wish to get involved in a "family squabble"; and second in 2009, following the fraudulent elections that kept then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power for another four years. The 2009 demonstrations were larger than those that toppled the Shah in 1979, but once again the US stayed out of it, and the regime succeeded in putting down the uprising through a massive campaign of domestic repression.

 

Many of those who fought the regime in the streets four years ago are still in prison; most notably, three leaders of the opposition Green Movement: former prime minister and presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi (who probably received more votes than Ahmadinejad), his firebrand feminist wife Zahra Rahnavard, and his ally, former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi. All three have been held in isolation for more than 1,040 days, and both men have been recently hospitalized.

 

Yet support for the opposition remains strong. When Iran's Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif recently returned to Tehran from Geneva, hundreds of enthusiastic Iranians greeted him at the airport. But a substantial number of them were opposition supporters, as demonstrated by a YouTube video in which they can be heard calling Mousavi's name—"Ya Hossein! Mir Hossein!"

 

Opposition activities aren't limited to words. Although rarely reported outside Iran, attacks on refineries and pipelines are pandemic. In the small oil-rich province of Ahwaz, for example, where the Arab population has been subjected to unusual cruelty, there have been six pipeline attacks this year alone. At the same time, the northern gas pipelines to Turkey (where anti-regime Kurdish forces are active) have been frequently bombed.

Women protest against the mandatory wearing of hijab in the days following the Iranian Revolution, 1979. Photo credit: Soroush90gh / Wikimedia

Women protest against the mandatory wearing of hijab in the days following the Iranian Revolution, 1979. Photo credit: Soroush90gh / Wikimedia

Regime assets are also a target. Last March, the opposition attacked two Revolutionary Guard Corps installations. One was Zarin Dasht, where missile fuel and warheads are manufactured. The other was Natanz, a major uranium enrichment center. The resulting explosion forced the entire complex to shut down. While invariably blamed on Israel or the United States, some of these spectacular attacks are actually carried out by the Iranian opposition, and serious analysts believe they are also responsible for at least some recent assassinations of nuclear physicists.

 

The most convincing evidence of the opposition's strength, however, comes from the regime itself. Put simply, the regime appears terrified of even the quietest expressions of dissent. Even small groups in public places are quickly broken up, lest they grow into full-scale demonstrations. At the beginning of the year, Khamenei's representative to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Ali Saeedi, described just how intense this fear has become. If Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wanted to demonstrate the weakness of the opposition, he would have subjected the Mousavis and Karroubi to the same harsh treatment that has been meted out to many of their followers: Summary judgment by a Revolutionary Court, followed by execution. But Saeedi told the Iranian state news agency Fars that Khamenei cannot do this because Mousavi and Karroubi "have supporters and followers" as well as "a few [clerics] who continue to back elements within the sedition."

 

The regime's anxiety about the Green Movement led it to ban scores of candidates from running in the May parliamentary elections and deploy thousands of security forces to polling stations in order to prevent protests. Even the Supreme Leader shies away from public events. For the first time in more than twenty years, Khamenei failed to appear at Revolutionary Guards Day festivities in late June or at birthday celebrations for Imam Ali the following month. Indeed, when two popular Iranian artists— actor Iraj Ghaderi and musician Hassan Kassai—died in the summer of 2012, their funerals were held in the middle of the night, to make popular attendance as difficult as possible.

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mouasvi being greeted by supporters, June 18, 2009. Photo: Hamed Saber / Wikimedia

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mouasvi being greeted by supporters, June 18, 2009. Photo: Hamed Saber / Wikimedia

So the regime's answer to the question, "Can the Iranian regime be replaced?" appears to be an emphatic, "Yes, it can."

