Tuesday, December 30, 2008


December 29, 2008

Exclusive: What You Need to Know About Shariah-Complaint Finance
Andy Polk

Editor’s note: Our readers know of the good work conducted by Rep. Sue Myrick’s (R-NC) Anti Terrorism Caucus. Recently, the Anti Terrorism Caucus prepared a background information letter for Members of Congress that describes, in basic terms, Shariah Finance and how it is gaining a foothold in America due to capital investment needs and the desire by businesses to sell to Islamic markets. The letter lays out several problems with Shariah Finance and uses examples to help explain these problems in common business terms; we recommend it highly to our readers. Here it is:

According to experts, the global market for Islamic Financial products in 2008 is worth over $1 Trillion and is expected to grow at 15-20% a year. Islamic financial products are likely to account for 50-60% of the total savings of the world’s 1.2 Billion Muslims in the next decade. The Islamic banking industry’s estimated growth is 20% through 2012.

Right now, about $88 Billion dollars in Shariah Compliant Funds are currently invested in the U.S.Businessmen look at these statistics and salivate over the potential of new markets and increased profits. American financial institutions loaded with liabilities and debt now consider Middle Eastern investors saviors due to the new sources of capital.

Blinded by dollar signs American businessmen are unaware that these Middle Eastern investors are more than happy to accommodate, thanks to the bargain prices they find for American real estate and businesses and thanks to the financial chaos on Wall Street.

They have made moves under the radar and now, for the first time ever, a number of Middle Eastern countries derived more revenue from their investments than from oil and gas.

What American businesses should be aware of is that many are now using their new economic power to force America to change the way it does business to comply with their religious beliefs, which is called “Shariah Compliant Finance.”

Shariah Compliant Finance (SCF) is based on a Shariah Law, which is a politicized and radical doctrine found not in the Koran but in man-made compilations of Muhammad’s life. (In fact, the Koran only says the word “Shariah” once and it isn’t referring to jurisprudence, but is just a word meaning “right path.”)

It doesn’t allow women to leave their house without their husband’s permission, it allows men to beat insubordinate wives, slavery is permitted and legitimate, adultery is punished by death, and homosexuals are to be killed, to name just a few.

Shariah Law is practiced by the most radical of Islamists, but they constantly work to convince much of the Islamic world that it is the one true way to end western culture and return to the proper ways of Islam.

The growth of Shariah followers allows these Islamists to have great economic power—power they are trying to use to co-opt the U.S. and the West. Their plan is to force American businesses to adopt to their backwards financial ideas, which will in turn sanitize their version of Islam and cover up their stone age family laws and human right abuses…the same abuses we saw in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Currently they are trying to convince businesses that SCF is a safer alternative to the current U.S. economic system because SCF eliminates risk.

What they don’t say is that it also eliminates capitalism. SCF prohibits interest transactions, such as ATM fees or mortgage fees.

It prohibits uncertainty and speculation, such as futures trading.

It is also forbidden to invest or trade with businesses involved in commodities such as alcohol, pork products, and anything Shariah “scholars” deem “haram,” or forbidden.

SCF also requires business/banks who are engaged in Shariah transactions to contribute zakat, or a 2.5% donation to Muslim charity.

While this sounds good, al Qaeda was able to receive between $300 and $500 million from zakat contributors who used a web of charities and front companies to funnel money through Islamic banks.

We have also seen this in the U.S. as zakat was sent to the Holy Land Foundation, which is currently being prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and they in turn sent funds to Hamas.

Perhaps even scarier than a business that becomes SCF and unknowingly sends zakat funds to terrorists, thus causing the complete collapse of that business, is the fact that many countries are using Sovereign Wealth Funds, government funds, to buy up large tracks of real estate and businesses.

For instance, Abu Dhabi, the government, bought a 75% stake in the NYC Chrysler Building. If they decide the Chrysler building must be Shariah compliant, then all ATMs must be removed because they charge interest if you don't have the right bank card.

Also, all business tenants in the building would have to prove they are Shariah compliant and do no business related to futures trading, alcohol or pork products, etc. If they are not Shariah compliant, they could be evicted.

This is just an example, but countries and investors could hire radical SCF scholars to support their right to evict tenets and claim “religious freedoms” to do so.

Businesses should also be concerned that SCF requires a board of at least 3 Shariah scholars to certify their product as Shariah Compliant.

Many of the scholars band together to form groups and agencies and offer their services to businesses, and there are not very many scholars to choose from in the U.S. However, businesses will quickly learn that these scholars don’t merely look at the finished product.

Scholars have convinced businesses in order to be Shariah Compliant, they must certify products starting at the very beginning R&D stages.

These scholars, who could possibly advise a competing business adversary, get to see the businesses’ trade secrets and new products.

Smart businesses would require a non-disclosure agreement, but smart businesses probably wouldn’t know that under Shariah Law, during times of “jihad”, it is acceptable to lie to infidels.

So how do you know they won’t float the secrets to other businesses, or sell trade secrets to other nations? If that weren’t enough, Islamic banks who are Shariah Compliant are also working with “hawala” dealers.

Hawala is a system of informal money exchanges where there are no paper trails, but is built on trust. With no paper trail and no transparency, which looks like much of Wall Street today to the average person, it is extremely easy to do illicit transfers and launder money.

Businesses that have to use the same banks to sell their products and transfer funds back to the US could be getting the dirty money; but they can deal with that later when the FBI shows up.

The NY City Bar Association recently held a class on SCF. The class explained in great detail how Shariah finance works and used the current US financial crisis to promote and push Shariah finance because they said there was no risk involved, which as you can see isn't true.

The problem is this...America is strapped for cash thanks to our financial environment. Banks around the world have been shifting to Shariah compliance to get their funds, but now American manufacturers and businesses are starting to comply with Shariah finance to get Middle East funding and to sell to those markets.

We know this because one of the Islamic finance experts who presented said that he did a similar class in Texas and it was packed out with manufacturers wanting to learn how they can get Middle Eastern investment and how they can sell to them. He also said the Middle East is so rich with funds that either business can adapt to Shariah Finance or it will be forced upon them because of the sheer amount of dollars involved.

It is time we pulled our heads out of the ground and looked at the long-term consequences of our actions and not just see short term profits. Many are working in Congress to investigate Shariah Finance and Shariah Law as threats to our economic and political systems.

To understand Shariah Finance, you must understand that Islamic economic philosophy, formulated by Islamic scholars, applies to all aspects of life; not just religion. So their economic transactions cannot be separated from their religious beliefs, and that is why you must be aware of what they believe and the strings that come with these beliefs.

Andy Polk, author of this letter, is spokesman for the Anti Terrorism Caucus.

Editor’s note: Contact your Representative to find out if s/he is working on this vital issue, and where s/he stands on it. The future of your family and your country is at stake.


