Monthly Archives: August 2010

The Ground Zero Mosque Organization: a Twitter Interview

Today on twitter I asked the Ground Zero Mosque Organization, @Park51,  a simple question. I did not recieve a simple answer.

StopObama2012: Do you condemn Hamas as a Terrorist Organization? Tweet

Park51: We don’t engage foreign politics. We’re working to build moderate Muslim communities BTW how’s stopping Obama going? ^_^ Tweet

As you can see thats a blantant attempt to tap dance away from the issue. Sorry, I don’t play softball on terrorism.

StopObama2012: I call yr answer a No, U wnt condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. Therefor U have no business calling yourselves Moderate Tweet

StopObama2012: Stopping Obama is going just fine, thank you Tweet

I can be civil :) But my statement is true, if you won’t condemn terrorism or those that embrace it, you are not a moderate Muslim. But then denial gets worse.

Park51: Stop trying to drag us into int’l political debates. Happy to discuss American Muslim issues. Tweet

So asking if you will condemn terrorism and terrorist organizations is dragging people into political debates? Really? And is not Terrorism an American Muslim issue. Are there not American victims of terrorism in all faiths and creeds?

StopObama2012: I asked you a simple question, you refuse to answer. Your showing your true colors, your not moderate at all. Tweet

StopObama2012: As the Imam is currently touring the Middle East on the taxpayer dime, asking you about the MidEast & Hamas is relevant Tweet

Did I lie? Either you condemn terrorism,  you don’t care, or support it. A “Moderate Muslim” would condemn it. And the Imam is indeed on a taxpayer funded tour courtesy of the State Department.

Roughly 2 hours later I recieved a reply

Park51: The State Dept thinks Imam Feisal is ok to speak on US issues. He’s an ambassador, it’s not his place to play politics. Tweet

I found this laughable and quickly took it apart.

StopObama2012: Does not an Ambassador play politics? Tweet

StopObama2012: And yet he has made political statements, like blaming the USA for 9/11 Tweet

Here’s the story.

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened”

That’s well beyond criticism to me, and factually inaccurate.

The Response

Park51: Well Kissinger did. But I don’t think that’s the role of inter-country outreach. Tweet

StopObama2012: Oh and refusing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, just like you Tweet

Because that also, is a political statement, or non-statement if you will.

StopObama2012: An Ambassador is a political position, your dancing in circles

Park51: I don’t think he blamed the USA, but he may have questioned historical policy decisions tweet

You saw the above video, you tell me. Ahh and then they get testy.

Park51: What is your point? We pick a moderate and he has to pass your grain of sand test? How fair is that? Who would you nominate? tweet

Lets see, he wants to see America more Sharia compliant, won’t condemn terrorist organizations, and hold’s American policies responsible for 9/11. Doesn’t sound very moderate to me.

StopObama2012: Ahh spin. The point is that neither he, nor you are moderate, or you would have sought a different location in the first place tweet

StopObama2012: And you would also condemn all terrorist organizations and acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam tweet

Ohh your really going to love the answer

Park51: So in your mind, it our place to issue blanket condemnations of any group you deem unworthy? #thatsfair Tweet

I was under the impression that not just I, but the State Department as well, had condemned them as a Terrorist Organization

Why yes, here they are in a State Department Report:

From December 27, 2008, through January 17, 2009, the IDF conducted a major military operation in Gaza.  Israel and Hamas, a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization that violently seized power in Gaza in June 2007, declared separate truces to end the fighting.  Occasional small clashes continue to occur along the border.

How about that. Guess I just didn’t pick and choose, huh.

StopObama2012: Are terrorist Organizations worthy?? Hamas, Hezboallah? Are they worthy? Al-Shabab? Need more? tweet

StopObama2012: See, here’s your trap, you say you are a moderate in the religion of peace, yes? Yet you refuse to condemn those that act with violence in it’s name Tweet

There has yet to be a response. If I recieve one I will update this post. Suffice to say The organization behind the Ground Zero Mosque is not “Moderate.”