Paradoxically, Western intelligence services are much more pessimistic about the chances for a successful Iranian revolution. They maintain that the Green Movement has been crushed and decapitated, and Khamenei and his henchmen are firmly in control. I'm not impressed by these conclusions, for two reasons: First, they said the same thing before the 2009 uprising, which took them by surprise. If they were so wrong then, why should we believe them now? And second, they said exactly the same thing about the Soviet Union and its satellites on the eve of their implosion. Time and again, we were told that there was no real opposition to the Soviets, that the KGB had crushed any attempt to challenge the regime, and that Gorbachev was firmly in control.

I think the Iranian regime has the more accurate reading of the situation.

Many of the revolutions resulting from the recent "Arab Spring" have been unhappy ones; so it is prudent to ask whether a new regime in Tehran would make things worse, not better: Worse for the region, worse for the United States, and worse for the Iranian people. Skeptics remind us that Mousavi was a loyal servant of the Ayatollah Khomeini, creator of the Islamic Republic itself. Why would we want such a man to rule Iran today?

 

First, there is plenty of reason to believe Mousavi has changed. Before he ran for president in 2009, he spent twenty years outside politics; and even as he repeatedly paid homage to Khomeini, his electoral campaign made is clear that he intended to undo the Ayatollah's theocratic system. The clearest evidence of this comes from Mousavi himself. In the early months of his captivity, he wrote on his Facebook page that, if readers want to understand him, they should read two books: Gabriel Garcia Marquez'sNews of a Kidnapping, and Stefan Zweig's The Right to Heresy. Both quickly became best-sellers in Iran. The first book gave rise to a popular Facebook page called "News of a Kidnapping, the status of a president in captivity." The second deals with the revolt against John Calvin led by 16th century cleric Sebastian Castellio. It is a call for religious toleration, and Castellio's most famous line is "to burn a man alive does not defend a doctrine, but slays a man."

 

One cannot read Zweig's account of Castellio's battle with the "totalitarian" Calvin without thinking of Mousavi's challenge to Khamenei. Indeed, the book begins with a quotation from Montaigne that is clearly Mousavi's motto: "The most valiant are often the most unfortunate. So there are triumphant losses more to be envied than victories." Equally significant is the fact that there is no shortage of quotations extolling martyrs in Shi'ite Muslim texts—in fact, this is the central theme of the faith. Yet Mousavi sent anyone wishing to understand him and his movement to two Western books, one written by a Jew.

A bus burning in Tehran, the result of protests during the Green Revoultion, June 13, 2009. Photo: Shahram Sharif / Wikimedia

A bus burning in Tehran, the result of protests during the Green Revoultion, June 13, 2009. Photo: Shahram Sharif / Wikimedia

Second, Mousavi made it clear throughout his presidential campaign that he wants to bring Iran closer to the West. He promised, for example, to end Iranian support for international terrorism. This promise proved extremely popular. More than a year and a half later, in February 2011, demonstrators were decrying the regime's support for the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah, carrying banners with slogans like "Don't talk to us about the Palestinians, talk about us."

 

The Green Movement also pledged to end many of the Islamic Republic's oppressive policies. Although the group's leaders pay lip service to restoring the values of the Islamic Revolution, anyone reading their specific proposals can see what's really going on. During the 2009 campaign, Mousavi's wife Zahra campaigned alongside him, saying, "I wear a veil and I believe all Iranian women should wear it." But, she went on, "if there are any women who do not want to wear it, so be it." It was a stark act of defiance against a deeply misogynistic regime. Mousavi has also promised toleration of religious dissenters, the release of all political prisoners, and a greater separation of religion and state. That is tantamount to dismantling the Islamic Republic.

 

President Obama has long been aware of the Green Movement and their intentions. During the 2009 uprising, the White House sent a short message to its leaders through an Iranian-American back channel in New York City. In November, with Iran still in turmoil, a lengthy reply arrived. The key line reads, "Religion, by the will of the Iranian people of today, has to be separated from the state in order to guarantee unity of Iran." It's hard to imagine a clearer rejection of the very basis of the Islamic Republic, or a more explicit statement of the desire to return to the Shi'ite tradition of limiting religion to the mosque while entrusting affairs of state to secular leaders.