Monday, December 29, 2008


by Amil Imani

For years, the U.S. State Department has called the Islamic Republic of Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism,”

For years, U.S. officials say the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere, posing a security concern to the international community. And for years, the U.S. Administration has been unable to outdo the Islamic Republic’s propaganda machine and clearly has been unable or perhaps unwilling to help the Iranian people to end this nightmare in Iran.

President George W. Bush, of all U.S. presidents, at his annual State of the Union addresses, spoke numerous times about the plight of the Iranian people. He once said, “If the Iranian people stand for themselves, the United States will stand with them.” Throughout his presidency, the Iranians, of all people, hailed this courageous president, as an angel of freedom and his popularity was surging in Iran while his approval rating at home was low.

As time went on, President Bush vowed that the Islamic Republic would never be allowed to achieve its goal of developing nuclear bombs during his watch. He kept using all kinds of threats and promises, in order to persuade the mullahs to drop the project, to no avail. When a belligerent end-of-the-worlder, Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad, became the Islamic Republic of Iran’s president, things started heating up greatly.

Time and again, the bellicose Ahmadinejad kept vilifying the Great Satan and its sidekick Israel for having the gall to demand Iran abandon its program while his two main adversaries had their own arsenal of nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad informed the world that what the Islamic Republic does is within its own national rights. He shored up his credibility cleverly by dispatching endless series of negotiators to meetings with the Europeans. He was successfully stalling for time, while working around the clock to get to the Surge Capacity.

Iran, under the late shah, launched a plan to achieve “Surge Capacity:” A code word for getting all the ingredients and procedures down pat for making the bomb quickly, short of actually making it; a clever power-play.

A saint and revered man of God, according to none other than Jimmy Carter (who considers himself as another great man of God), the late Ayatollah Khomeini cancelled the nuclear program with the same saintly and prompt edict that he cancelled the life of thousands of Iranians for daring to disagree with his system of medieval Shari’a rule.

In no time at all, the vicious Mullahs gutted the Iranian armed forces and executed many of its most capable officers. Saddam Hussein watched gleefully as the Iranian military disintegrated, and found the opportunity to carry out his Pan Arabism ambition by attacking Iran. Some eight years of barbaric butchery killed and maimed millions on both sides, gutted the vibrant Iranian economy, and visited misery of all sorts upon the Iranian people.

After Khomeini’s demise, another mullah much more crafty and ambitious, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, became the president and re-activated the program secretly, while the IAEA watchdog snoozed contentedly on the job. Decades later, some Iranians opposed to the rule of the murdering mullahs finally by-passed the watchdog and showed the world proof positive that the mullahs were racing tirelessly with their scheme of getting the ultimate weapon.

This information greatly alarmed the United States of America and Israel. The revelation seemed to bother no European nation, the Russians, or the Chinese. Somehow these nations figured that they would let the U.S. do all the worrying about the looming menace while they focused on the lucrative business deals they had diligently worked out with the mullahs: something reminiscent of the cozy deal the French and the Russians had going with the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein.

This upcoming January is the 30th anniversary of Islamists holding Iran hostage. Thirty years ago a radical Muslim by the name of Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini, succeeded in hijacking Iran's 1979 revolution and “promised Iranians heaven, but ... created a hell on earth,” turning Iran into a bastion of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Ever since, tens of thousands of political activists have been killed or imprisoned. Tens of thousands of opposition groups, women, ethnic and religious minorities, have been subjected to inhumane treatment.

Since 1979, this illegitimate fantasy government of the Islamic Republic has been waging a brutal war against the entire population of Iran who has been fighting for individual and religious freedom for many years. Iranians, of all people, have truly come to taste and experience the true fruits of Islam and most of them want to end this barbaric cult of Muhammad in Iran sooner than later.

For the past 30 years, very similar to the “Great Purge,” (a series of campaigns of political repression and persecution in the old Soviet Union orchestrated by Joseph Stalin) the Mullahs, the agents of terror, have imposed an Islamic cultural revolution by forcing a prolonged indoctrination of Islamic dogma on people of all ages, particularly the young children. The ultimate goal was to “Islamicize” Iran’s universities and schools. Regrettably, most Americans are unaware that the same indoctrination of our young children is taking place in the United States, as well.

A Mullah is the principal agent of terror, believing his cause to be the cause of Allah. This misanthrope is the outcome of Islam. He is the result of adherence to the Islamic creed, precisely as codified in scripture. This raw, despicable regime represents the inevitable result of Islam, and its calling card of terrorism is now marching from the Iranian focal point to all parts of the globe.

For the past 30 years, people in the West, especially in the United States, have been on the receiving end of a very sophisticated and convoluted campaign of disinformation and propaganda, dished out by the Islamic Republic’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and its lobbyist organizations in the U.S. MOIS learned its methodology directly from the Soviet KGB and many of the Islamists who supported Khomeini were actually trained in the old Soviet Union.

In spite of tens of thousands of political executions, other brutal practices and years of a reign of terror, the Islamists have not succeeded in uprooting the nationwide movement for democracy in Iran. In fact, the student-led-uprising of Iranian in Tehran and many other cities clearly revealed that without barbaric and overwhelming use of force, the jihadist regime would not last even a day. In recent weeks, many cities in Iran have been the sources of ferocious anti-government protest but, as always, the western media has ignored reporting it.

A word of caution to the upcoming new U.S. administration: Beware of mullahs bearing gifts! The mullahs are diehard adherents of the Islamists' eleventh commandment "Thou shall not lie or dissimilate (tagyyeh), deceive or cheat (ketman) unless they serve a higher purpose." And to these devoted faithful, there is no higher purpose in the world than serving Allah's bidding, as they like it and as they interpret it.

The President-elect must learn from Jimmy Carter’s miscalculation on Iran. And former Carter Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is wrong for avidly propagating negotiation with the Islamists in Iran, instead of its rightful owners, the Iranian people.

It would also be wise not to waste the taxpayers’ money in the spirit of good will to meet with bloodthirsty Mullahs and their ilk. On the other hand, the Iranian people are asking the world to file legal charges against the leaders of the Islamic Republic for wanton violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The charges would be for their crimes against humanity and genocidal actions against religious and political groups, for support of international terrorism, for demolition of religious sites and cemeteries, for rape, torture, and summary executions of prisoners of conscience, for forgery of documents, for acts of blackmail and fraud, and for much more.

My advice to the President-elect and the people of my adopted country is: go ahead and make merry, enjoy the gift of life, but don’t let down your guard and make sure that no one lulls you into the deadly trap of complacency. Yes, if the mullahs get the bomb, they will make use of it in numerous ways. They will use it for blackmail, they will use it in small packages through untraceable proxies, and they might even launch it by their missiles in a homicide-suicide fashion which is their trademark.

After all it is the mullahs’ deeply-held belief that their cataclysmic act will expedite the coming of the Saheb-ul-Zaman (the Lord of the Age), whence he would set the world on the righteous course while those who have hastened his coming will be immersed eternally in the joys of pleasure in Allah’s promised paradise.

