With all the hoopla surrounding President Obama’s birth certificate, or lack thereof, our writers at All Blogs Considered have come up with a list of ten documents that may be even more damaging to the President’s legitimacy, if he were to reveal them. It is time for President Obama to tell the truth.

1. His dental records – How many cavities has President Obama had? When were his wisdom teeth pulled? These are crucial questions that need answers. For all we know, he could have a whole row of dental implants. He might even be a werewolf. Mr. President, you should disclose your long form dental records, just so we can be sure.

2. His library checkout history – If President Obama wants the United States to really believe he is not Muslim, why has he not simply disclosed his full library checkout history? Then we would know how many times he read the Autobiography of Malcolm X. When he was a kid, was he reading Choose Your Own Adventure or The Qur’an? America wants to know.

3. Notes from former girlfriends – What does the President have to hide that would keep him from revealing high school letters from girlfriends? Did they secretly plan socialist meetings together? Were there references to his lack of authentic American citizenship? America wants to know.

4. His Netflix Queue – What is the first family watching on Netflix? How many times has the President watched “Capitalism: A Love Story”? Are his daughters watching normal shows like Hannah Montana or socialist propaganda like Captain Planet and The Planeteers?

5. His vacation Bible school records – Every red-blooded American went to vacation Bible school (unless he is Muslim of course). If President Obama really wants to help put the hearts of Americans at ease, he should make the full record of his Bible verse memorization and Jesus-related arts and crafts available.

6. Grocery lists – Certain foods will prove his authentic Americaness: meat and potatoes, beer – lots of it, pork of every sort (pork chops, pork rinds, pork loins), BBQ ribs, and apple pie. He should have no objections to revealing his long form lists, unless they include foods like hummus, pita bread, parfait, biryani, and nasi goreng.

7. His full iPod playlist – We all know the official “favorite” music Obama revealed: John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan, The Fugees, Bach, and Stevie Wonder, but what is really on the President’s iPod? Is he really listening to Bob Dylan or Neil Young (a Canadian)? It makes a big difference. America deserves to know the truth about its President.

8. The number of George Foreman grills he’s owned – There are few things more American than the George Foreman Lean Mean Fat Reducing Grilling Machine, and any true American has gone through at least three of these things. How many has President Obama owned, and why is he keeping it a secret? Did he cook with a George Foreman grill or an Indonesian wok? Do they even use woks in Indonesia? American wants the truth.

9. High school tardy slips – According to Donald Trump, the President was a horrible student. Sure, he can never be late as President, but what about in high school? How many times was he tardy? Did he have to serve Saturday school detention, and how does someone with tardies get into Harvard? It just does not add up.

10. His tollbooth records – He claims he spent all those years living in Chicago. Well, he should reveal his tollbooth records because every American Chicago resident has to pay tolls constantly. Did the President have an I-PASS? Did he pay with change? Did he pay tolls at all?

Until these fundamental questions are answered, how can we truly know the man who is running our country? Is he a full-blooded, pork-eating American who got good grades in vacation Bible school, or an immigrant, hummus-eating Muslim with a socialist library checkout history? It is time for the President to come clean.

Tavis J. Hampton is a senior staff writer for All Blogs Considered and the chief BBQ consultant for dedicated host 34SP.com. He enjoys All-American pasttimes like football and stone skipping.

As a Muslim who enjoys religious freedom in this country, as an African American who has experienced firsthand racism, and as an American who truly believes in the principles of freedom that this country claims to support, it has been sickening to read all of these reports about the mosque that New York Muslims want to build 2 blocks away from “ground zero”, and how 70% of Americans allegedly oppose it.

First of all, I will use the term “racism” in my comments, only because there is really no good term to describe someone who has malicious feelings or even evil intentions against someone of another religion.  ”Religist” simply isn’t a word.

The funny thing about racism is that it can hide in plain sight for years, and even the person who harbors it is unaware of its presence.  We saw this when Obama ran for office, when people threatened him and at times even went so far as to question his citizenship.  We saw it after 9/11, when anyone who even looked like he or she might be Arab was suddenly a potential terrorist in the eyes of many angry Americans.  And if you spend enough time living in brown skin of any shade, you experience it routinely in the work place, with law enforcement, at stores, and elsewhere.  Racism is far from dead.  In fact, in some ways, it has increased, while only becoming more discreet.

Racism against Muslims, for lack of a better term, is apparently at an all-time high.  Not only were Muslims responsible for 9/11, after all, but they are also the “enemy” of what is becoming the next Vietnam in Afghanistan, with no end to the war in sight.  Just as Japanese were the “enemy” in WWII, with Japanese Americans being shunned and even sent off to concentration camps, so too have Muslims become the “other” suspiciously watched in America.

The difference, much to the chagrin of those racist Americans, is that Islam is much more prevalent in this country and Muslims are much more numerous.  We have Muslims in Congress, and your doctor, police officer, judge, or even your nanny may be Muslim, and you may not even know it.  There are generations of Muslims with names like mine, with no hint of Arab, Pakistani, or other middle-eastern/south asian blood.  So, yes, even your librarian may be Muslim.

Does that mean you should freak out now because we’re “invading” America?  No, it’s too late for panic anyway, but there’s nothing to be afraid of, people.  Islam in America is not new.  Muslims came over with Columbus (and even BEFORE Columbus).  In fact, according to many reports, Columbus would not have even made the journey, if it were not for the sea navigation tools of Muslims.

Since that time, slaves and former slaves, farmers, factory workers, and all types of Muslim Americans, from sea to shining sea, have lived peacefully in this country.   And yes, on September 11, 2001, there were Muslims who died as a direct result from those attacks.  There was at least one Muslim prayer room in the World Trade Center itself!

Therefore, people like Mike Lupica of the NY Daily News who ramble off nonsense about “sensitivity to 9/11 victims” are simply finding ways to openly express their racism, without directly mentioning it.  I mean, really, Mr. Lupica, what “sensitivity” is it that these victims, and apparently you also, have?  Are they “sensitive” to having to look at brown people?  Are they “sensitive” to the smell of ethnic food?  Are they “sensitive” to seeing people dressed differently?  What exactly is the “sensitivity”?

He did not answer it in his article, despite taking up two pages.  Instead he danced around the issue, never quite mentioning what exactly it was that offends people so much.  What about the mosque is so wrong?  Don’t the families of Muslim victims of 9/11 also have “sensitivity”?  Don’t they have the right to also honor their loved ones?  Or is that right only reserved for white Christian Americans?

These are not rhetorical questions.  I challenge anyone who opposes the building of the mosque to answer them.  Please tell me you actually have some legitimate reason for opposing the mosque, other than outright racism, and I may very well change my opinion.   I will say this.  Mike Lupica is right.  It’s not about “freedom of religion” at all.  It’s about racism, plain and simple.  They hate us, and they want us gone.

Photo by Rachael Voorhees

It may not have been a pretty exit, as President Obama himself called it “offensive”.  But the fact remains that by saying Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” Helen Thomas amplified the stifled voices of native peoples all over the world.

Much of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and yes, America, was occupied through violence, oppression, and murder.  Israel’s bloody chapter of history has been no different.

The fact that Jews left Europe to occupy Palestine because of their own plight does not make it right.  If anything it reflects the cycle of abuse we see on an individual basis.  The abused child grows up to become the abuser.  Being the victims of a Holocaust does not give Israelis the right to inflict one on the Palestinians, one that has lasted 60 years.

Helen Thomas was right.  They should leave, but they probably will not.  Their children have grown up in Israel, unaware of the crimes of their fathers.  Those children are innocent, just as the children of American slave owners are, but they still reap the benefits of the suffering inflicted on others.  For that, there must be some resolution.

When Mandela opposed Apartheid and spent the better part of his life in jail, much of the western world turned a blind eye.  Voices like Helen Thomas were ignored or even shunned.  Today, they will ignore her, shun her, and maybe even hate her, but she is right.  History will record just how right she was.

“The outrageous agitation…will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues…[It casts] doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government…

“The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views…and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those it [the Lobby] favors.”

Read the rest here.

We need to hold President Obama accountable for his promises.  If he truly wants peace in the Middle East, it will never come when America is eating out of Israel’s hand.

]]> http://www.lanterntorch.com/politics/866/obama-caves-to-the-israeli-lobby/feed/ 0 http://www.lanterntorch.com/politics/834/hampshire-college-becomes-first-to-divest-from-israel/ http://www.lanterntorch.com/politics/834/hampshire-college-becomes-first-to-divest-from-israel/#comments Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:23:08 +0000 Adibudeen http://www.lanterntorch.com/?p=834 Good news from Democracy Now:

The Board of Trustees at Hampshire College has agreed to divest from six companies because of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Hampshire is believed to be the first U.S. college or university to divest from companies tied to the Israeli military. The companies are Caterpillar, United Technologies, General Electric, ITT Corporation, Motorola, and Terex. The Board agreed to the divestment following a two-year campaign by the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine. 32 years ago Hampshire College became the first school to divest from apartheid South Africa.

In all seriousness, I believe it to be a monumental achievement for a man of color to reach the White House.  He climbed up the backs of many African Americans (and others as well) who have struggled for equal rights for all people in this country.  It is inspirational to so many youth who have been told that they can’t reach their dreams.  Well, my children, rest assured, you can.

Now, however, the business begins.  Like any president, Obama has to put his words into action.  He is a fallible man who will make plenty of mistakes, but my hope is that, unlike Bush, he will learn from them, listen to the people he serves, and make himself and the country better.

I’ve always believed in the power of people to make a difference.  Bush did not drag the American people into two wars.  We let him do it.  He did not care about opinion poles or protesters, and we, the American people, allowed him to continue in his deviance.

My hope, to use Obama’s own favorite word, is that he is someone who will listen to the people, who will not beat the drums of war when the people prefer the melody of peace.  That is my hope for change.  It is up to you, President-Elect Obama, to make the dreams of Americans a reality.

Sure enough, when I arrived, in the cold, in complete darkness, there was already a line formed outside of about 60 people.  I stepped up behind a friendly couple and waited.  Everyone there was excited and upbeat.  No one complained about the cold or the wait.  It was as if everyone had a purpose, a mission to make something positive happen.

As we gradually moved into the building when the doors opened at 6, it was clear that the line would move pretty quickly.  They had 6 booths set up in the gymnasium of our community center.  I live in a predominantly African American area, and to see so many faces of color exercising their right to self govern this country was sight to behold.

At one point, we all paused at the sound of the vote-counting machine giving a loud beep, kind of like a microwave.  A woman stuck her ballot into the machine again, and it beeped a second time.  More people who had finished voting formed a line behind her, and a volunteer quickly got on his mobile phone to ask someone, apparently an expert on the machines, what to do.  After a few minutes, the situation was resolved and voting resumed.