Ayatollah Khomeini praying in France. Hassan Rouhani is behind him, second from left. Photo credit: Mojtaba Salimi / Wikimedia

Ayatollah Khomeini praying in France. Hassan Rouhani is behind him, second from left. Photo credit: Mojtaba Salimi / Wikimedia

The letter also warned President Obama about the true nature of the Iranian regime in no uncertain terms. It presents a snapshot of Iran under a theocratic tyranny. "It is as if the 'Divine Right of Kings' were to be reestablished in the West," it states at one point. And, later on, "the regime is a brutal, apocalyptic, theocratic dictatorship that tries to survive by means of suppression of its own people, military force, theft of national resources, and economic stealth." The letter says that, like all totalitarian governments, the regime cannot be reformed. But it also insists that the forces for change inside Iran are strong and well-led.

The Obama Administration never replied.

 

What about nuclear weapons? While the issue has not been specifically addressed, the Green Movement has repeatedly condemned the regime's "adventurism" in foreign affairs. This, combined with the myriad indications that the Greens want better relations with the West very much, makes it a near certainty a free Iran led by the opposition would bring the country into compliance with the various UN resolutions that call for an end to uranium enrichment. In addition, the West would have far less to fear from a free Iran, whatever weapons it might possess, than from the current regime.

Those of us who worked to peacefully bring down the Soviet Empire have learned how little we really know about political revolution. During the Reagan administration, we were confident the Soviet system was doomed; but many of us, myself included, believed we had failed to bring about the revolution we hoped to see. We were surprised when the U.S.S.R. fell; and it was only later that we learned from dissidents in the former communist bloc that our work had indeed been decisive.

Those wondering how to bring down the Iranian regime today can learn several lessons from the last years of the Cold War. One of them is that many smart and sensible people will always tell you not to challenge an enemy regime. I was amazed at the opposition to our support for Soviet dissidents and refuseniks, as well as the Jackson-Vannick Amendment on behalf of Soviet Jewry. We were repeatedly warned that challenging Moscow would only make things worse for the people we wanted to help. And we were branded as crazy for believing it was possible to bring down the entire Soviet empire.

 

And yet, it's gone.

 

Much the same is going on today in regard to Iran: The same warnings, the same insults, the same demands that we come to terms with an evil system and try to work out some kind of modus vivendi. Yet the Iranian regime is even more hollow and internally fractured than Gorbachev's, and the relative size of the Iranian opposition dwarfs the forces willing to challenge the communists.

 

Khamenei knows that the greatest threat to his power comes from the Iranian people, who despise him and want to be free of his regime. They have long experience with self-government, they are the best-educated people in the Middle East this side of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, and they are willing to fight. We should help them.

Protesters in Tehran, June 16, 2009. Photo: Milad Avazbeigi / Wikimedia

Protesters in Tehran, June 16, 2009. Photo: Milad Avazbeigi / Wikimedia

As the Greens wrote to Obama in 2009, "It is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they… push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance Western interests and world peace?"

To date, we have tried to come to terms with the regime and utterly failed to help the Iranian people; even though it wouldn't be very difficult or expensive to do so. We should maintain sanctions, which send an important political message to the Iranian people, and we should openly support them, call for the release of political prisoners, broadcast accurate news about the Islamic Republic to them, work with the international trade union movement to support Iranian workers (tens of thousands of whom are not being paid on time), and relentlessly expose the crushing repression to which they are subjected and which has not improved under the new President, Hassan Rouhani. But above all, they should hear from us. To my knowledge, no Western government has contacted the Iranian opposition inside the country since shortly after the 2009 uprising. That must change.

 

It's the right thing to do, and it's strategically sound. If we don't work for revolutionary change inside Iran, we condemn ourselves to the Sarkozy option: Which will it be, Iran with the bomb or bomb Iran?

 

Banner Photo: Hamed Saber / Wikimedia 



 

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
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: Happy Holidays!

I am glad I did not need to pee when I got to the last line.