While I wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year, let us pledge for a peaceful world by engaging, supporting and negotiating directly with the Iranian people or their legitimate representatives, not its current enemies, the Mullahs, their quisling-like lobbyists and mercenaries in the United States or elsewhere.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He and his family escaped Iran after the radical Islamic revolution.

His observations on the growing Islamo-fascist threat need to be heard and understood by as many people as possible if we are going to stem the tide.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008


A PETITION for The Impeachment of Senator Barack Obama


Whereas: Senator Barack Obama is an admitted illegal drug user and is believed to have used illegal drugs as recently as November 1999or more recently. Mr. Obama has maintained contact with other admitted illegal drug users.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has maintained regular contact with known criminals such as Antoin (Tony) Rezko and other criminal elements in Chicago and Illinois. Mr. Obama has conducted business with these criminals and received campaign donations from them. Mr. Obama was compelled to return an estimated $250,000 in donations related to Tony Rezko.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has consistently lied about his contact with convicted criminal Tony Rezko. The Tony Rezko corruption trial revealed that FBI mole John Thomas helped investigators“build a record of repeat visits to the old offices of Rezko and former business partner Daniel Mahru’s Rezmar Corp., at 853 N. Elston, by Blagojevich and Obama during 2004 and 2005,” according to the February10, 2008 Chicago Sun-Times.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in unscrupulous business practices, in particular with Mr. Robert Blackwell. Mr. Obama received an $ 8,000 per month “legal retainer” from Mr. Blackwell for a total of $112,000 and reported the income through his law firm in a manner not unlike money laundering. Obama, along with Obama campaign manager Dan Shomon, procured $ 320,000 in state grants for Blackwell’s company Killerspin. Blackwell companies contributed over $ 32,000 to the Obama campaign in 2007.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama used the office of IL Senator to facilitate the vote rigging in Chicago as chairman of the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Mr. Obama pushed legislation in Senate Bill1332 to reduce the number of members of the Health Facilities Planning Board from 15 to 9. Mr. Obama did conspire with Stuart Levine, Tony Rezko and Rod Blogojevich to rig the committee and was rewarded with campaign contributions.

The new members appointed included 3 doctors who contributed to Mr. Obama. On April 21, 2004, Stuart Levine explicitly advised Dr. Robert Weinstein, who is now indicted, of Tony Rezko’s role in manipulating the Planning Board’s vote.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has engaged in lies and deception about his past. Mr. Obama lied about his contact level with convicted criminal Tony Rezko, the amounts and sources of campaign contributions and encounters with the law. A complain thas been filed with the Bar Association of Illinois alleging that Mr. Obama did not answer truthfully all questions on the application to the bar.

Whereas: Senator Barack Obama has invoked the FOIA in Illinois when it was politically expedient and ignored or violated the FOIA at other times. In the Illinois Senate proceedings of Mr. Obama, in Senate Bill 1416, pleads the importance of businesses bidding on state contracts having improved access to FOIA data. When later questioned about his records during his term in the IL Senate, Mr. Obama gave evasive answers or refused to supply records.

Whereas: The First Amendment provides a right for the people “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Precedents exist for impeachment and expulsion of a US Senator. Senator William Blount was impeached by the House on July 7, 1797 and expelled by the Senate the next day.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the People, Undersigned, being citizens of the United States and residents in the Cities and States so indicated, HEREBY Demand that the Congress of the United States begin immediate impeachment and/or expulsion proceedings against Senator Barack Obama.

Addendum: Petition to Impeach Senator Obama

We were urged to add the following information about Senator Obama.This comes under the topic of lies and deception but also falls under more serious charges of abuse of power and possible violation of the Logan Act.

Those signing the petition prior to this addendum will be identified.
August 4, 2008

Whereas: As a US Senator, Barack Obama violated the stated intention of his 2006 Official Government Visa to Africa by publicly propagandizing for his cousin, Railla Odinga against the US democratic ally of Kenya.

Whereas the stated “mission” of Senator Obama’s Official Visa, according to the Kenya Office of Public Communications, was to “nurture relations between the Continent and the United States” he, instead, made public protest before Kenya citizens to rally against their leadership, invoking a need for “Change!” and accusing this US allied nation of“corruption.”

In Official Protest of Mr. Obama’s passport abuse and misconduct, Kenya’s government cited his “extremely disturbing statements on issues which it is clear, he was very poorly informed, and on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people of Kenya on how to manage our country.”

Whereas, furthermore, there is no public record of any sanctions or reprimand by the US Congress of Senator Obama’s passport violation or campaigning on foreign soil against a US ally, history has since recorded the broad spread destruction of Kenya’s economy and large scale loss of life as a result of the violence instigated by Odinga’s ODM campaign there.

Monday, December 22, 2008


12/22/2008 07:37 PM
German Navy Mission Encounters More than Pirates
By Walter Mayr

"Operation Atlanta" is the name of the EU's first combat mission against pirates. At a naval base in Djibouti, the German frigate Karlsruhe is standing ready to join the fight.

It's 10:17 a.m. on Monday. A herd of weak-kneed cattle is being driven through Djibouti's harbor on its way to boarding ships headed to the slaughterhouses of the Persian Gulf sheikdoms. Suddenly, shots ring out over on Pier 9.,1518,598035,00.html

Feds arrest president of Islamic group for docs linking Fifth Ave. property, Iranian nukes

The president of an Islamic group was arrested after he tried to dump documents linking a Fifth Ave. high-rise to Tehran's nuclear buildup, federal authorities said Friday.

Farshid Jahedi, the president of the Alavi Foundation, was arrested Thursday after the feds tailed him from Manhattan to a public trash can near his home outside the city, where they say they caught him tossing out torn documents. His hometown was not released.

On Wednesday, FBI agents subpoenaed Jahedi for documents pertaining to Iran's secret interest in 650 Fifth Ave., a 36-story granite-and-glass tower that houses the Juicy Couture flagship store.

The feds are seeking a 40% interest in the building because they say it's secretly controlled by Bank Melli Iran, a Tehran-run bank that has been using the building's rent roll to prop up Iran's nuclear arsenal.

The FBI said that after taking a train from Manhattan, Jahedi got into his car and tried to give agents the slip. "After exiting the car, Jahedi walked to a public trash can, while appearing to attempt to determine whether anyone was following him," said the complaint filed by FBI Special Agent George Ennis in Manhattan Federal Court.

The Alavi Foundation lists itself as a nonprofit dedicated to supporting Islamic culture.

When the Nanny State cross-dresses in jackboots.

If you have no initiative, no drive to betterment, you are content be a ward of the state/government pet, with no care or concern for your rights, then you have nothing to worry about.

Mumbai attacks leave NYPD blues
By Raja Murthy

MUMBAI - Lights twinkled in the early winter night above the Queen's Necklace, the stretch of Marine Drive ringing the Arabian Sea bay, as the Oberoi-Trident and the Taj Mahal hotels officially reopened at 7 pm on Sunday evening. The move to reopen was an unmistakable announcement that Mumbai is officially back in business after the November 26 terrorist attack. "We can be hurt, but can't be knocked out," Ratan Tata, chairman of the Tata Group that owns the iconic Taj Mahal, said at the ceremony to reopen the hotel that accommodated the most exclusive glitterati of the 20th century.