By 7:00 I was finished and extremely tired.  I prayed salatul-Fajr and headed to work.  There was no point in returning home.  I stopped at a store to pick up some donuts and orange juice, and even the cashier and other customers were so upbeat and enthusiastic about voting.

The overall experience made feel like I was a part of something important.  I only pray that the votes are counted without hassle and that history is made.  More than anything, I’m hoping my first voting experience is not my last.

His argument, an overly dramatic one I might add, is that the mainstream media is flushing itself down the toilet because of its open bias towards Senator Barack Obama.  The evidence of this, according to Malone, is the sheer sparsity of negative coverage of the Obama campaign.  There have been so many negative stories about McCain and Palin, he argues.

Before I continue my critique of Malone’s McCain ad (ahem) I mean article, I should make two things clear:  1.  I have experience as a journalist but am not employed in the mainstream media and 2. I have decided to vote for Obama in this election.

Malone, on the other hand, does belong to the mainstream media, and the bias which he laments is partially his own.  And I must say that, at least on the surface, I agree with him.  There has undoubtedly been more negative coverage of McCain, his running mate, and his family.  On this issue, Malone and I are in complete agreement. 

Where I believe Malone falters, however, is in assuming it is because the media is biased in favor of Obama.  We’re talking about the same media, Malone’s own ABC in particular, that has bent over backwards for the past eight years while George W. Bush covered up his prior knowledge of 9/11, committed war crimes, authorized the torture of prisoners (some of them innocent people), spied on his own people, illegally detained some of his own citizens, exposed an undercover CIA operative, and dissolved the fat US economy into leftover grease.

Any one of W’s offenses could have been impeachable (some of them are even treason), yet the mainstream media, while reporting it, has essentially condoned it.  When they could have relentlessly exposed and reported the president’s crimes, they did little more than mention them.  Whenever a protest occurred and police invariably beat and arrested protesters, the mainstream media cameras were absent.  You would think that the country was still relatively pleased with Bush because very few anti-Bush or anti-War coverage was ever given.

Therein lies the problem, Mr. Malone.  The mainstream media rarely cracks the surface.  They’ll report the story but very rarely will they go beneath the surface on important controversial issues.  McCain has plenty of surface faults, and they have done their job to report them.  Obama simply does not have as many.  Am I saying this because I like Obama better or think he’s a better man?  No.  I’m saying it because McCain is older, a lot older.

McCain has been in office for decades and goes out of his way very often to remind us of that.  He is never going to let us forget about Ronald Regan (even though many of us would like to forget him).  So of course there is going to be more negative material to cover on McCain.  He has simply done more negative things.  He has done a lifetime of negative things.  You could write volumes on his deeds (as one day someone will).

This is where Malone’s argument falls flat, and the example he uses proves to be his own tragic flaw.  In speaking about the “war” in Lebanon three summers ago, Malone writes:

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story…

Thank you Mr. Malone.  You proved my point very nicely without even realizing it.  When Israel attacked Lebanon, the death tolls were enormous.  1,191 Lebonese civilians lost their lives.  There was indiscriminate bombing of homes, villages, and even relief aid vehicles. Less than 250 Hezbollah fighters were killed.  Hezbollah, which launched missiles day and night into Israel, killed 121 soldiers and only 44 civilians. 

Again it is a simple matter of numbers.  How can you give equal coverage to a “war” that is not equal.  When people are literally dying left and right of you, how can you leave that to report what, by comparison, is only a handful of deaths?  What is surprising is that the media actually did report them and never failed to mention Israeli deaths to the point where people until this day believe that the “war” was an equal and just one, that Israel was justified in the atrocities they committed, and that Hezbollah are the terrorists.

Mr. Malone, it is a simple problem of logic.  Yours is flawed.  Media coverage is quantitative.  It can be measured.  Your mainstream media, Mr. Malone, has long argued that the independent candidates (such as Ralph Nader) or even alternative candidates (such as Dennis Kucinich [D] or Ron Paul [R]) do not deserve as much media coverage because they are not as popular (which is a circular argument).  Well, Mr. Malone, like it or not, Senator Obama is popluar, extremely popular, despite the McCain campaign’s relentless attempts to smear him with negative ads, many of which are outright lies.

I can think of plenty of criticisms of Obama, so do not think that I am in love with the man.  His show (and I emphasize this word) of unbiased support for Israel during his campaign and his rather muffled show of what can best be described as “blackness” are both disturbing yet not upsetting.  I can understand why he felt he needed to behave that way in a predominantly white America that is still electrically charged with racist particles, and his previous record indicates that he is not so black and white (no pun intended).  But the McCain campaign’s criticisms have been paltry at best, and Mr. Malone’s last ditched attempt to rescue John McCain is simply too pathetic and too late.

The majority of us have been experiencing a “financial crisis” since Bush stepped into office, but we’re only now hearing about it in the media when the fat cats need to be bailed out to save their billions from flushing down the toilet.  The rich stay rich, and according to Michael’s analysis, they might even get richer after this bailout. 

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin: “We don’t have to
second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe that it is in
their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests
to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them
off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in
this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say
Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the
earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would
seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her
friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those
are the good guys.”

Why does this woman sound like an 8 year old talking about an episode of Power Rangers?

These “good guys” she speaks of are the same ones who have illegally occupied Palestinian land for 60 years; “good guys” who repeatedly abuse, bulldoze homes, kill, and torture Palestinians; “good guys” who occupied Lebanon for 20 years and even knowingly attack reporters, UN observers, Red Cross vehicles, and even ships belonging to their own allies.

She is correct to use the phrase “in my world” because Sarah Palin obviously does not live in the real world.

1. It greatly increase my respect for and admiration of the Iranian president.  He is both intelligent and tactful in his response and also seems genuine.

2. Larry King, all things considered, did a pretty good job of letting Ahmadinejad talk without bombarding him with ridiculous accusations and misquotes (although he did not shy away from many of the dumb controversial questions that many Americans have asked).

Above all else, however, I came away with a new understanding about the Iranian position on Israel.  Although many people in the west commonly assume that Iran wishes for Israel to be destroyed (whatever that actually means), the words of the Iranian president were quite different.

He apparently advocates something that few Americans, Israelis, or even Palestinians dare to even consider: a one-state solution.  For decades now we’ve been inundated with the concept of two states, both a Jewish one and a Palestinian one.  But the only truly fair solution, according to Ahmadinejad, is for the people of that region to unite under one state, hold a referendum for the future makeup of their new government, and reform their country into something open, democratic, and just.

This, of course, would mean that the Palestinians, especially if one includes the ones who are living in exile, would hold a majority vote, just as the black South Africans did when the Apartheid regime was overturned.  Had they instead formed a separate “black” state, they would have been isolated and decimated by their white counterparts.

The real reason for the insistence upon the two-state solution is that it is the only way to preserve a “Jewish” state.  Although westerners commonly refer to Israel as “the only democratic state in the middle east,” it is actually anything but democratic.  It serves the interests of Jews and Jews alone.  It ignores the rights even of the arabs who are citizens while also denying citizenship to the majority of Palestinians.

To give the Palestinians citizenship in Israel would effectively end the reign of the Zionist (Apartheid) regime.  Replacing it with something democratic and free for both Jews and Palestinians is the only way to ensure lasting freedom and success for both parties.

This is Iran’s stance on the issue.  It is not one of violent uphevil and extermination of the Jewish people.  It is a stance that is probably the only realistic (yet bitter-tasting) solution if the Israelis expect to ever live without fear and the Palestinans ever hope to truly have freedom.

July 29, 2008

In a recent interview, Ayatollah Fadlallah, one of Lebanon’s chief theologians, stated that any notions of strife between Shi’ites and Sunnis was untrue. Most Muslims value unity, and simply need some sort of motivation to work together said Fadlallah, suggesting a large scale collaborative project. He admitted that there were elements in the Arab community who wanted to promote discord, but that they were the extreme minority and did not represent Islamic views. For more information, please click here.

But is Barack taking his own advice? For he pledges to shift two U.S. combat brigades, 10,000 troops, out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, raising Americanforces in that country from 33,000 to 43,000.

For, without any visible strategy for victory, Barack is recommending thesame course LBJ took after the death of JFK. Johnson bombed North Vietnam in 1964, landed Marines in 1965 and built U.S. forces from 16,000 advisers on Nov. 22, 1963, to 525,000 troops in January of 1969.

The Soviet Union, whose 115,000-man army in Afghanistan reached more than twice the size of U.S.-NATO forces, even with the Obama surge, went home defeated in 1988. The Soviet Empire did not survive that humiliation.

Obama – and John McCain, who has endorsed the build-up – should, before committing any more combat brigades, explain how and when this war ends in an American victory. For as of today, the Afghan war resembles Vietnam far more than Iraq ever did.

Obama and the other democrats want to continue the war in Afghanistan. He intends to send some of those PTSD patients currently serving their 2nd, 3rd, or even 5th campaigns in Iraq and dropped them into the heart of Taliban inssurection. This comes at a time when more Afghan civilians are being slaughtered by indiscriminate U.S. bombing raids. The total number of innocent Afghans killed has far exceeded the number of Americans killed on 9/11.

Therefore, it is clearn that Mr. Obama is not interested in peace, rather he wants a war he thinks we can win. Well, I hate to disappoint you, Senator, but America is not winning in Afghanistan, and they will never win. No one ever has.

In their 2006 working paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt accuse AIPAC of being “the most powerful and best known” component of a larger pro-Israel lobby that, they say, distorts American foreign policy. They write: “AIPAC’s success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. … AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel PACs. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. … The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.”

Cited on Wikipedia 

It seems very few have been willing to admit what we really knew all along: Barack Obama is just another American politician. He is not some savior of humanity, as some would like to portray him, and he is certainly not going to step on the toes of the corporate demons who fund his campaign.

In times such as these, when America is being ruled by a president who will do anything to please his corporate sponsors, whose policies have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, sacrificed thousands of American soldiers, opened the door for torture, championed the imprisonment of innocent people, and welcomed the contempt and disgust of the entire world, there is something the American people need more than politics as usual.

The American people need morality and honesty. Above all else, a leader who is willing to do what is right and to speak the truth even when he does wrong is the type of leader who can truly turn this country and this race (the human one) away from the brink of extinction that it has now brought upon itself.

Instead, Obama has become glossy eyed with the prospect of becoming president and is willing to bend over backwards for Israel and the AIPAC, even if it means echoing Israel’s call to attack Iran, a country that has not invaded nor even threatened to attack another country (something even Iraq could not claim).