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

I saw you across a crowded room, among all the others that were there. The
lights seemed to shine down on you alone. I knew then I had to have you for my
own. Willingly, you came home with me. From the car, I carried you and threw
open the door.

Looking at you, I admire your body, your well shaped legs, and chest. Slowly I
remove what wraps around your body so tightly, fitting you like a glove. I
expose your tender white skin, remove the charms from your neck, and carry you
off to the warm water that awaits.

The water cascades down your neck, flowing over your taut skin, making your legs
glisten with wetness. My hands rub your body, making the beads of water trickle
down your body. I place my fingers inside you. You are warm and moist, so ready.
I lay you down so that I can put inside you what was well prepared to enter you
before we even came through the door.

As soon as I lay you down, your legs spread open wide. You are ready now and so
am I. I put a little in slowly at first, getting a feel for how much you can
take. Then I put in more, you take it willingly. In anticipation, faster and
faster I put it in, pushing it in deeply as I can, until I can't put any more
in. You are so tight. Your legs are wrapped tightly, not wanting to release any
of it.

I make you so hot for a very long time, until your sweet juices escape from
within. Then I taste you, with my tongue at first, your skin is so soft and
tender. I taste more of you with my mouth, you are so hot and moist, you taste
so good. Your juices coating my mouth, making me drool in anticipation of eating
you more, with every taste. "Oh yes", I say to you, I must say Grace "Thank God for Butterball Turkey"




--
--
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.

Fwd: Obama's 12 Days of Christmas








--
--
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: Boys to Men - The Need for Boys to Play with Guns







http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/boys-men-need-boys-play-guns/

 

Boys to Men – The Need for Boys to Play with Guns

By Clash Daily / 6 December 2013

by Karen Serna
Clash Daily Contributor

Growing up, I was one of two girls in a neighborhood filled with boys. As you can imagine, I became quite the tom-boy; my days were filled with war games: "Star Wars", "Cowboys and Indians", etc. I either learned these testosterone driven games or went without friends. Little boys thrive on battle.

So as the mother of a little boy (age 4), it came as no surprise that his favorite activity is to play with miniature army men. Sometimes it's the Germans or Japanese against the Americans in WWII. Or perhaps the Red Coats are fighting the colonists. Even as I write, my son wants me to "look at the attack [he's] done. See the trench I made for these guys?" Thoughts of good guys and bad guys consume him. If we read a book about tanks, planes, or ships, he wants to know if it is a plane for the good guys or the bad guys. If we watch history videos, he has one question, "Momma? Are those the good guys?"

Because of this, we have a house full of toy guns: Nerf guns, cowboy guns, pop guns, army guns with scopes and silencers on them, guns, guns and more guns. My son runs around the house saying, "Surrender of die!" as he throws pretend bombs at his toy soldiers, or he takes them out with the Nerf darts. And don't even get me started about the battles that erupt when his best friend, who is 7, comes over. Oh, and then there is "park day", a weekly gathering of homeschooling families where the horde of boys all arrive with their light sabers and swords. It does my heart good to watch them whack each other.

To some of my friends this is quite disturbing. "Won't playing with guns and swords make him a violent child?" "Well, it is ok to let him play with guns, but don't let him point it at anybody." "It's just best if you don't let children have toys guns at all." You've heard these same concepts through liberal media and LIBERAL parenting magazines.

First, while I respect how they run their home, I don't think it is realistic to ask a boy not to play with guns. If we didn't buy our son guns, he would create them with his Legos (and he does), find a stick, or simply use his fingers as a gun. Second, if we don't allow them to point the gun at anyone, what is the point of the battle?

The reality is that boys and men are wired to be defenders and protectors. If we take away our sons' guns, we strip them of their identity as men. They thrive on being the hero, protecting the innocent, defending the weak. They learn these skills running around the back yard playing with guns.

I simply won't cave to the cultural pressure that says he will be a violent adult if I let him play with guns. My son is one of the most tenderhearted and kind children I know. He tears up when he even thinks he's hurt someone.