This was before seaborne terrorists burst through its glass doors to unleash a maelstrom of mass murder that claimed nearly 200 lives.

Battling using a Billboard

FP: You are producing a Sharia Billboard. Tell us about it.Trento: Jesse Petrilla, founder of United American Committee (UAC) had the very creative idea for a simple, but effective billboard to be strategically placed close to a Muslim population center. He asked me to help with the project and be the spokesperson.

FP: Expand for us a bit on why a billboard is needed and what exactly it is saying.Trento: Billboards are excellent communication tools to direct controversy in a controlled manner, for educational purposes.

The philosophical assumption behind that sign is that most American Muslims absolutely reject efforts to replace the US Constitution with the Qu'ran by Islamist clerics and pseudo- rights organizations like CAIR.

We believe these American Muslims are intimidated by the Islamist thugs, who act more like two-bit gangsters then religious men, so our billboard is there to assist the good Muslims to stand against the bad Muslims.

FP: So what exactly is on the billboard? You removed a noose graphic, yes? How come?

Trento: "Sharia Law Threatens America. That’s what it says and it says it all." (VIEW at link below)

ALL of Osama-Obama's buddies are communists, criminals or terrorists.

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows. To view this item online, visit
Monday, December 22, 2008

CHANGING OF THE GUARDWorldNetDaily Exclusive

Obama's Labor pick has communist ties
Radical leaders hail Solisas 'outstanding,' 'terrific'

'Merchant of Death' arms dealer Viktor Bout faces court

by Anne Barrowclough

Viktor Bout, the notorious arms dealer, appeared in a Thai court today to fight extradition to the US.

The 41-year-old Russian, said to have been the model for the lead character in the hit movie Lord of War, is wanted by the US for allegedly trying to buy weapons for Colombian rebels.

He was arrested in a sting operation in March after travelling to Bangkok to sell weapons to undercover US agents posing as rebels for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit, Mr Bout, who has been indicted by the US on four terrorism related charges, denied the accusations.

Sunday, December 21, 2008


The accession of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been accompanied by a sharp transformation in the Iranian attitude to, and depiction of, the state of Israel.

This change includes not only an amplification of the traditional hostility toward the Jewish polity, but also—most ominously—a new conception of that polity as weak and unstable, an easy target for a united Muslim (or united Shiite) offensive.

The prevailing opinion among Middle East experts and Iran watchers, however, is that the revised rhetoric is just that—rhetoric—and that it harbors no significant ramifications for policy-making on the part of Israel or any other states in the region or the world. Vociferous Iranian declarations about the need to erase Israel from the map are seen as nothing more than a means toward achieving certain pragmatic goals, such as eventual d├ętente with the West.

This view is wrong. Iranian-Islamist threats to Israel’s existence are sincere, and they signal the determined pursuit of tenaciously-held ends.

In January 2006, the Iranian daily Jomhuriya Eslami carried the text of a speech delivered by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in Tehran’s main mosque.

Attempting to defuse the diplomatic tension occasioned by the call for Israel’s destruction issued by the then-newly elected President Ahmadinejad at the previous month’s “World Without Zionism” conference, Khamenei concluded his uncharacteristically moderate sermon with the following ringing remarks:

We Iranians intend no harm to any nation, nor will we be the first to attack any nation. We do not deny the right of any polity in any place on God’s earth to exist and prosper. We are a peace-loving country whose only wish is to live, and to let live, in peace.

Without missing a beat, or evincing a discernible hint of irony, the reporter who covered the event continued:

The congregation of worshippers, some 7,000 in number, expressed their unanimous support for the Supreme Leader’s words by repeatedly chanting, marg bar Omrika, marg bar Esra’il “Death to America! Death to Israel!”

FULL ARTICLE click here

Saturday, December 20, 2008


Published in the New York Post on December 19, 2008

Now that Bill Clinton has released the list of his 205,000 donors who have given close to $500 million to his library and foundation, it is clear why he resisted releasing the list while his wife was running for president.

Now, compelled by the Obama transition team to make it public as a condition of his wife's appointment as secretary of state, it becomes clear that the list is a virtual encyclopedia of conflicts of interest for the husband of a senator - to say nothing of the husband of an incoming secretary of state.

Particularly troubling are the massive donations from Arab governments in the Middle East.Pardon us for looking such generous gift horses in the mouth, but it is hard to imagine so many governments, monarchs and businessmen in the Middle East giving money unless it was with some hope of a political return.

Will that return now come with the appointment of Sen. Clinton as secretary of state?

How can Hillary Rodham Clinton mediate and negotiate conflicts in the Middle East impartially when her husband's library and foundation - over which he has total control - have been bankrolled by the very nations with whom she must negotiate?

The list reveals another key center of conflicts of interest in Kazakhstan, the former Soviet republic, now home to some of the world's greatest mineral deposits and ruled by a corrupt dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who, according to The New York Times, has all but quashed political dissent.

Bill Clinton visited Kazakhstan and met with its president on Sept. 6, 2005, accompanied by Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra.

Soon after, Giustra was awarded a highly lucrative contract to mine uranium there. Now, lo and behold, Frank Giustra turns up having given the library and foundation between $10 million and $25 million and the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative of Canada gave $1 million to $5 million more.

And Clinton got $1 million to $5 million from Lakshmi Mittal, the fourth-wealthiest person on the Forbes billionaire list and a member of the Foreign Investment Council in Kazakhstan.

In addition, Clinton further fished in troubled waters by taking $1 million to $5 million from Victor Pinchuk, the son-in-law of the controversial former president of the Ukraine.

Given the complexities of US policy toward the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, it is hard to see how this massive and incestuous relationship cannot but complicate Hillary's independence.

One of the largest donors to the library and foundation was UNITAID, an international organization largely controlled by France, which donated more than $25 million.

And the conflicts of interest are not all just foreign. Corporate bailout recipients and recipient wannabes donated to the Clinton fund. They include AIG, Lehman, Merrill, the Citi Foundation and General Motors.

And, almost as an afterthought, the list reveals a donation of at least $250,000 from Denise Rich, presumably in return for her ex-husband's presidential pardon.

How could a US senator possibly serve dispassionately while her husband was collecting money from these donors on this kind of scale?

And how could we have almost elected a president without realizing these conflicts existed?


And how on earth can a secretary of state function with these conflicts hanging over her head?

Friday, December 19, 2008


Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Alan note: former beggar at Mashhad cemeteries)
By Roya Karimi, Farangis Najibullah


Iran's parliament, the Majlis, has passed a bill that deprives the legislature of the right to check three major regulatory bodies, in a move analysts say is likely to consolidate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's power.

Reformist politicians also say if the bill becomes law it would create unnecessary impediments to potential reformist candidates for next June's presidential election.

President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, under pressure due to Iran's ailing economy, and his reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami are expected to run in the election.