Obama sounds like Bush, albeit a more eloquent and intelligent upgrade from the first two Bush versions. He proudly proclaimed, “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything.”

The evidence, Senator Obama, indicates that Iran is not even trying to obtain a nuclear weapon, so why even mention this? You might very well pressure Iran into doing the very thing you swear you will prevent them from doing. And what does “everything in my power” mean? Surely, a president’s power includes control over the military. Obama is threatening to attack Iran. That is not quite as strong as Hillary Clinton’s language, but the end result would be the same.

” … There is no greater threat to Israel or peace than Iran,” he went on to say.

Any intelligent (and honest) person can easily see that the greatest threat to Israel and peace is Israel itself. It is Israel that invaded Palestinian territory. It is Israel that drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their land. It is Israel that committed massacres, one after another, against thousands of innocent Palestinians. It is Israel that continues to hold scores of Palestinians in dungeons, without any formal charges against them. It is Israel that has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, not the other way around. It is Israel with the track record of invading another country (Lebanon) and occupying it for 20 years, not Iran. It is Israel that has nuclear weapons and refuses to sign the NPT. It is Israel that has had over 40 U.N. resolutions passed against it condemning its atrocities, yet it refuses to take heed of any of them. It is Israel, Senator Obama, that forces the Palestinians to live in Apartheid-like conditions, and that is not just my opinion, Senator Obama. Former President Jimmy Carter and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, agree.

So like Reagan, Senator Obama, you are supporting yet another Apartheid regime, another regime that has acquired and is threatening to use its nuclear weapons against a country that is guilty only of defending the rights and lives of the Palestinian people when everyone else in the world, including you, Senator Obama, is unwilling, or too much of a coward, to do so.

Obama was not finished. He continued with, “This audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats. And the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in support of Israel’s security. …”

Do we? Do Americans really care about Israel’s security while the policies of our own government continue to degrade our own security? Senator Obama wants us to believe that Israel is a symbiont inside of the heart of America, but there is another more appropriate name for such an organism: parasite.

“The Iran regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and …”

If we really wanted to make this statement true, it should probably be uttered by the Iranian supreme leader, “The American regime supports violent extremists (Israel) and challenges us (Iran) across the region. It already has a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and …(blah blah blah)…”

Finally, Senator Obama either wants us to believe he is a complete idiot (just as Bush expects us to believe that about him) or he is a liar in the esteemed tradition of liars who have occupied the oval office, both republicans and democrats. Senator Obama decided to echo the propaganda that has infected our airwaves and television sets, “Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. … [M]y goal will be to eliminate this threat.”

I see no point in even trying to disprove this lie again. He never denied the Holocaust (he said that it should be studied by independent historians) and he certainly never threatened Israel (but rather said that Israel will fade from the pages of history).

So how, Senator Obama, do you plan to eliminate a threat that does not exist? I suppose you will do as other presidents before you have done: you will create one.

I’m certainly not voting for McCain, and unless Obama grows a conscience, I’m afraid he has lost my vote as well.

McClellan went on to say President Bush had personally told him he authorized the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. McClellan says he asked President Bush aboard Air Force One if he was the one who approved outing Plame to the media. McClellan says Bush replied, “Yes, I was.”

McClellan would have to be crazy to lie about something like that, knowing that his very life could be in danger for even suggesting that Bush is a criminal.  Here we have a witness testifying to the public that Bush committed a federal crime (in addition to all of his war crimes), and they still will not impeach him?

Whatever little faith I had left in the democrat majority congress just leaked out onto the floor.

Click here to watch.

OLBERMANN: Can you clarify…which hypothetical Middle East conflicts would incur massive retaliation by this country and what constitutes massive retaliation?

CLINTON: What we were talking about was the potential for a nuclear attack by Iran. If Iran does achieve what appears to be a continuing goal of obtaining nuclear weapons. And I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

I always knew Hillary was a Zionist, but it seems she’s even more willing to start World War III than Israel itself. And how many average citizens living in Israel truly feel the way she does? What would even warrant an Iranian attack on Israel? Are we forgetting that a nuclear disaster for Israel is also a nuclear disaster for the Palestinians, the very people Iran has sworn to defend?

It seems in Hillary’s efforts to please the Devil, she’s lost all reasoning ability. It’s amazing that she’s so eager to perpetuate the bigoted depiction of middle eastern people (and nations) as mindless ogres who would attack and kill anyone if given the chance.

Meanwhile, Iran has accomplished more calculated strategic victories in the past four years than any country with interest in the region. Senator Clinton, if you insist on bullying a smaller country and labeling them an enemy threat, at least take the time to know your enemy.

“[My energy policy] will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” said republican presidential candidate John McCain.

The “again” implies that it has been done before, and the fact that it is his energy policy that will prevent it indicates that it was done in order to get oil. It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Amen, brother. Amen.

“Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Dutch critic of Islam, will publish a fictional children’s book about a twelve-year-old Muslim boy who faces many difficulties after befriending a Jewish girl. It is unclear as to what her motivation is for advocating such false and bigoted views that Muslims are opposed to Jews, when it is clearly stated in the Quran that Muslims and Jews come from the same “Family of the Book”. The Quran also speaks highly of Abraham and Moses, insisting that they were righteous Prophets of God.”

She can spread hatred as much as she wants. We must continue to spread love.

The first was about the United states’ role in Haiti’s food riots:

“As people around the world continue to protest the soaring prices of basic food items, the World Food Program has described the crisis as a silent tsunami. The head of the Food and Agriculture Organization blamed the current global food crisis on “inappropriate” policy decisions over the past two decades. Nowhere is this more clear than in Haiti, where hungry people are rioting in the streets because they cannot afford to buy rice. Haiti imports most of its rice from the United States, which in turn remains heavily subsidized. We speak with human rights lawyer, Bill Quigley.”

The other dealt with the UN Forum on Indigenous Issues and climate change:

“Representatives of the world’s 370 million indigenous people are
gathered at the United Nations this week to demand that their voices be
included in future talks on climate change. Over 3,000 delegates are
attending the seventh session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous
Issues. We speak with Casey Camp-Horinek, a member of the Ponca Nation
of Oklahoma”

Hope for what? Is their hope misguided? Will the democratic process once again fail us as it did in 2000 when thousands of black voters were disenfranchised and the withering Al Gore laid his own head on the chopping block? Perhaps, but the glimmer of hope in democracy is that people have the power to make changes. The question, however, is whether or not simply casting a ballot is actually enough to effect reasonable change.

Must all of us become CEOs of major corporations in order to have our voices heard? History would argue that when people come together for a common cause, no dictatorial regime or corporate driven machine can stand in their way. The problem that exists now is that so many Americans are still satisfied with the current situation or at least not dissatisfied enough.

Americans get upset on cue. It is as if automatic triggers are set in our brains. The Chinese have been subjugating the people of Tibet for decades, but suddenly it has become an issue. The same people who have found a new cause in Tibet would turn a blind eye to the oppression faced by the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The suffering of the people in Darfur no longer seems so relevant. Add Somalia and nearly the rest of Africa to that list, and it just seems peculiar that some have chosen to protest China’s occupation of Tibet. Do they protest the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan?

In reality many of the liberal democrats who are displeased with the president’s invasion of Iraq are not upset because it is immoral, unjust, or because of the ulterior motive of establishing a permanent military stronghold on the doorstep of Iran (after all, both Clinton and Obama seem poised to strap bombs to their chests and lead the suicide mission into Iran even after Bush stumbles down from the oval office). No, the democrats’ opposition to the war is not so complex. The reason is simple: we are losing.

When our military was defeating Saddam’s crippled and undernourished army, and the president stood under a banner reading “Mission Accomplished,” few democrats shivered as I and a few others did. Those of us who had opposed the war from the beginning knew what was on the horizon, but those who claimed they “ignorantly” voted for the war were only stating so to cover their own embarrassed rear ends.

Money talks, and as it stands, the black-colored greasy money flowing out of Iran in the form of Euros is so bitter to the American palette that even the most well-informed liberal proudly proclaims that Iran is a “serious threat” that must be stopped. Without a doubt, the corporations, more specifically the oil companies, spun this, and Israel piggybacked their scheme, albeit for different reasons. Controlling the oil flow to and from Iran would grant them full access to the Middle East and all its resources.

Unfortunately, the plan went sour before it ever had a chance to brew. By invading Afghanistan and ousting the Taliban, the US created a new ally for Iran, an Afghan government that is increasingly suspicious of the seven-year sleepover of coalition forces. By invading Iraq, the US solidified Iranian power in the region, installing a regime dominated by the SCIRI (not their original plan, I should note) and the powerful Mahdi Army, both strong allies of Iran. Then, they gave free reign to a corrupt and possibly delusional Musharraf in Pakistan, allowing him to plunder his nation like a pirate and fashion himself as the dictator for life, only to be snubbed by his less-than-willing people. The only marginally powerful ally the US has left in the region is Turkey, which seems to care little about US interests, now that the Kurds have been turned loose on them. They seem more interested in bombing Iraq than even the US themselves.

Instead of surrounding Iran with a wall of military muscle, the corporate regime led by Mr. Bush has handed central Asia to Iran on a silver dish. The best they can hope for now is to make diplomatic ties with Iran, as they once did with China. But even that will take a president and a group of citizens united behind him or her, who are more concerned with peace and safety than with filling the tanks in their SUVs. God help us all.

“States in the West loyally commit themselves to it, living under a grandiose fantasy of superior humanity and a higher civilization. With this narcissistic perception comes the license to play the global Big Brother, dictating the order of things arbitrarily”

It’s worth reading.

– W.E.B. DuBois

It shows not only an ignorance of the people and culture but also an ignorance of how human beings in general behave. Under occupation, there is always resistance. This is a fact. If a foreign power were to invade the US today, plenty of people would resist, and it would be viewed as completely legitimate.

Until this very day, however, American policy makers (both democrat and republican) have stood by the invasion of Afghanistan under the justification that it somehow vindicated the attacks of September 11, 2001. That in itself is preposterous, but when you also consider that they believe a continued fight against the Taliban, which, as far as we know, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, is necessary, the picture begins to become even more distorted.

There are several changes that must occur in order to eventually relieve the Afghan people from anymore unnecessary suffering:

1. The occupation forces there must develop an exit plan. (It is ridiculous that so many people are opposed to the occupation of Iraq but mention nothing of Afghanistan, as if they somehow deserve to be occupied).

2. The Afghan government must have full control of the policy making (no puppet-regime tactics).

3. The Afghan government must sit down with the Taliban and make peace, whatever the cost. This is the only way to end a war, aside from everyone on both sides being dead. Both sides must be willing to compromise, but in the end, both sides should share the power.