So let's not strip our boys of their natural tendency to engage in battle and protect us from evil. After all, isn't that what we want them to do as adults?

Image: Courtesy of: http://howisitmade.wikispaces.com/Plastic+Soldiers


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/boys-men-need-boys-play-guns/#k2xoEqgJx18wHO1l.99

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
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: Sharia's War on Music







Sharia's War on Music

Posted By Jane Bate and Kelly Cook On December 6, 2013

We can all point to things that brighten our day, but as diverse as those lists may be, music, of one sort or another, finds its way onto most people's lists.

Alarmingly, any engagement in music is becoming illegal in some corners of the globe, and the ideology behind this snuffing out of a beautiful art form threatens to affect the rest of the world as well. We are referring to Islamic Sharia law.

Already, in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali, musicians have been killed or threatened with removal of their fingers or tongues simply because they make music. Music stores and instruments have likewise been destroyed in the hopes of silencing virtually all styles of music.

Lest you think that these acts are confined to non-Western areas, the picture below shows one of a multitude of "Sharia Controlled Zone" signs that have gone up in neighborhoods in Great Britain. The signs detail the sharia prohibitions against such vices as alcohol, drugs and smoking, gambling, porn and prostitution, and….wait for it…..music and concerts. Yes, this scourge is affecting our neighbors and allies "across the pond."

As one views the spread of Sharia, it is vital to understand the supremacist nature of Islamic law:

Qur'an 8:39  "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."

"But," you may say, "there's no Sharia law in the U.S." Though to date our music industry here in America appears not to have been impacted, we're seeing many examples of cultural, financial and legal jihad, not to mention violent physical jihad such as we experienced with 9/11 and the Ft. Hood massacre.

For several years now, financial giants such as Citibank and AIG have dealt in Sharia-compliant products; when we invest in such products, a significant portion of the profits flow into vehicles selected by radical Islamic scholars to help finance jihad. School textbooks have been consistently written over the past twenty years to whitewash the history of Islamic Jihad and expansionism over the past fourteen centuries. (For an extensive research study on the subject, visit actforamericaeducation.com ). There is even a Sharia court in Texas, of all places. And the list goes on.

The treatment of women and gays in particular, coupled with death sentences for apostates, suggests that there are likely many Muslims who would much prefer to live under our Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom than under Sharia. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those folks. The appropriate object of any objections to Islam  is the ideology with its repressive political laws and, by extension, those who seek to force Sharia on the rest of us.

Where does the concept that music is bad come from? While there is tremendous disagreement among Islamic scholars on whether (or what type of) music is prohibited by the Islamic doctrinal trilogy, the section on music in "The Reliance of the Traveler," the compendium of Islamic law, is clear and enforceable in the minds of many religious Muslims:

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

r40.1 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for the condemnation of musical instruments,flutes, strings, and the like by the Truthful and Trustworthy (Allah bless him and give him peace), who "does not speak from personal caprice: it is nothing besides a revelation inspired" (Koran 53:3-4), let those who refuse to obey him beware lest calamity strike them, or a painful torment. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

1)      Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance."

2)      "On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress."

3)      "Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage."

4)      "This Community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones." Someone asked, "When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?" and he said, "When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful."

5)      "There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine , and musical instruments to be lawful…."

All of this is explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful (Kaff-al-ra'a' 'an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama' (y49), 2.269-70).

r40.2 Nawawi:) It is unlawful to use musical instruments – such as those which drinkers are known for, like the mandolin, lute, cymbals, and flute – or to listen to them. It is permissible to play the tambourine at weddings, circumcisions, and other times, even if it has bells on its sides. Beating the kuba, a long drum with a narrow middle, is unlawful. (Mughni al-muhtaj ila ma'rifa ma'ani alfaz al-Minhaj (y73), 4.429-30).