Oversight Bodies

Iranian media reported that the bill was passed on December 16 in the conservative-dominated parliament by an overwhelming majority. The reformist opposition holds less than 25 percent of the parliament seats.

In Iran's complex bureaucracy, the Guardians Council, the Assembly of Experts, and the Expediency Council all -- in theory -- provide a regulatory function. The Guardians Council is in charge of supervising elections and vetting candidates, while the Expediency Council has the authority to mediate disputes between parliament and the Guardians Council.

When a parliament voluntarily scraps its own authorities, it means that the parliament admits it doesn't deserve such powers. The Assembly of Experts elects the supreme leader, who controls the military, the police, state media, and has the final say in all domestic and foreign policies.

Analysts have also said the supreme leader -- with his largely sympathetic majority in parliament -- might also have an eye on CONTROLLING the parliamentary elections in 2012.

An adviser to former President Khatami, who wished to remain anonymous, tells RFE/RL that the bill is aimed at preventing a potential reformist-controlled parliament from using its rights to check the decisions of the three regulatory institutions -- and by extension the supreme leader.

Hassan Shariatmadari, a Berlin-based political analyst, tells RFE/RL's Radio Farda that by passing the bill, the legislators have taken away the public's right to check the country's leadership.

"When a parliament -- which is elected by the people and is supposed to act as the people's representative to check the management -- voluntarily scraps its own authorities, it means that the parliament admits it doesn't deserve such powers," Shariatmadari says.

Little-Used Veto

However, even reformist politicians, speaking to Radio Farda on the condition of anonymity, admit that when they had a majority in the previous Majlis between 2000-04, reformist legislators did not challenge the supreme leader over control of the three regulatory bodies.

But Hussein Bastani, an Iranian-born political analyst in Paris, says the passing of the bill is still significant.

"In the past, the Majlis has had all those rights according the constitutions, and no one denied them. Now, they have turned it into a law. Until now, the Majlis -- as a sign of respect to the supreme leader -- would ask the leader's permission [to exercise its own rights.] Now, they have no right to check and probe and it is an important development," Bastani says.

"It would take an enormous amount of courage from someone in future parliaments to reverse this decision and reinstate the parliaments rights."To become law, the bill has still to be approved by the Guardians Council, and it is widely expected the 12-member body will endorse it in coming weeks.RFE/RL's Radio Farda correspondent Roya Karimi contributed to this report

Iranians flock to Internet cafes in Tehran.
By Farangis Najibullah

The Iranian authorities, who admit to blocking access to over 5 million websites, have decided to take additional measures to restrict Internet access and crack down on bloggers.

Iranian news agencies recently quoted Tehran prosecutor Said Mortazavi (Alan note: responsible for the chain murders of dissenters and Canadian journalist Kazemi) as saying those behind irreligious and immoral websites would be "harshly confronted."The prosecutor's office has set up a special department to deal with Internet "crimes."

Mortazavi said a team of Internet experts along with two officials would identify and block websites that "do not follow religious principles and are immoral."RFE/RL's Radio Farda has reported that intelligence services would also take part in the campaign.

Earlier this month, Esmail Jafari, a blogger from the southwestern city of Bushehr was sentenced to five months in prison. He was found guilty of antigovernment publicity and disseminating information abroad.

According to Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media rights groups, at least two online journalists, Mojtaba Lotfi and Shahnaz Gholami, are currently being detained in Iran. Gholami, an editor of the "Azar Zan" blog, was charged with jeopardizing national security.

In October, an adviser to Iran's chief prosecutor said more than 5 million antisocial and immoral websites have been blocked and are no longer accessible in the country. Most recently, an Iranian dating website, "Hamsarchat," was fined and banned after being accused of promoting prostitution.

The popular website, which claims to be "Iran's most complete spouse-finding website," has been taken to court following a complaint from Tehran's public prosecutor.

Growing Internet Presence

With some 20 million people with access to the Internet, Iran is one of the biggest Internet users in the Middle East. And despite all the blocks, filtering, and other restrictions, blogging is becoming increasingly popular.

According to media reports, there are some 65,000 bloggers in Iran, most of whom try to stay away from political issues, focusing instead on social, art, family, and other safer topics.

But the popularity of the Internet, especially, among young people, and its impact on society is obviously a source of concern for the Iranian authorities.Some Iranian leaders have warned that the West is trying to provoke a "Velvet Revolution" in Iran using the Internet.

Alongside Iranian music, news, and political websites, they have also blocked access to popular foreign sites such as YouTube and Facebook.

However, according to Said, a blogger in Tehran, the authorities' "old method of filtering is not working anymore." Said tells Radio Farda that "with simple software or proxies, you can avoid any filter."

In the meantime, Iran's authorities and religious leaders are themselves trying to use the Internet to get their message out.From clerics in the holy city of Qom to President Mahmud Ahmadinejad, they have set up personal websites to promote their ideas to the public.

UNEMPLOYMENT (Alan Note: well over 30%)

By Farangis Najibullah

It's been four months since Karim lost his job at a small carpet factory in the western Iranian city of Sanandaj. His employers told him he was one of many layoffs to cut costs in the face of lagging sales. The sole provider for his family of six, including a disabled child, Karim says he's been borrowing money from friends and relatives for food.

He gets meager handouts from charity organizations, but it's not enough to feed his family.

"I'm 47 years old, and all my adult life I've been a factory worker, producing carpets," Karim says. "I can't get jobs in other fields, and it's too late at my age to retrain myself to do something else. Besides, it seems like everybody is losing their jobs here."

Karim says he's appealed to city officials for help but has been told there are many others in similar situation.In fact, Iranian officials recently announced that the country lost 250,000 jobs in the six months to September.

Some Iranian experts say the real figure is more like half a million, (Alan note: closer to THREE million) but that the figure is kept artificially low and many other "underemployed" people fall through the cracks. Iran has a population of around 65 million.

"In most manufacturing companies, many employees work on short-term contracts and there is no guarantee their contracts will be extended," Ali Dehghan Neya, from Iran national social-security organization, tells RFE/RL's Radio Farda. "After a month or two, many of them are out of jobs, but official statistics currently count them as employed people."

Other sectors of the economy, like the tens of thousands of vendors who hawk cigarettes and sweets in the streets, are officially considered employed although they have no social protection or insurance.

Iran's Statistics Center puts unemployment at 10.2 percent in its latest figures, although government critics reckon that it's more like 20 percent.

Labor Minister Mohammad Jahromi recently warned that the jobless rate could rise significantly in the coming years.

(Alan note: with oil dropping to $33 per barrel, the jobless rate will RISE EXPONENTIALLY in the next few months not years. Islamic iran's system is a hand-me-down where the government provides the populace money on which to live, not the people providing the government revenues and thus in control as in normal democracies )

Jahromi called on the government and parliament to take urgent action to help create new jobs and support troubled companies.