4. Any illegal immigrants (from Arab countries or elsewhere) must be deported (if they are innocent) or legally tried in court (if they are members of al-Qa’idah). This will be much easier if the Taliban are working in coordination with the government.

5. If #4 is not possible alone, then outside assistance should be sought by the new unified government. Preferably, that outside help should come from friendly neighbors (Pakistan and Iran, but not perceived enemies such as the US).

6. The government should nationalize, even if temporarily, the production of their natural resources in order to strengthen their economy and sever any dependence on foreign money.

7. They should establish strong trade agreements with neighboring nations and rely on the United Nations, Red Crescent, and other “impartial” (and I use the term loosely) organizations when necessary.

8. They should setup micro-finance institutions similar to the ones in Bangladesh.

9. They should coordinate military and police training with Iran and Pakistan instead of western powers.

These are just some of the ideas that will make Afghanistan strong for Afghans, rather than occupiers with only their own interests in mind. If you have any other ideas that should be added or better ideas than the ones I’ve listed, please post them in the comments.

“F**kin’ with Saddam will bring a new Saigon…”

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

For those unaware, niqab is a complete covering where only the eyes are visible. My co-worker’s argument and the argument of the state of Florida, is that, after 9/11, police need to be able to quickly and easily identify “terrorists?” The word terrorists is in quotes because I have serious doubts about their line of reasoning.

It is flimsy at best. First, there is no law on the books in Florida preventing a person from getting a license without a photo at all, let alone a veiled photo. Revoking the woman’s license was illegal, but they got away with it for the same reason Bush got away with illegal wire-tapping: fear. Americans are afraid, and nothing represents their fear more than a Muslim woman wearing a veil. She is mysterious, shady, and probably a terrorist in the making (if not one already). Right?

I, like most Muslims, do not believe that the niqab is required by shari’ah, but a minority of Muslims do. And is not this a country that upholds the religious rights of all, even a minority of a minority?

There are really two questions:

1. Are photos truly a reliable form of identification?
2. Will having photo identification in any way curb terrorist activity?

The answer to both is no, and here’s why:

1. People have the ability to change the way they look very easily.  Women do it all the time.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a woman after a year or so and could hardly recognize her.  Different hair, different make-up, even a little plastic surgery, and a tiny little driver’s license photo is useless.  The truth is that a photo is completely unreliable and there is no way of knowing that the person who took the photo was indeed the person the license claims to be.  Why?  The BMV does not require photo identification.  As long as you can produce a social security card or even a piece of paper saying you once had a social security card, you can claim to be anyone.

More reliable identification methods include fingerprints and, guess what, eyes.  Yes, iris and retinas are very hard to fake.  Unlike faces and hair, you can definitely ID someone based on their eyes.  In order to accommodate niqab, all the BMV would have to do would be to take a zoomed-in picture of the woman’s eyes.  She’d have no way to fake her identity.  In fact, it would be more reliable than photos.  The flaw is not in the claim against taking the photos but in the concept of photo identification itself.  It is unreliable, and my second point further illustrates this.

2.  You’re a criminal on the run.  The police are after you.  You’re in disguise.  You’re carrying photo identification?  Uh, no.  Criminals don’t do this, and trust me, terrorists definitely don’t do this.  Even after 9/11, the authorities still couldn’t identify the terrorists.  They had names and photos, but the names were as common in the arab world as “John Smith” in America and the photos could have easily been forged.

Furthermore, if a niqabi was really prepared to commit a terrorist attack, why would the lack of a driver’s license stand in her way?  She could hop on the next bus downtown and blow herself up.

The truth is that the objections of the state of Florida, of my co-worker, and of anyone else claiming that if a woman fails to show all of her face for a driver’s license photo, “the terrorists win,” are just spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).  It is not based on anything credible, relevant to criminal justice, the war on terror, or the first amendment.  It is simply another way the government is taking away our freedoms.  Today it is the freedom of a young veiled Muslim woman, but tomorrow it might be blue-eyed, blond-haired, Christian Sally from Newport, Indiana.  Then, we’ll see if people are so quick to dismiss the First Amendment we all claim to hold dearly but very rarely defend when it comes to the “other.”

available at inminds.co.uk

“The US President (George W. Bush) made an atomic bomb threat,” Chevez said on Thursday, referring to Bush’s war rhetoric against Iran.

“In other words, he’s threatening a third world war but now with atomic weapons.

It’s like he should be taken to the psychiatric hospital. I think he’s on the edge of the psychiatric hospital,” he added.

Full story

Collective punishment.  Sounds a bit like Nazi Germany doesn’t it?  Their oppressors became their teachers.

The Democratic forum has already passed, and the stage has been set for the Republican forum. As with the first one, all candidates were invited, but unlike the first one, many of the top candidates have declined, namely: Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Senator John McCain, and Governor Mitt Romney.

This is no accident nor coincidence. The same candidates also failed to attend a forum hosted by the Hispanic community, and it only stands to reason that they have little or no interest in hearing the concerns of African American and Hispanic voters.

As to why any African American Republicans in America would vote for such hypocrites who do not even have the decency to listen to or address the concerns of their constituency is beyond me. It only confirms what most African Americans already knew: They don’t care about us. Spread the word.

“We’re like Fox News. Only smart. And not crazy. And we don’t lie.”

So true.

But, before you get out your flag-burning material, you should know that it was in the script. The show is being canceled to “make room for new programmes.”

The craziest part of all: the above was not satire.

Perhaps this is their way of reducing him to nothingness…becoming the deckhand of his pirating secular oppressors. Even politically, he’s an apostate. Was he really hiding from Muslims all those years or from the embarrassment of being famous due to controversy rather than good writing.

And so, I issue him congratulations. Whatever it is he desires from this world, I’m sure he will have it.

Whoever desires the harvest of the hereafter, we give him increase in his harvest, and whoever desires the harvest of this world, We give him thereof, and he has no portion in the hereafter. (Qur’an 42:20)

We should not think that only American corporations are involved. Not to be outdone by the US, Canadian and British mercenaries are also raking in the cash. According to some reports, there are now more mercenaries fighting in Iraq than actual troops.

With that revelation, I feel compelled to clarify that just because the corporations call places like the U.S. home, doesn’t mean that their mercenaries are even citizens. Many of the mercenaries are from places like Columbia or even Chile where former commandos loyal to ruthless dictator Augusto Pinochet have signed on to assist in the Iraqi genocide.

This seems to be the intent of the current U.S. administration. It is not an accident that these corporations are now fighting wars, but rather the dream of a corporate-run state, envisioned by Vice President Dick Cheney long before he took office.

Just to give an idea of how these hired killers operate, take notice of the following story:

In April 2004, mercenaries working for a private militia named Blackwater were guarding US occupation headquarters in Najaf when a protest by Shia Iraqi civilians began to stir outside. According to the Washington Post and eyewitnesses, Blackwater opened fire on the protesters, unleashing so many rounds so rapidly they had to pause every 15 minutes to allow their gun barrels to cool down…

You can click the link for the rest of the gritty details of the story. I cannot even bring myself to quote them here. God save us.

All of those issues are real and must be remedied, but they will not be addressed until the Palestinians deal with the issue of leadership. For decades, the leadership of the Palestinians has been monopolized by Fatah, mainly under the leadership of Yasser Arafat.

There is little doubt that Arafat loved his people and wanted to eventually see those people liberated, but he was not a good leader, was certainly not qualified to make any of their dreams reality, and eventually drowned himself in his own corruption. Mahmoud Abbas is, unfortunately, even worse. He has remained in a bent-over position for Israel since taking office as “President.”

G.W. Bush and his administration pushed for general elections. In fact, despite everyone else (except the palestinian people) begging him not to, Bush insisted that they be allowed to democratically elect their representatives and their future. Enter: Hamas, a well-organized, well-funded, well-respected, and well-on-their-way-to-liberation…uh, terrorist organization?

Yes, the Palestinian people chose their leadership, undoubtedly the best leadership, but instead of supporting Hamas’ transition from armed resistance to politics, the West punished the people. As a result, the people are more divided, more confused, and more angry at Israel and America than ever before. Fatah al-Islam is only the beginning, and it will only get worst.

Look to any great revolution, and behind it, you will find a great leader. People like Khomeini, Mandela, and many others had all been accused of terrorism, but it was their charisma and unflinching faith, not their controversy, that drove them to success.

It will only get worse before it gets better. The pointless wall that Israel is building around the occupied territories will eventually crumble. The only question is, will it crumble under a wrecking ball or under bombs? Let us pray that the occupiers wise up and opt for a peaceful two-state solution, before those they have oppressed leave them no choice.

“I am totally opposed to any attack on Iran. It would have disastrous consequences for Iran, the U.S., the region, and the world. It would put 140,000 U.S. troops in great jeopardy. It would expose Israel to maximum peril. Even the talk about such an attack should be subject to a review not only by Congress, but by an international tribunal. Iran has neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States, yet the administration has been preparing for some time for an aggressive war against Iran.

“Congress must insist the administration come forward now with facts, not fiction, regarding Iran. We must not allow the President to remain unchallenged while he continues to use the media to create a pretext for an illegal war.

“Congress must insist the President come to the full Congress for permission to take any action against Iran. If the President proceeds to attack Iran after an express congressional authorization under article I, section 8, both he and the Vice President should be subject to impeachment.

“We must take a stand against aggressive war or we will lose our democracy.”

None of the other candidates: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or any of the republicans have ruled out attacking Iran.  None of the others consistently voted against attacking Iraq and funding the continued occupation.  Kucinich did, consistently.

I’m almost tempted to vote next year.

“The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.”

– Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.  Chapter 2.

As if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t sinister enough with legitimate soldiers doing the Bush Administration’s dirty work, an article by Jeremy Scahill reveals that firms such as Blackwater are employing thousands of private contractors to engage in military activities within Iraq and Aghanistan, as well as recent activities near or possibly even in Iran.To quote the article:

While many of them perform logistical support activities for American troops, including the sort of laundry, fuel and mail delivery, and food-preparation work that once was performed by soldiers, tens of thousands of them are directly engaged in military and combat activities. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are now some 48,000 employees of private military companies in Iraq. These not-quite G.I. Joes, working for Blackwater and other major US firms, can clear in a month what some active-duty soldiers make in a year.

Even more disturbing is that they have almost no accountability, either in Iraqi or U.S. courts. In the cases where they have been accused of committing crimes in Iraq, they are whisked out of Iraq by their private firm.