SINGING UNACCOMPANIED BY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

r40.3 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for listening to singing that is not accompanied by instruments, one should know that singing or listening to singing is offensive except under the circumstances to be mentioned in what follows. Some scholars hold that singing is sunna at weddings and the like, and of our Imams, Ghazali and 'Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam say that it is sunna if it moves one to a noble state of mind that makes one remember the hereafter. It is clear from this that all poetry which encourages good deeds, wisdom, noble qualities, abstinence from this-wordly things, or similar pious traits such as urging one to obey Allah, follow the sunna, or shun disobedience, is sunna to write, sing, or listen to,  as more than one of our Imams have stated is obvious, since using a means to do good is itself doing good (Kaff-al-ra'a' 'an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama' (y49), 2.273).

Thus, though there may exist geographical areas under Islamic rule where at least some forms of music are allowed – witness the fact that Cat Stevens (a.k.a. Yusuf Islam) has, after a long post-conversion hiatus, resumed performing -  nonetheless, the events of recent years show clearly the global support for restrictions upon and silencing of music.

Given the perennial presence of U.N. Res. 16/18 (designed to criminalize the criticism of any religion or religious figure), it is imperative that we all educate ourselves as to Islam and Sharia law and then, in turn, educate others.

The best place to begin such an education is by reading original sources: the Quran (the word of Allah as dictated to Muhammad), Sira (the official Islamic biography of Muhammad) and Hadith (the words and deeds of Muhammad as reported by family members and other fellow Muslims). Since the verses in the Quran have been reordered (not by subject or date, but by length of the verse), adding to an already confusing writing style, one recommended approach is to start by reading the Sira – not just any biography of Muhammad, but this officially sanctioned version; after all, since there are 91 verses in the Quran instructing the reader that Muhammad is the ideal man and is to be emulated, we must be familiar with Muhammad in order to understand Islam. Then, follow that with the Hadith for the same reason. Both of these books will give you the necessary background on Muhammad and provide the context for the Quran.

Before beginning any study of Islam and Saria, however, it is imperative that you understand two basic principals. The first is that of taqiyya; taqiyya is defined as "lying to further the spread of Islam" and it is not merely sanctioned by the Quran, but is considered to be a duty of all good Muslims. The second is the Doctrine of Abrogation; under this principle, in any case in which two Quranic verses contradict each other, the one written later nullifies the one previously written. Unfortunately, the revelations of Muhammad's murderous Medinan period abrogate the more peaceful revelations of his earlier Meccan period. Thanks to the Doctrine of Abrogation, we hear Muslims quote perfectly serene Quranic verses that have lost all authority through abrogation.

After reading the foundational texts of Islam, further your education by reading the works of apostates such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan and Mark Gabriel (nom de plume for a former Egyptian imam with degrees from al-Azhar University, the seat of Islamic jurisprudence). All of these authors have earned themselves death threats for their courageous writings and it behooves us to learn from their experience. If such books aren't owned by your library, please request that they add them to their collection.

Qur'an 4:90  "If they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them."

Finally, after learning how Sharia law is a threat to music and to so much more, you must become active and spread the word to everyone you know. Eschew political correctness. Consider joining an organization designed to counter Sharia (at least those aspects that are contrary to the Constitution) such as ACT! for America, SIOA, Women Against Sharia or, of course, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which is the publisher of this magazine, Frontpagemag.com. There is a powerful lobby attempting to keep us from learning about Sharia; this effort towards our continuing ignorance of Sharia can be traced back as far as the Pact of Umar which forbade infidel parents from teaching their children anything about Islam. (You ought to question why any religion that seeks 100% of humanity as members would have such a mandate). Know where your legislators at every level of government stand on Sharia and make sure that they know where you stand. Ditto for political parties.

Our world has changed and we must become acutely attuned to those changes. So continue making music, but take the time to learn about this virulent threat to our freedoms – both artistic and personal. Without your help in sounding the alarm, we stand to lose the most precious gifts of Western Civilization.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/jane-bate-and-kelly-cook/sharias-war-on-music/

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
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.