Soft Spots

A vast number of Iran's recently lost jobs were in manufacturing, agriculture, and among small and medium-sized businesses. Thousands of pink slips have been handed out at long-running businesses like Alborz Laastic, the oldest tire manufacturer in the country, a major sugar factory in Khuzestan Province, and a textile factory in Mazandaran.

Alireza Nourizadeh, director of the Center for Arab and Iranian Studies in London, says the government's decision "to leave the country's doors open to cheap, foreign-made goods (Alan note: mostly poor quality Chinese items) has resulted in many domestic companies and businesses going bankrupt because they could not [prevail against] the competition with cheap, imported goods.

"President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's critics have long accused him of mishandling the economy, resulting in runaway inflation and creeping poverty. (Alan note: some prices of essential goods like dairy products often rise 50% to 100% OVERNIGHT).

Official figures put inflation above 24 percent, (Alan note: a more accurate figre is close to 45%) and the Iranian parliament's Planning and Budget Committee says one in five Iranians lives beneath the poverty line. (Alan note: again, a more accurate estimate puts this at at close to 50%).

With an election year ahead, critics warn that if the government does not take swift action to curb rising unemployment, the country will face a serious social crisis, especially within the country's disproportionately large segment of young people.

Mounting frustration "could lead to rising crime rates and a breakdown in law and order, and it could eventually end up in major social unrest," Nourizadeh says. There are signs that some of that discontent has already turned up publicly.

Roozbeh Bolhari, a Radio Farda correspondent who spent two decades covering social and economic issues for Iranian media, cites recent protests against rising unemployment in a number of Iranian cities, including a demonstration by workers at the Iran-Sadra Shipyard in Bushehr and a rally by Alborz Laastec workers in Tehran.

Isolation Doesn't Help

A Tehran-based economist who is close to former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami argues that there are two major solutions to Iran's unemployment problem. "Privatization and considerable foreign investment would boost Iranian economy and create jobs," the economist, who asks to remain anonymous, tells RFE/RL.

"However, none of the solutions are achievable under the current Iranian government."

Iran's economy is largely state-owned and virtually all large-scale industries are under direct or indirect government control (Alan note: with a preponderance of ownership in the hands of the paramilitary Revolutionary Guards).

Long-running U.S. sanctions and more recent economic sanctions imposed on Tehran as a result of its disputed nuclear program have kept Western investors out, for the most part. In the meantime, Karim says he has sent a letter to senior officials in Tehran and is waiting for them to hear his complaint and "save his family from their misery."

"I check job centers every day to find any kind of employment and I ask authorities to help me," Karim says, "but no one seems to care."

Alan note: Nor about the close to ONE MILLION homeless living in the streets of larger cities, consisting of Half a million children IN TEHRAN ALONE and rejected housewives thrown out of homes when their husbands find a younger bedmate.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008


Published on on December 15, 2008

The Depression -- let’s call it what it is -- leaves us, well, depressed. But there is very good news from around the world.

Our enemies are collapsing under the strain of dropping oil and gas prices.

What we had all hoped conservation and off-shore drilling would achieve, the global economic collapse is accomplishing: the defeat of OPEC, Iran, Chavez, Putin and the weakening of the financial underpinnings of Islamist terrorism.

Alan note: will this lead to ever more violent and disasterous attacks by jihadists all over the world at soft targets once they have nothing to lose? Including insie the USA and Europe? To ensure we all suffer alongside them?

In each of these nations, the hold of the dictator is weakening as, one after the other, they face the consequences of dropping oil prices. In Iran, the sanctions imposed by the United Nations, the aggressive efforts of the U.S. government, and the actions of states like California, Florida, and Missouri to ban pension investments in companies that do business with Iran are having a big effect.

Unable to expand its oil production for a lack of foreign investment, Iran faces the need to slash its budget drastically as energy revenues, the source of 85% of its income, crash. Iranian President Ahmadinejad is announcing harsh austerity measures.

Having based his budget on $50-$60 oil, he now must recast it for at a $40 per barrel level. He boasts of cash reserves of $23 billion, but that sum won’t last long unless he makes major cuts. (Do the math: a shortfall of $25/barrel per day x 4 million barrels a day x 365 days = $36.5 billion, more than he’s got on hand).

The question for Ahmadinejad and for the Ayatollah who stands behind him is: Can their regime survive economic collapse? Unable to buy social peace by handouts and subsidies, will the top blow off an country that hates the regime, is predominantly very young, and is only 40% Farsi?

Chavez, in Venezuela is not in any better shape. Because of corruption and incompetence, Venezuelan oil production has dropped from over 3 million barrels per day when Chavez took over to about 1.7 million today.

As long as oil prices were quadrupling, it didn’t matter, but when they crashed, a harsh wind of reality blew in the door. Chavez was losing popularity before the oil price dropped. He lost a constitutional referendum to give himself lifetime tenure and he just lost his municipal elections in the largest cities and states in the nation.

After knocking out most of the major opposition candidates on phony charges of corruption, he managed to hang on to the governorships of the small, rural provinces, but he lost the cities – even the poor areas of the cities vote d against him.

Now, beset already by food shortages and galloping inflation, Venezuela has to make do with less subsidization and drastic cuts.

Feeling cold times ahead, Chavez is desperately pressing ahead with a new attempt to abolish term limits in a vote set for the end of February, but, if he falls short – which we think he will – he could be out in a matter of months.

Chavez’ client-states -- Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia –- have to face life without subsidies. Evo Morales, the head of Bolivia who got elected pledging to allow cocoa cultivation again, already faces a virtual civil war as the energy-rich half of his country wants autonomy and, possibly, independence.

Argentina, whose corrupt regime has held onto power by massive borrowing from Chavez, must now seek sustenance from the global markets, only recently burned by its default on its foreign debt. Fat chance.

Putin’s Russia, which so recently threw its weight around by invading Georgia, faces perhaps the biggest hit of all to its economy. Producing 10 million barrels per day, Russia will be hit the hardest by the collapse of prices. (Again, do the math: Assume Russia budgeted at $60 oil prices and the price drops to $40. $20/barrel x 10 million barrels per day x 365 = a $73 billion annual shortfall).

With a GDP of only about $1.4 trillion, Russia faces the loss of about 5% of its economy. And Russian oil production has dropped by one million barrels per day for each of the past two years.

With prices at rock bottom and nationalization an ever-present threat, who is going to invest in increasing Russian production?

And what of OPEC and the economic base of the Islamist terrorists?

Countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait will be OK because they have small populations among whom to divide their oil earnings. Saudi Arabia will make it because of its massive production and relatively small population. But every other OPEC nation has a large population where the ruler, usually a dictator, buys social peace with oil money.

The pressure to stay in power will be so intense that these leaders will force production as high as they can to offset the shortfall. The result is that there will be constant deflationary pressure on oil prices, a vicious cycle that will impoverish all the right people.

Monday, December 15, 2008


Q: Is Islam itself the problem?