If all of that doesn’t sound eerily Orwellian enough for you, consider this:

Today, Blackwater has become nothing short of the Bush administration’s well-paid Praetorian Guard. It protects the US ambassador and other senior officials in Iraq as well as visiting Congressional delegations; it trains Afghan security forces and was deployed in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region, setting up a “command and control” center just miles from the Iranian border. The company was also hired to protect FEMA operations and facilities in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where it raked in $240,000 a day from the American taxpayer, billing $950 a day per Blackwater contractor.

Since September 11, 2001, the company has invested its lucrative government payouts in building an impressive private army. At present, it has forces deployed in nine countries and boasts a database of 21,000 additional troops at the ready, a fleet of more than twenty aircraft, including helicopter gun-ships, and the world’s largest private military facility–a 7,000 acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. It recently opened a new facility in Illinois (“Blackwater North”) and is fighting local opposition to a third planned domestic facility near San Diego (“Blackwater West”) by the Mexican border. It is also manufacturing an armored vehicle (nicknamed the “Grizzly”) and surveillance blimps.

But all of that is not even the topic of the article. The Democratic party, supposedly championing the anti-war cause has been quietly supporting these mercenaries and have, until this day, done nothing to stop funding to them. Even if the “withdrawal plan” were approved by Bush, the funding for his private army would still exist. Through the back door, he has doubled the military force in Iraq using “soldiers” who are above the law…all laws.

The democrats want to send FBI investigators to Iraq to “regulate” the activities of the mercenaries instead of taking them out of Iraq altogether. This will only serve to legitimize them, with no real way for even a large party of investigators to monitor 126,000 overpaid fighters. There are no official records of who is there, how many of them have been killed, what crimes they have committed, or who they ultimately answer to (it obviously isn’t the US government). As the name mercenary implies, they are for sale to the highest bidder. It is their best interest to keep the war going. It makes you wonder if maybe it is the President’s agenda as well.

In reality, however, they are not traditionalists or even imitators of traditionalists. Their movement is a modern phenomenon and is not even loosely based upon the principles of Islam. Their political (not religious) ideology is not even exclusive to Islam. Ahmad explains:

“Neither Muslims nor Jews nor Hindus are unique in this respect. All variants of contemporary ‘fundamentalism’ reduce complex religious systems and civilizations to one or another version of modern fascism. They are concerned with power not with the soul, with the mobilization of people for political purposes rather than with sharing or alleviating their sufferings and aspirations. Theirs is a very limited and time bound political agenda.”

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think there’s some people who still don’t grasp the predicament in which the U.S. and its allies have placed Iran. So, I decided to produce a visual aide. I hope this doesn’t get me thrown into a cell in Guantanamo.

The blue dots represent strategic U.S. deployments. The arrows represent a possible direction of attack. And, well, X marks the spot: Iran.

Notice:

1. the U.S. has at least 90 prepositioned tactical nuclear weapons sitting inside of Turkey, ready to strike at Iran.

2. They also have aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf. They just added another one.

3. They have troops inside of Afghanistan, bordering Iran.

4. They have a massive build-up of troops, as well as a fortress (supposedly an embassy) the size of 80 football fields inside of Iraq, also bordering Iran.

That doesn’t even include the base in Saudi Arabia or the Israeli factor. So, the question is, “If you were Iran, what would you do?”

“Gore Urges Congress to Save Planet”

It’s pretty sad when Congress has to be “urged” to save their own planet…kinda makes you wonder if they have a secret escape plan, while the rest of bake in our global oven.

Well, here’s a hint, Barack, I don’t think threats of military attacks or aggressive rhetoric qualify as genuine diplomacy, and Iran is well aware of that.

Obama said all of this at a pro-Israel rally, where he mentioned his unconditional support for the Zionist state, with no mention of the Palestinians at all. One zionist even hugged him afterwards. To that end, it seems that he is carrying the position of most democrats: that the Iraq war was wrong, not because of the moral implications or the loss of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, but because America is losing.

Well, here’s another piece of news that might come as a shocker to you, Obama, America will lose even more horrifically to Iran, a loss from which the U.S. (and the world) might never recover.

If and when I do decide to vote, it will be a for candidate who calls for peace, real, lasting peace, not conditional peace with zionist strings attached.

1. The Palestinians, Hizbullah, and Iran refuse to “recognize Israel.”

FALSE. It makes you wonder then, who they mean every time they say the word “Israel. This is just a gimmick, a way to keep Muslims looking like the extremist, intolerant ones, when, in reality, it is the Israeli oppressors who refuse to recognize Palestine. The State of Israel has existed for over 50 years. We’re still waiting on that State of Palestine. All they’ve offered us is a State of Confusion.

2. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

FALSE. Actually, he said that Israel will “fade from the pages of history.” The first mistranslation sounds as though he intends to do it himself, whereas the second more accurately describes a natural process as Israel continues its path of self destruction.

3. Iran announced that it has created a “cure for AIDS.”

Partially true. What they have actually developed is an herbal remedy, called IMOD, that serves the same (or similar) function as retroviral drugs without all of the harmful side effects. If it is in fact as groundbreaking as they claim, it will help millions of people around the world deal with AIDS. It does not, despite the distortions of western media, kill the virus.

4. Iran has violated the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and that is why they are facing U.N. sanctions.

FALSE. According to the terms of the NPT, all nations, including non-nuclear nations, have the right to seek nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Under the watchful eye of the IAEA, Iran has done this. There is no evidence that they are manufacturing nuclear weapons, only that they might have the capability to do so in the future. This is actually a matter of the world not trusting Iran. Why? Has Iran attack another nation? No. Has Iran threatened to attack another nation? No. Has Iran shown any aggression towards anyone over the past 25 years? No. But they are Muslims and an “Islamic Republic.” Therefore, they are guilty.

5. Iran is sponsoring terrorism all over the world.

FALSE. Mr. Bush is famous for repeating this one. He’s never mentioned anything specific because he has no proof. Iran does provide some support for Hizbullah, but it is a legitimate Lebanese political organization. They hold seats in the Parliament and participate in civil society in their country. The most they have done is attack Israel in defense of their country. If that is terrorism, then the Americans who fought in the Revolutionary War were also terrorists. By leaving his accusation open, Mr. Bush hopes that people will infer that Iran is sponsoring al-Qa’eda, just as he more-than-implied about Iraq prior to that unprovoked war.

The Bush administration has now presented their “evidence” that Iran is supplying weapons to Shi’a insurgents inside of Iraq. To be blunt, their evidence included some weapons laid carefully on a table. That is their proof. Iranian weapons were found inside of Iraq; therefore, the Iranian government is supplying those weapons to insurgents. It doesn’t take a Vulcan to realize: “Their conclusions are illogical.”

1. Iraq and Iran are allies and have a military agreement. The Iraqi government (also an ally of the U.S.) could be receiving weapons from Iran.

2. The Iraqi government itself is predominantly Shi’a.

3. The Mahdi Army, supposedly the leading Shi’a insurgent group, is led by Muqtada al-Sadr, who himself is part of the Iraqi government.

4. Even if Iranians crossed the border and sold weapons to Iraqis, that doesn’t mean that the Iranian government supported or even knows about it.

5. Arms dealers sell weapons to everyone. If you don’t believe, do the research…or better yet, go try to buy a gun from Israel. You won’t have to look very hard because they’re sold all over the world. The same is undoubtedly true of Iranian weapons. Arms dealers specialize in selling arms all over the world. That’s why they’re so successful. They pit one group of people against another and then sell weapons to both sides.

6. The biggest arms dealing country is the United States. Most of the weapons used by Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War and against Saddam’s own people were from the U.S.

7. The U.S. sold weapons to Iran during the same war.

8. The U.S. probably already has Iranian-made weapons. I bet you can even buy them on the streets of Detroit, Philadelphia, or any other major city.

9. There is more likelihood of an American arms dealer selling Iranian weapons to Iraqi insurgents than there is of the Iranian government doing so.

I didn’t buy the Bush administration’s claims about Iraq before the Iraq war. One of Iraq’s own nuclear scientists wrote a book proving that they had no weapons of mass destruction back in 1998 and that their entire nuclear program was in shambles. Still, many Americans believed Bush and his cronies, which is amazing seeing as how they’re horrible liars. This time, it will take much more than a few RPG’s with Iranian stamps on them to convince the American public…at least I hope so.

Yet the U.S. war against Iran is now imminent.

Over the past week, I’ve heard and read the western media repeatedly use this word in reference to Iran. I comes from Middle English fomenten: “to apply warm liquids to the skin.” At some point, people began using it to mean the first definition: “incite”, perhaps mistaking the word for “ferment.”

At any rate, according to the United States, Iran is “fomenting violence” in Iraq. So, are they applying warm liquid to it or inciting it? Well, therein lies the debate. Iran denies it, but it doesn’t matter anyway. The real fomentation is coming from Washington. They’ve been wanted to attack Iran for quite some time (when I say “they” I mean the Bush administration…others in Washington want to avoid confrontation with Iran).

Make no mistake about it. It was no accident that the U.S. occupied Afghanistan and Iraq (both Iranian neighbors). They needed bases on either side of Iran to contain them. They had no intention of ever leaving Iraq, and what better way to legitimize staying than to “foment violence.” So, perhaps the accusations are misled.

It is a horrible situation, and it will only get worse if Americans do not stand up and stop Bush from pursuing his sick version of Manifest Destiny. Thousands, perhaps even millions of innocent people will die, and for what? In 20 years, the oil will be gone. And Bush, if he’s not dead, he’ll probably be a very old useless man. Is it really worth it, even to him? Get a life! Stop trying to control other people’s.

This is the story

After a year of wrangling in the Iranian courts, her verdict was unanimously overturned by the superior court.

It is sad that it even came to that, though. The female victim of rape should always be given the benefit of the doubt, especially in Islamic shari’ah. Iran is a young republic, and it reminds me much of a young America from the time of reconstruction up until the death of Dr. King, when the sons and daughters of enslaved Africans had very few rights. The murder case of Emmit Till is just now being reviewed after all of these years.

The Iranian constitution guarantees the rights of women, so it can only be concluded that the problems in Iranian courts are because of “stupid Persian men” who have enclosed themselves inside a stale, mostly useless bureaucracy. It reminds me of the Vogons from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

People like Malcolm X lost their lives for their willingness to take civil issues to the international community. I imagine many people in Iran have done the same.

It is only unfortunate that America cannot see a little of herself in Iran, a fledgling republic still learning how to be a democracy. Instead, they are vilified and damned to an eventual overthrow and (long overdue) colonization. This while the rights of Americans seem to be on the decline of late.

If only someone would form a university for stupid men (especially stupid white men) and make it mandatory for them to graduate before they can become heads of state and government officials. Then we’d have world peace, and all of the world’s beauty pageant contestants could finally rejoice.