Obviously "the problem" is rooted within Islamic texts and teachings that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Ibn Warraq's observation that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam is absolutely true in light of the fact that there is no orthodox sect of Islam and no school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach the necessity to work toward the political dominance of Islamic law and the subjugation of unbelievers under that law. People have a great deal of trouble acknowledging this due to the fact that there are obviously many Muslims who are not working toward this goal in any way, and because American Muslim advocacy groups have so successfully tarred as "bigotry" any honest discussion of the contents of Islamic doctrine regarding unbelievers. But these unpleasant facts will not go away simply because they are unpleasant.

Q: Is "moderate" Islam even possible?

Anything is possible. But "moderate" Islam as an Islamic theological and legal construct does not now exist, and would need to be invented. Can it be done? The record of history shows that it is never wise to say that something could never happen. But as it would involve the overturning or wholesale reevaluation of the fonts of Islamic authority that have existed since virtually the beginning of Islam, it is extremely unlikely.
Q: What about genuinely concerned, patriotic and devout Muslims? Are they confused? Will they one day have to choose between religion and country?

They aren't necessarily confused. They may have grown up and learned their Islam in areas of the world -- Central Asia, Eastern Europe, West Africa -- where the Islam that has evolved historically simply did not emphasize jihad warfare (hot war or otherwise). Generations of Muslims in those areas and others grew up being quite sincere, devout, knowledgeable and observant without having any notion that they had any imperative to subjugate infidels -- and as the faith was presented to them and lived out around them, they didn't. Unfortunately, the Salafist movements are challenging precisely the people who grew up in such cultures, and challenging them by claiming to be the representatives of Islamic authenticity.

Will American Muslims one day have to choose? Not at all. Those who want Sharia in the United States have no problem professing love for their country. It is their love for America that makes them want to bring what they consider to be the law of God here. If the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups get their way, Muslims who accept and respect American Constitutional law and the non-establishment of religion may have to choose between religion and Constitution, but not between religion and country.

Q: Is it too late to do what needs to be done? If so, why? Who is
responsible for this malaise? Politicians or average citizens themselves
or who exactly?

No, as long as America is not a Sharia state, and as long as we still have the freedom of speech and can speak openly about this threat, it is not too late. But the situation is very grave -- far graver than most people realize.

Q: Of all your recommendations at the end of the book, probably the most controversial is the call to end Muslim immigration. Do you sense any support for such a drastic measure in either the legislatures or among the general public?

None whatsoever. But this is because neither the legislatures nor the general public realize why it would be necessary. Without understanding the expansionist and totalitarian nature of political Islam, and without understanding how it threatens the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and so much more that makes Western civilization good and valuable, such a call appears simply "racist" -- although Islamic jihad is not a race.

Q: Which of your recommendations to you think are MOST likely to gain traction as policy?

The ones put forward by Representative Sue Myrick of NC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What has become of the Myrick Plan?

Representative Sue Myrick's plan to counter the jihad in the U.S. was unveiled April 19, 2008.

It should be being discussed on all national news and news feature shows, and Congress should be taking it up. Have we even seen this happening? Here it is:

1. Investigate all military chaplains endorsed by Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was imprisoned for funding a terrorist organization.

2. Investigate all prison chaplains endorsed by Alamoudi.

3. Investigate the selection process of Arabic translators working for the Pentagon and the FBI.

4. Examine the non-profit status of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

5. Make it an act of sedition or solicitation of treason to preach or publish materials that call for the deaths of Americans.

6. Audit sovereign wealth funds in the United States.

7. Cancel scholarship student visa program with Saudi Arabia until they reform their text books, which she claims preach hatred and violence against non-Muslims.

8. Restrict religious visas for imams who come from countries that don't allow reciprocal visits by non-Muslim clergy.

9. Cancel contracts to train Saudi police and security in U.S. counterterrorism tactics.

10. Block the sale of sensitive military munitions to Saudi Arabia.

Sunday, December 14, 2008


By Robert Spencer in 2004

Last Friday, Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, held an anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration. Protestors carried a large model of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque and waved signs bearing slogans such as “US Hands Off Muslim Land.”

But the most arresting image was of a Muslim woman carrying a large sign featuring the face of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Time dims memories. I wonder if any onlooker at the demonstration saw the Khomeini sign and remembered those tense days of the Iranian hostage crisis, when Khomeini’s regime violated the traditional sanctity of the embassy and held 50 Americans for month after month
while Jimmy Carter dithered.

I wonder if any of the onlookers knew that Khomeini’s triumph in Iran in 1979 embodied the idea that Islamic law was superior to all other ways to order societies, and must be pressed forward by force.

As Khomeini himself put it: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world....But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.”

The goal of this conquest would be to establish the hegemony of Islamic law. As Khomeini put it: “What is the good of us [i.e., the mullahs] asking for the hand of a thief to be severed or an adulteress to be stoned to death when all we can do is recommend such punishments, having no power to implement them?”

Khomeini accordingly delivered notorious rebuke to the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace crowd: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]?

Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight.

Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

Was the woman who carried Khomeini’s image in the Dearborn demonstration
concerned about the human rights of women?

Did she know that the Ayatollah himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight?

Did she know that Khomeini called marriage to a girl before her first menstrual period “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house”? (they should be in their husbands' houses)

It is unlikely that the protestor knew that in 1985, Sa’id Raja’i-Khorassani, the Permanent Delegate to the United Nations from the Islamic Republic of Iran, declared, according to Amir Taheri, that “the very concept of human rights was ‘a Judeo-Christian invention’ and inadmissible in Islam. . . . According to Ayatollah Khomeini, one of the Shah’s ‘most despicable sins’ was the fact that Iran was one of the original group of nations that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

I wonder if anyone at the Dearborn protest realized that the appearance of these signs in Dearborn, Michigan, exalting this man as a hero, indicated that Khomeini’s vision for society is alive in America today — and that it is dangerously naive to assume that all Muslims immediately and unquestioningly accept American pluralism and the idea of a state not governed by religious law.

The Netherlands is just finding out, thanks to the cold-blooded murder and attempted decapitation of the “blasphemer” Theo van Gogh by a Muslim who appears to have been part of a larger jihadist cell, that not all the Muslims in Holland are the committed pluralists and secularists that they have been assumed to be by credulous European authorities.

With Khomeini a hero in Dearborn, Americans may be finding that out for themselves before long. Just where American Muslims stand on Khomeini’s doctrines — and how many stand with Khomeini — are still forbidden questions for the major media.

But if the old man could have spoken from his sign in Dearborn, he might have said, “Ignore me at your own risk.”

Friday, December 12, 2008


U.S. Confirms Iran Bought SA-20 Missiles

Posted by David A. Fulghum at 12/10/2008 10:10 AM CST

“The Iranians are on contract for SA-20,” says a senior, U.S. government official. The U.S. and Israel now face a “huge set of challenges in the future that we’ve never had [before].

We’ve been lulled into a false sense of security because our operations over the last 20 years involved complete air dominance and we’ve been free to operate in all domains,” he adds.