Without going into the morality of the execution (as under Islamic Law, he probably would have been executed), it is interesting that trial and execution were considered illegal by most of the international community.

That in itself should not be cause for alarm since the entire war and occupation has been illegal. What is more intriguing is the question, “Why?” Why wasn’t Saddam, a head of state, transferred to the Hague to stand for war crimes? Were they afraid justice would not be served? I doubt it. Why did the Iraqi courts only charge him with one atrocity (the killing of 168 Shias) and not anything else?

The answer is as sinister and deceptive as the premises for the war. The United States profited little in the court of public opinion by holding the trial in Iraq. They knew this from the beginning, but they also knew that, if all of Saddam’s crimes came to light in the International Criminal Court, his accomplices would also be fingered. His number-one accomplice, of course, is the good old U.S. of A.

We will never have the chance to hear testimonies from any of the countless Iranians who suffered and lost love-ones as a result of chemical weapons used in the Iran-Iraq war, weapons of mass destruction funded by the United States. We will never hear about any atrocities directed towards the enemies of the US because they aided and abetted Saddam in committing them. If today Saddam was guilty of war crimes, then so is Rumsfeld and Cheney, so was Reagan, and so are both father and son Bush.

Having said that, I wonder why people are shocked and surprised by the language of the Iranian president. He never denied the Holocaust as a whole but rather questioned the numbers. How many people actually died? How many of those were actually Jewish? The statistics that I’ve traditionally been taught indicated that as many as 12 million people died and only 6 million of them were Jewish. Who were the other people and why has the Holocaust become an exclusively Jewish tragedy?

These are real questions that real seekers of knowledge ask, not the the questions that “deniers” or “revisionists” ask. What Mr. Ahmadinejad has called “mythology” is the religious imposition that the Zionists have placed on the world. You must “believe” in the holocaust, not just accept that it happened. Questioning any aspect of the Holocaust is blasphemy (regardless of whether or not you are Jewish), and any blasphemy against Judaism is anti-semetism.

So, if the Holocaust is a religious belief of the Jews, then mocking it or offending it is akin to mocking or offending a religious belief of another religion. Some have wrongly assumed, however, that this situation is similar to the cartoons erroneously depicting Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace). The difference is that the cartoons were intended to offend and were designed to ridicule him with obviously false depictions. A conference on the Holocaust (whether politically motivated or not) simply questions the accuracy of certain facts. This is done at conferences all the time.

If the question were of enslaved Africans in the Americas, we would hear no outcry. If the question were of enslaved Africans in the Americas, we would hear no outcry. (I said it twice so you couldn’t skip over it). Many white academics have questioned the oft-repeated statistics of slavery: the number of slaves kidnapped and brought to the “new world”, the number of captives on slave ships who died on the journey, the number of people killed in resistance to slave masters, and so on.

The numbers listed by many scholars reaches in the tens of millions, while some scholars cite much smaller numbers. Are the latter “revisionists” or slavery “deniers”? Very few, if any, would call them that.

The question one must ultimately ask is, what do the Zionists have to hide? Why can no serious academic inquiry be done? I doubt that they have lied about the number of deaths; that is not the issue at all.

But the “mythology”, as Ahmadinejad calls it, that has allowed them to gain not only the world’s sympathy, but also an unflinching belief that the Jews have an undeniable right to Palestine and that they can seize that land in whatever matter they please, even if it means committing some of the same atrocities that were once committed against them by the Nazis, that they can setup Palestinian concentration camps, exile hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, shoot and bomb men, women, and children, and setup an Apartheid-like regime that denies Palestinians even the most basic rights of life, dignity, and property.

Then, as if that were not enough, they prop up this vicious, militarist, terrorist state and justify it under the banner of “retribution” for the crimes committed against them by the Nazis? And who among the Palestinians were Nazis? Why not turn their guns, their bombs, and their bulldozers on Berlin? Occupy Germany and exile millions of Germans? It is the pinnacle of euro-centric racism that no Arab or African life is as sacred as that of a white person, and Israel is a symbol of that racism. Even the Arabs who have accepted Israel live as second-class citizens. And the lost tribes from Ethiopia and even India have experience similar maltreatment (and they are Jewish).

Why can such a small and miserably unpleasant state such as Israel hold sway over the entire civilized world? No wonder there are conspiracy theories! All Iran has to do is build a nuclear reactor and the conspiracy theories run wild in western media. Israel has admitted to having nuclear weapons, and yet the world remains silent. Even a child can see when something is not fair, yet we have grown folks who will deny injustice and turn a blind eye to those crying out for help.

Most of the people Ahmadinejad invited to that conference might be crazy, but they’re not stupid. Truth stands clear from falsehood. When people are honest and kind, they have nothing to fear, yet Israel is terrified of Iran and terrified of any Muslims who speak out against them. God will judge between all of us, and He is surely the best to judge.

And thereafter, you should avoid shopping at Wal-Mart.

That is all.

For many western liberals, the very idea of an Islamist or Muslim political party seems dangerous. An Islamic government must necessarily become the Taliban in their eyes. Women must be oppressed, hands must be chopped off, and all other countries must shiver in horror as terrorists camps train thousands of new recruits from all over the world. But is this the reality? Do organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood even have the wherewithal to start a jihad in their own backyard (Egypt) let alone a global jihadist movement?

U.S. President George W. Bush has made it his business to see that “democracy” spreads throughout the Arab and Muslim world, and indeed it has. But the results are not to his liking, which is evident in each new wrinkle that appears on his face, every time a new election swings in favor of “Islamists”. These people cringe when they hear more and more of the Muslims around the world, given the “free choice” to elect their representatives, choosing instead to elect new “oppressors.”

Allow me to offer an alternative explanation. Perhaps Islam and politics are meant to be together. Unlike Christianity, which had an unnatural marriage with politics, Islam has influenced politics since the first community in Madinah, over 1,000 years ago. After colonialism was toppled in the Middle East, many Muslims, Arabs especially, turned to nationalism, socialism, and many other “isms” that promised to cure their ills. They wanted equality, rights, modernization, and, most importantly, peace. What they received were modern secular dictators who crushed all resistance and, most devastatingly of all, suppressed the practice and spread of Islam.

The people have grown weary of old hardened and heartless dictators. At least under an Islamic government, a petitioner can resort to the Qur’an. “Such-and-such an act violates Islam,” they could say. “It must be stopped. The people will not stand for it.” But their secular rulers mocked them, “Islam means nothing to us.”

No, there will never be a perfect Islamic government, but at least it will be Islamic. Why should Muslims pretend to be indifferent towards morality, ethics, and social justice? The moral relativism of secularization has proved itself to be faulty. There is no higher law for the secular man. Whatever whim he establishes for himself becomes the rule of law for his unfortunate subjects. The few of us who enjoy safety and security under secularism bask in our own material ecstasy, while those who are under our oppressive government’s feet know the real story. They have chosen a different path, not one that leads to terrorism, but one that leads to true freedom, the freedom to believe, to turn that belief into action, and to submit to a higher power, the only power worthy of worship.

So, I thank you, Mr. Bush, and all other secularists who have promoted democracy in the Muslim world. You have wakened a sleeping giant from its lull. The Islamic empire was already on the decline when the British Empire dismantled it. The Muslims were in need of revival, and it seemed doubtful that it would ever arrive. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution in Iran started the trend towards revival, but it was ruthlessly opposed, not only by secularists, but by well-fed wahhabi collaborators.

When the dust settled, the Islamic Republic still stood, and the Muslim world was in awe. But it was not quite “arab” enough. This new democratic political-islamic movement is, and it has changed the atmosphere of the Middle East forever, good or bad. The reality is that the very thing the so-called “war on terror” intended to suppress is the realization of Islam that now echoes throughout the streets of the Muslim world.

No, it was not a war against Islam itself, but a war against the marriage of Islam and politics. “Practice your religion,” they would say, “but not in public. Look at Turkey. They are so modern and efficient.” (Yet, their people are miserable and restless — take a look at the protests over the Pope’s visit). Do not let the media mislead you. It was the mental oppression of secularism and amoral monarchies that bred terrorism. Saudi Arabia was “wahhabi” for many years without a 9/11. It was only when the economic situation declined and the people realized their own pathetic situation that they turned to terrorism.

But none of those terrorists were from Iran. And for the past 27 years, no one from the “theocracy” has attacked the United States. Why? If Islam+politics = terrorism, why have we seen the exact opposite in the Muslim world? The more political that Hezbollah has become, the less prone to violence. The same is true of Hamas and other similar groups. It would seem that the message to America is clear: force secular western-style democracy on the Muslim world, and you will create resistance (in the form of legitimate fighting as well as illegitimate terrorism). Leave them alone, let them establish Islam, and they will leave us alone. Perhaps it is about time we in the western world listen.

The 14th century arab historian and founder of sociology, Abdul Rahman ibn Khaldun, postulated that civilizations inevitably collapse from within as a result of corruption, moral decadence, and a disintegration of the institutions of accountability. Four centuries later, Thomas Jefferson offered a similar warning against the abuse of unlimited powers by elected despots and foretold that there would come a time “when corruption in this…[land]…will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.”

As the U.S. prepares for their inevitable war against Iran, one must wonder how they can attack a nation for its internal corruption while simultaneously suffering from corruption both internally and internationally. Corrupted Iranian officials only affect their own people, U.S. officials are destroying the entire world, piece by piece.

After being imprisoned in Israel and tortured into giving a false confession, he is now standing trial for crimes based on the coerced confession, a clear violation of the U.S. constitution.

I taught his children a few years ago and know him and his family to be generous, kind, upstanding citizens. This is clearly a witch-hunt, and it is certainly no coincidence that the trial is starting so close to the congressional elections, when the republicans are in dire need of some “good news” about the “war on terror.”

Rafsanjani seems to be sending a message to current President Ahmadinejad that, were Imam Khomeini alive today, he would cease uranium enrichment and try to find some compromise with the world community.

Although I agree with Dr. Afrasiabi in principle, I think he is really begging the question.

After all, it was not Saddam Hussein’s unwillingness to rid his country of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that precipitated his own political demise, but rather false information. That is important to note. After all, Iran having a peaceful nuclear program would not be enough for the US to invade (which is their actual goal, whether or not Dr. Afrasiabi admits it).

If they do build a strong enough case against Iran to invade, it will most likely be established on hearsay and out-right lies. Instead of Colin Powell delivering a 70-page packet of conjecture to the UN, it will be Condi, but the outcome will be the same. Even if Iran ceases uranium enrichment, the US will claim that they are still doing it secretly and are even closer to making a bomb than we previously thought. The rest will be media hype, but it will be enough to sway the gullible goofs in Congress to give Bush full authority to attack, and the American people will watch in horror as America enters a third war, even while in the process of losing the other two.

So the real question is, which pill will Iran swallow? The dignity pill or the humiliation pill? Either way there will be war. At least with the first pill, they can fight it with some remaining sense of self-respect.

In reality it is not the imperfections (i.e. human rights issues) that are of any concern to the U.S. There have and will continue to be only two issues: oil and Israel (and not necessarily in that order).

Here is an excellent response to Bush’s speech from a human rights activist in Egypt

One more thing, keep in mind that it took 144 years in America before women were even allowed to vote, and then (1920) it only applied to white women. It would be nearly 50 more years before black men and women could vote.

We are only 140 years removed from slavery and only 230 years removed from America’s own bloody revolution (much bloodier than Iran’s).

The Iranian constitution, however, guaranteed women the right to vote from the beginning. In Iran, they’ve had a female vice president. In the last election in Iran, at least 8 candidates were serious contenders for the presidency. This while America has a two party system.

As an American, I can say proudly that this is my home and I’m willing to fight and iron out any of its problems, but the Iranian people should be given the same opportunity in their own country. It is their right to choose their own destiny, not have it thrust upon them.

A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting “aggressive” wars–Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Full Story

And then reality sets in:

1. Israel is the real biggest terrorist organization on the planet.
2. They planned this attack on Lebanon, months [edit, new information] years in advance.
3. Their lobby is controlling US policy to the extent where civilians, even American civilians, can die in Lebanon, and the US will do nothing. Both Republicans and Democrats are united in their support for Israel.
4. The rest of the world is filled with cowards (from the European Union to most Arab countries) who are afraid to try to stop Israel.
5. Israel targets civilians and always has. They’ve done it in Palestine and Lebanon. They are guilty of the worst war crimes of the century (outside of the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq).
6. Israel will ultimately fail. Allah has promised this. “The believers will be victorious.” That is not a threat. That is a promise.

“President Bush has committed US forces to aid Israel in any conflict, even if Israel initiates hostilities…

“In his work, “The Art of War”, Sun Tzu observed that all wars are based on deception.”

Full Article

“In a major defeat for President George W. Bush with potentially far-reaching implications for his conduct of the “war on terror,” the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday ruled that military tribunals established by the Pentagon to try suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, violated the U.S. Constitution.”

Full Story

This group did not actually do anything, mind you. They did not sit on top of poorly-armored assault vehicles and fire indiscriminately into crowds of Iraqi civilians. No, they left that job to the hundred thousand or so U.S. service men and women (if you can even call the kids men or women), who only joined the armed forces to get money for college, not to fight some crazy man’s war.

What the PNAC did was send letters. They sent a lot of letters, each one “requesting” that the U.S. government would shape the world according to their vision. They described themselves as a “think tank,” although they could easily be called “Big Brother.” So, they sent letters to Clinton, and he apparently ignored him. That meant that “regime change” was even necessary inside of the U.S. Gore would be Clinton times 3, so they had to ensue that someone who would do their bidding got elected. Enter: Bush.

Now the question is, who is on this committee that could be so influential as to dictate their schemes to the “leader of the free world”? Several people who would later become members of the Bush administration, including: Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilizad make up a list of about 27 influential members of Bush’s first term administration. The list also includes several neo-conservatives, right-wing groups, and Zionist organizations outside of the Bush administration.

But now, the organization has melted into non-existence, or at least dormancy. Lobe explains:

“That period — Sep. 20, 2001, to the run-up to the Iraq war in early 2003 — marked the high-water mark of PNAC’s existence. Since then, things have generally gone downhill, as the hawks they represented, including the group’s dominant neo-conservatives, have fallen prey to internal disagreements: over Rumsfeld’s stewardship of Iraq and the Pentagon; over the wisdom of democratic “transformation” in the Arab Middle East; over Sharon’s Gaza disengagement plan; over China; and even over the latest administration moves on Iran. “

Unfortunately, most of the damage is already done. Bush is still in office until 2008. Iran could become a fizzling nuclear wasteland by then. Israel might have reached its dream of extending from the “Nile to the Euphrates” by 2008. Iraq might no longer exist by 2008. But even his own supporters would not let Bush go that far. Would they?

“If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

Read the Full Story by Robert Fisk

Listen to the segment at Democracy Now!

Read the transcript

It is safe to say that at least one lobby in the U.S. has an interest in seeing the United States dominate every oil country in the Middle East. They are currently building a massive embassy in Iraq, larger than Vatican City, on a 102-acre site. It is a fortress, the type of thing you’d expect from an occupying empire, not from a nation supposedly promoting “democracy” and “freedom.” Take that, you Moslems. Try taking 8,000 embassy workers hostage.

The future, as the “experts” see it, looks pretty bleak.

The U.N. Security Council will not make a resolution allowing for sanctions and/or military action because China and Russia won’t allow it.

The United States will once again denounce the U.N. for being benign (read, reasonable). They will manufacture some “intelligence” suggesting that Iran is not only producing nuclear weapons, but also has chemical and biological weapons. They are also, as has been already propagated by the conveniently loyal U.S. media, the world’s largest state sponsor of “terror.” (does that mean Iranians make horror movies?). The threat will be “imminent” and military action will be necessary. The EU will not support it, but, of course, they will do nothing to stop it. Tony Blair will do everything Bush tells him, even if it costs him his job, and Israel will aim all of its missiles at Tehran.

The U.S. will start a bombing campaign, supposedly targeting nuclear facilities. But most of these facilities are miles under the ground, so they will be forced to use “low-yield” nuclear weapons to “extract” them. The results will be cataclysmic. Thousands of innocent Iranians will die, and Iran will retaliate swiftly. The U.S. will be cut off from all oil in the Persian Gulf region, including oil from Kuwait. Hizbullah will mobilize against Israel. The U.S. occupation in Iraq will be reduced to nothingness, as the majority of Shi’a parties turn against them, perhaps even joining with the Sunni insurgents. Oil prices will skyrocket to over $200 a barrel. America will enter a new “Great Depression” not because there’s no work but because no one can afford to drive to work.

At this point, instead of apologizing to Iran, packing up the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush regime will become even more angry with Iran (like a parent with a disobedient child), and they’ll make some statement like, “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you” (and in this case the U.S. means it). They’ll try to drum up support for the “resistance movements” (read terrorists) in Iran, but the “rebellious Iranian youth” will support their government, even though they dislike it, over some foreign power or a few insurgent arabs. Iran will crush the rebellion, and the U.S. will be “forced” to invade Iran and “liberate” the Iranian people from their “oppressive” government.

They will, of course, fail, and who knows what reaction Russia will give to all of this. Russia, after all, is completing a multi-million dollar deal with Iran to sell them surface-to-air missiles. And the nuclear materials used in Iran were built by Russia. An attack on Iran is, in essence, an attack on Russia, a country with many more nuclear weapons than any other. China, another nuclear state, also has financial interests in Iran. They can severely punish the U.S. for any intervention. No, China will not mobilize their army. They do not need to; all they have to do is make a few phone calls and watch as the American economy, indebted to the Chinese, crumbles.

That is all the worst-case scenarios I can think of right now. Here’s what could happen instead:

1. The U.S. opens diplomatic talks with Iran, diffusing hostility and paving the way for cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy.

2. The EU threatens the U.S. with sanctions, should they attempt to invade Iran.

3. The U.N. grows a backbone, and instead of sanctioning Iran, they trust Iran and offer them concessions to continue peaceful nuclear activities.

4. The U.S. opens talks with China and Russia about sharing the Middle East oil wealth instead of competing for it.

Unfortunately, I do not think any of the four will occur, mainly because the current U.S. administration is far beyond “practical” or even “economic” reasons for their desire to invade Iran. Their true motives are mainly ideological.

The people moving the Bush Administration belong to an organization called the Project for the New American Century. You’re probably thinking, “OK, here comes the conspiracy theory.” But it is not. The organization is not secret, and their motives have been made crystal clear.

They make “proposals” to the government about courses of action in foreign policy, with the overarching goal of “shaping” the world according to U.S. interests, using military and diplomatic measures. Expanding U.S. defense spending and promoting “freedom and democracy” around the world are all part of their agenda.

Nevertheless, the American people still have power to make change. If they do not support the objectives of their government, they must make it known. Politicians are ultimately at the mercy of public opinion, but they’ve simply found a way to shape that opinion to fit their needs. Breaking those chains of media-dependency can only be achieved through education and truth-seeking.

If the American people do nothing, God help us.

I wish it was not just about oil, but all of the facts suggest otherwise. Iran is about to stop trading its oil in dollars (the long-time default oil currency) and begin using euros. With that, one of the world’s largest oil-producing countries will be sending a clear message to the U.S. that its financial empire has begun to crumble.

Says William Clark:

“Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency”

Evidence suggests that the U.S. will attack Iran with air strikes, and they are planning to use untested “low-yield” nuclear weapons against them. The results are unpredictable, and casualties could range from hundreds to millions. When Bush first came to power, those of us who predicted he would attack Iraq were scoffed. Now, we can only hope that the world will heed our warning before the U.S. draws itself into a conflict, not only with Iran, but possibly with Iranian allies (Russia and China). All of this for the sake of the not-so-almighty dollar.

“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous…Having said that, all options are on the table.”

– President George W. Bush, February 2005

You’ll never believe what I saw written on the bottom:

Made In China

“The following interview of Professor Tony Van Der Meer was conducted by Bryan G. Pfeifer over the course of December 2005 and January 2006.

“In April 2003 Mr. Tony Van Der Meer, a Black adjunct professor of Africana studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston was assaulted and arrested by campus police after challenging an Army National Guard recruiter who threatened a student distributing leaflets for an anti-war commemoration honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. Van Der Meer objected to the recruiter’s remark that the student should be shot like Dr. King.

Read the Interview at The Boston IMC

1. The Iranian government has developed a history of suppressing demonstrations and protests, even those sanctioned by the government (this can only be characterized as either paranoia or serious control issues.

2. The reaction from the non-Muslim world is predictable (blaming the entire Iranian government, the Islamic revolution, and “Islamist” movements in general).

3. The reaction from Sunni Muslims around the world is very short-sighted. They immediately associate an Iranian backlash against sufis as a Shi’a backlash against Sufism.

Again, I can only go by what I know and what I’ve heard from the many people I’ve known who live in Iran and were even in Iran during the Islamic Revolution.