Other senior officials independently confirm that Iran will get the Russian SA-20 strategic SAM system, irrespective of Kremlin protestations to the contrary. Tehran’s deployment of such a system would mark a step-up in capability, and considerably improve the country’s ability to defend its controversial nuclear facilities where the West remains concerned that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability.

The proliferation of so-called double-digit surface-to-air missile systems – such as the Almaz Antey SA-20 (S-300PMU1/S-300PMU2) – poses an increasing threat to non-stealthy aircraft, and will force changes in tactics and operational planning. The SA-20 has an engagement envelope of up to 150 kilometers; and Iran may be signed up for the S-300PMU-2 variant of the system.

Russia could use Byelorussia as the route for a sale, allowing it to deny any direct involvement, says a U.S. official. It would likely take the Iranian armed forces some time, as much as 22 months, to become proficient in the operation of the SA-20, however, any deal would almost certainly cover training support of the system in the interim. Analysts suggest ships delivering the missiles and the training, support and assembly areas could become targets.

The SA-20, and even more so the SA-21 Growler (S-400) which is now entering service, pose an increasing problem for mission planners using conventional strike aircraft. While low observable aircraft offer greater latitude for operations, they are not totally immune to air defenses.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 with its all-aspect, -40 dBsm radar cross-section signature can operate within the engagement envelope of the SA-20 and SA-21. But the Lockheed Martin F-35 with its -30 dBsm signature, which is not all-aspect stealth, is at greater risk. The rear quadrant of the F-35, particularly around the tailpipe area, is not as stealthy as the F-22.

The Northrop Grumman B-2, because of its aging stealth design, also has limitations in the amount of time it can spend within the range of double-digit systems since small signature clues can become cumulative and offer a firing solution. The U.S.’s next-generation bomber program is aimed at developing a low-observable platform capable of operating irrespective of the threat from systems of the SA-21 class.

More capable point defense systems – that would likely be used to protect SA-20 sites, for example – are also being introduced into the region. Syria is getting the SA-22 Greyhound (KBP Pantsyr), which uses a vehicle-mounted combination of cannon and missiles intended to provide defense against aircraft, helicopters, precision-guided munitions and cruise missiles.

New threats – involving advances in commercially available electronics – continue to rapidly mutate in the area of secure communications and command and control.

Recent pictures of the interior of a new Chinese surface-to-air missile command and control vehicle show two Inovo laptops and the commander of the integrated air defense system talking on a Blackberry. In the battery’s briefing vehicle, there’s a VOIP connection. These are all good, cheap commercial products.

With reporting from Douglas Barrie

Thursday, December 11, 2008


The arrogance of this man is unbelievable, the ignorance of the people that just want to "let this go" is even more unbelievable. The constitution demands he prove his "qualifications" for the highest office of the land. The "crazy" people are the ones that just want to "let this go" and give Obama a free pass without even showing what hospital he was born in or his parentage.


Monday, December 08, 2008


After reading the below article, reference: Obama's UN Treaty

By Gideon Rachman

And now for a world government I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that:

“When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.”

The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that:

“Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.
But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

Lisa OstellaPeace through Strength

Saturday, December 06, 2008



"What is surprising is that Melanie Phillips actually seems to think that they are correct - that Obama is a stealth Marxist whose appointments are sham fronts meant to allow him to impose a secret left-wing agenda.

She writes: “Just like me they believe Obama is practicing stealth politics with a degree of sophistication and success with which ‘even Lenin would be impressed.’…Obama knows that he must be subtle and reassure even the most conservative of his opponents if he is to achieve his radical goals.”

I respectivefully disagree with much of what you have written.

What Trevor Loudon wrote, and Phillips reported on, what how the marxist Left that did so much to support the political rise of, and then the presidential campaign of Sen. Obama, see all this as the result of their influence, and they comment on the “stealth” component of Obama’s strategies.

Now whether Obama had a “stealth” campaign strategy is known only to himself and a handful of insiders, but he has managed to hide almost all of his past from the American public, using a few slimey mouthpieces to say what is (that there is a birth certificate, the Frank Marshall Davis (CPUSA) had no influence on him, that he hardly knew Bill Ayers (WUO), etc)) and refused to provide what is missing (his birth certificate, his legal writings, his school records, etc).

This is called “a coverup” and one has to ask “why”? He won the election, so no quarrel with it and I don’t care about the foreign-birth issue, but let’s face it, “Obama, we hardly know you” and from what I have seen of those who guided you through life, I’m scared for our country.

Obama was raised and operated in a marxist-rich environment, which also included liberals, socialists, and some pretty psychopathic individuals.

Ron (pajamasmedia), I believe you were either a “red-diaper” or “pink diaper” baby, and know what that concept includes.

Obama was at least a “pink diaper” baby and those around him ranged from liberal to hardcore Communist, and that included many in his presidential campaign.

While Obama’s choices so far for his cabinet have been rational, it is due to the fact that none of his top people had any real world experience in the military or even in government.

He had to get people with experience from somewhere and he went to the Clinton Administration for them, plus a few Bush leftovers. (Bush kept Clinton appointees, esp. at the CIA and State, and paid a heavy price for it).

It is the second tier leftists that worry me and many othe people. Malley is one. His father was a Soviet operative and it had to color his view of the Middle East.

Rice has some very anti-Israel views that are not those of a moderate.

Anything with Daschle spells trouble, as well as conflict of interest due to his wife’s position with Boeing (past and possibly, present).

Podesta - his ties to George Soros put him way over on the far-left.

The influence of the heavily marxist AFL-CIO on labor issues and the Secretary of Labor is one of the untold stories of this election.

More on this topic will be published in the future.

Eric Holder at Justice. One of the biggest mistakes that Obama could make regarding the security of America and the sanctity of the Dept. of Justice.

After watching the Clintons and Reno destroy anti-mafia work re LIUNA, we are now offered another “weak sister” re the Marc Rich pardon and those of convicted terrorists from the WUO/M19thCO and FALN, not to mention the Elian Gonzalez debacle, etc.

Events have forced Obama to turn towards what many mistakeningly call “the center”.

While some appointments are centrists or even slightly conservative, Obama’s policy statements about defense and terror will set up a very violent clash over just what these policies entail, and how dangerous some of them will be for America.

However, we must remember that “center” is relative. Anyone to the right of Joe Stalin was “towards the center.”

That would include Brezhnev (and his Doctrine), Andropov, Putin/Medvedev, Castro, Ortega and Hugo Chavez.

Thanks, but no thanks.

We must look behind the cover of the book to see just what is written there besides the book reviewer’s comments.

So far, the Obama appointments don’t look like a “best seller.” I hope for America that it is not a “remainder”. A “book” without content is just that, a “book” without content, no matter what is on the cover.

Hope I’m wrong, but the security of America is at stake and I don’t want a bunch of leftists, especially anti-US anti-free enterprise people, and/or weak-on defense people, running the country from behind the curtain of darkness that Obama has wrapped around himself for years.

Max Friedman

Alan note: well said, Mr. Friedman!