1. Like most new governments, the Iranian government certainly has paranoia and control issues and over exerts the “required patriotism” that is commonplace in all nation states. That’s not an excuse for their actions. It must change, reforms must happen, and protests must continue. That, however, is no reason to trash the regime. If it was, then the American government and it’s disgusting racist white slave masters should have been the first to be “trashed” by Native Americans and African Americans. But we have persevered with kindness and hope for the future, because we know that the average patriotic white American is not representative of the government. Similarly, many of the Iranians, even those who started and perpetuated the Islamic Revolution, have the sincerest intentions and goals. And the constitution of Iran is one of the most Islamic and just in the world. It is up to the people to make sure that their government lives up to it, as it has been in America and elsewhere.

2. There’s really not much to say about this. Obviously, “Islamists” can be good or bad. It is not the goal of spreading Islam and living by Islam that is the problem. It is those who seek to sabotage for their own material gains.

3. To answer my Sunni brethren honestly, sufism is not alien to the Shi’a school of thought. In fact, it was only through our Imams that it even survived. And the proof of that is that 90-something percent of sufi tariqas trace their chains through Imam Ali (peace be upon him). Also, many of the ahadith that sufis hold dear are scrutinized by some sunnis (and all salafis), but our Imams have upheld them and verified their authenticity.

If it were not for the Imams of Ahlul-bayt, Sufism would have ceased to exist. Nevertheless, the Imams always strove to preserve the Shari’ah and ensure that people would not deviate from the path under the guise of Sufism. Even the most intoxicating experience (I mean this in terms of religious intoxication) is no excuse to do or claim anything contrary to the Shari’ah, and I’m sure most Sunnis will agree with that.

Finally, these are the kinds of issues about which Muslims should pressure the Iranian authorities, to live up to the high standards and aims of the Islamic Revolution. The politics of Iran’s nuclear program should not be our concern. Our concern should be with upholding justice and Islamic ethics. I do not believe that Iran owes the western world’s governments any kind of explanation, but as Muslims whose fellow Muslims (the sufis in question) have a right over us, we have a right to know what is going on and an obligation to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong.

“Asia Times Online will not be republishing the now notorious Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, unlike the various European publications that have chosen to do so as a demonstration of freedom of expression.

“We agree with Ehsan Ahrari’s statement in today’s article that freedom of expression does not mean open season on Islam or any other religion. We believe that matters of religious belief are personal, and should stay that way…”

“…At the same time of course, the protesters’ flag-burnings and threats against the various publishers of the cartoons do nothing but harden anti-Muslim attitudes in the West. And this is what it’s all about. Poke each other often enough with a stick – or a cartoon, or a fuel-laden airliner – and tolerance wears thin. Forget the “winning hearts and minds” drivel, or at least collapse in hysterical laughter over it. Civilizational war is what the protagonists want, and that’s what they’re getting.”

Full Story

Indymedia reports: “Public uproar and the resulting joint action by Members of Congress were spurred by the refusal of the US to turn over custody over four US Marines accused of raping a 21-year old Filipina at the former Subic Naval Base in Nov. 2005. Rape is a heinous, non-bailable offense under Philippine law.”

Here is the entire plan.

Some of you might argue, “How do you know?” Well, the writing is on the wall that they plan to attack Iran, just as any intelligent person knew that, before 9/11, the US already had plans to attack Iraq. As far back as the Clinton administration, plans to attack Afghanistan were already in place.

It’s a simple formula. Make unreasonable terms, such as, “Hand over Bin Laden, with no legal procedures,” “destroy all of your WMDs, even the ones that don’t exist,” or the latest, “You CANNOT have ANY nuclear technology, even for peaceful means, and even if the Nonproliferation treaty allows it.” Then, wait for the opposing country to refuse to give in, and then attack.

If the world doesn’t come to an end, it will at least be the end of the world as we know it. Get ready.

I, of course, agree that there is “design and purpose” to everything in this universe. However, I do not think that they should teach this in public schools. The US has taken a stance on religion v. state and has decided that religion cannot be established or hindered by the state. If they are going to initiate such a policy, they must stick to it. They cannot implement religion simply when it suits their fancy, while other instances of religious expression are vehemently suppressed. You cannot eat your cake and have it too (and yes, I know the expression is “have your cake and eat it too” but anyone can have their cake and eat it. What they really want is to eat their cake and still have some left over to eat again).

I also disagree with the dissenters. Their main objection to “Intelligent Design” is that, “It is not science.” Unfortunately, this is short sighted. Yes, according to the standards of western scientists, Intelligent Design cannot be considered science because it is not based on experimentation. In classical Islamic thought, however, even the study of calligraphy can be considered a science. All sciences (‘ulum), whether religious, philosophical, technological, etc., have their own principles by which they are bound. Intelligent design does not belong in the pure sciences, but rather belongs in the phenomenological sciences.

The issue with American public schools is that they do not teach many of the sciences that would include Intelligent Design, such as metaphysics and ethics.

There is no doubt that the current education system in America is severely flawed, but one cannot change it piece by piece. To correct it properly, the entire foundation on which it is based (the US constitution) must be reinterpreted. I have not seen that happen as of yet, but with a virtually “brand new” Supreme Court,” perhaps we will, inshaAllah.

He said, “These extremists distort the idea of jihad.” That is true, and they do. But one must also ask, what is Mr. Bush’s definition of jihad? Yes, killing innocent people is not jihad, but what about a war, for example, against the Israeli army? Is this also not Mr. Bush’s jihad? Is jihad only valid when it supports American interests? Or can a resistance movement, such as the one in the Philippines be considered a “valid jihad” by his standards? I suspect not.

Still, the most damaging truth that Mr. Bush reveals about his “ideology of hatred” is that he is on a crusade and that the “crusades of old” were valid and justified.

“Over the years, these extremists have used a litany of excuses for violence: Israeli presence on the West Bank or the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia or the defeat of the Taliban or the crusades of a thousand years ago.”

Let’s analyze what he’s saying here. Keep in mind that he has justified all of these things:

1. Israeli presence on the West Bank (legitimate)
2. U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (legitimate)
3. Defeat of the Taliban (legitimate)
4. Crusades of a thousand years ago?

Why does he mention this? Were those crusades against Muslims, in which thousands of innocent Muslims were slaughtered, justified? Well, I guess in the defeat of the Taliban, thousands of innocent Muslims were killed (by indiscriminate bombing) as well. So, I suppose it’s no great stretch to include the crusades.

Bush is on a crusade, and like the “crusades of a thousand years ago” his goal is to not only defeat terrorists but to apply his own personal agenda to Muslims, to mold them with his own vision of Islam that is pacifistic, loyal to every American cause (regardless of how absurd it is), and that will accept secularism, materialism, sex, drugs, violence, and every other ill that comes along with “democratic” societies.

Unfortunately for him, just like the crusades of old, they will fail.

The Indepedent is carrying a story noting, “The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, warned in a hard-hitting speech that snubbing Ankara’s hopes would give ammunition to Islamic extremists, while welcoming it into the EU would help avert a “clash of civilisations” between the Muslim world and the West. ”

Yes, Mr. Straw. I confess. Turkey is the highest country on the Islamic agenda, and Muslims want nothing more than Turkey in the European Union. Hello! Am I here right now? Come on, where’s the hidden camera?

Turkey = one of the most secular countries in the world.
European Union = kind of like the secular gentlemen’s club, complete with imported cigars and unlimited putting on the green. No, sorry, not interested.

It is amazing how much these people tend to beg the question. What is the question, you ask? Iraq. Where are most of the extremists right now? Iraq. What is the EU worried about? Turkey?

If the EU had any backbone, which it doesn’t, holding Britain accountable for the war in Iraq would be the top priority and the one thing that could “avert a “clash of civilisations” between the Muslim world and the West.”

Of course, I would be foolish to think that this diversion is some type of blunder. It is merely another dog being wagged.

“But during the past year, Shiites have applied mounting pressure to replace the civil code with Shariah, under which questions of education, work and marriage are decided by male guardians, said Coughlin.”

This makes one wonder if they actually did any study of Islamic Jurisprudence (a word they do not even use) according to Shi’i rulings, or if they just assumed from looking at governments such as the Taliban and the laughable attempt at implementing shari’ah in Nigeria.

According to “Islamic law” (their translation, not mine):

1. Women are guaranteed education, and shi’a scholars have ruled that a woman can go anywhere in the world in order to get her education (especially Islamic education — which is probably what really upsets our “experts” at the Boston Herald…”how dare they be educated in Islam instead of our secular curricula!”). In fact, education is obligatory upon every man and woman.

2. Women in Islam are allowed to work. Furthermore, working Muslim women are more free than working western women. A Muslim woman’s money is not obliged towards the bills and maintenance of the family. That is the man’s job. The woman’s money is her own. I do not hear anyone crying in defense of Muslim men. This proves that the western media only cries out for gender equality when it is convenient.

3. Muslim women cannot be married to anyone without their approval. This is something that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) fought diligently to implement. During Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic arabia), girls were “sold” off into marriage without their consent. Islam ended that, so I again wonder if these people bothered to do any type of research.

Regarding the women who are part of the Iraqi government, the article notes:

“The majority of women in the Assembly are just silent,” he said. “They really haven’t spoken up.”

Did they ever consider perhaps the women are in agreement with the proceedings?

What about another article that shows women are actually demanding the constitution be governed by shari’ah? It is again strangely convenient how the Boston Herald makes no mention of this large rally by Muslim women, which shows their independence and self-motivation. Why is it not mentioned? Because they are motivated by Allah and not by secularism?

It is quite sad that American mass media is constantly looking for cheap shots at Islam. Their goal is obviously to confuse the general public into disliking Islam. Their fear, however, cannot be avoided. The fear is that Americans will start embracing Islam, but that is already occurring, faster than anyone could have imagined. Despite what you have been told, this is a war against Islam, but Islam is winning, not with bombs, but with the hearts and minds of new Muslims.

“Mr. Ahmadinejad will do his best to prevent the state from interfering in people’s private space,” Kalhor told the MITV channel in a telephone interview late on Monday.

“We demand the police do not pick on what boys and girls wear and how they interact,” he said, adding the president-elect wants everyone to be happy.

“We intend to stop censorship and pressures. Everyone is free to have satellite (television),” he said, insisting all his views were shared by Ahmadinejad as well.

Read the full story

There is no doubt that the absolute ruler will corrupt absolutely, but in a “democratic” capitalist society, the people suffer a far worse fate: corruption in disguise. When everything appears to be fine, who do you blame for the corruption? With no one to point the finger to, the people at large are left to suffer the consequences of their own political whims in what amounts to little more than a popularity contest for an exceedingly exuberant amount of money.

Don’t even get me started on the moral decay of society that results from such exploits. Yes, democracy matters, but not all that much.