While not openly “Radical” They clearly will not take a stand against, or condemn radical behavoir. It really is a simple question. If you ask me if I condemn the KKK I would reply, “Hell Yea”, “Of course”, and “Everyday and twice on Sunday.” Yet they refuse to condemn known terrorist organizations.

There are many questions left unanswered by this organization, such as how can a man, that was a waiter in 2002, get 4.8 million dollars cash to pay for it in 2006?

Video Link

More on the background of the Imam from PJTV:

And from Hannity

I call for an investigation into this Mosque’s Imam and the organization, most importantly, follow the money. Something is being hidden and need’s to be brought to light.

Why Own Guns?

Gun RightsOver the past few months, I have been running into more articles where gun rights opponents are using questionable tactics to argue against gun ownership.  At first, I took the approach of discussing their points specifically and have come to realize that I was making the same mistake they were – discussing the right to bear arms as the basic principle instead of understanding the fundamental reasoning.

To get to that singular truth, I considered the empirical facts:

  1. I have owned guns since age 11
  2. I have used them to hunt (for food, not trophies)
  3. I have purchased them for home defense (and hope to never use them that way)
  4. My father, all my uncles, and both grand fathers have owned guns and hunted

Just looking at this evidence one might draw the conclusion that my parents forced them on me, that I just like to shoot animals or that I tend to live in dangerous areas where I would need added protection.  None of those are true, but looking at only the particulars would never yield truth – is it a greater generalization that drives my desire to own these weapons.


Examining the above facts, all but one supports the idea that gun ownership is a tradition within my family.  That much is an established fact.  It is also the reason my son will be handed down my first .22 when I feel he is old enough to responsibly handle it.Earps Guns

The tradition isn’t just my family’s, it’s an American legacy.  Gun ownership has been an identifying characteristic in our culture whether we examine the militias of the 18th century, the western expansion ormanyothercritical periods in our history.

In the militia act of 1792, it was actually made mandatory

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder;

Certainly gun ownership is not mandatory today, but examining our history provides context and substance to the idea that perhaps the desire to keep and bear arms may be have roots in our history and traditions.


Shotgun SportsI own guns for shooting clays and target shooting.  It would be intellectually dishonest to say that enjoyment was not one reason that I own guns.  These activities do serve to sharpen my skills with different firearms and I do work to be the best marksman I can while learning every facet of the operation of these weapons.  Interestingly enough, one interpretation of the first part of the second amendment, “well-regulated militia” asserts that well-regulated was intended to mean well-trained.  I am no constitutional lawyer, but certainly in the context of the period, I can see why the framers would seek to have a marksman citizenry.


No one told me I needed to own a gun, I wanted to.  My son expressed the desire to learn about firearms from the first time he realized I had them.  Why?  I didn’t tell him I expected him to own a gun or that I would like him to have one.  Why might he have the same desire as me, when others have the exact opposite feeling.  My wife certainly expresses no desire to own one and she has had the same experience as he – her father owned guns when she was young.

Did those with anti-gun feelings gain that characteristic through life experience or is there a central portion of their personality that drives them away from firearms?  A small portion may fear guns based on some negative event in their past, but relying only on this precept means that my son only desired guns because of a positive event in his.

I believe character plays a part. It is both inherited and reinforced through life experiences.  I would gladly jump to the defense of those in need or that of my Country.

Military service was a given for me.  At some point in my teenage years I knew I was going to join out of a sense of duty.  Are those of the anti-gun sentiment also less-likely to volunteer for military service?

I am the kind of person that will get involved if something untoward is happening within my area of influence.  Might anti-gun activists be the opposite?  Could they be those that would choose to just not get involved in violent situations where another is in need?  I cannot guess so I’ll leave it as a question.

Constitutional Responsibility

Turning to the modern debate over the right to bear arms, several arguments are made and debated.  One that was particularly alarming to me is expressed in the post, “Guns Don’t Kill People, They Kill Amendments?” a progressive made the assertion that the reason Conservatives want guns is to make sure that the first amendment rights of liberals were limited.  As the post explains, he destroys his own argument.

David is attempting to show that one right should not quash another and I agree with that premise.  He destroys that strong argument by instead talking about how his right should quash that of gun owners.

A right may not be taken away, it must be given-up freely.  If he decides to stay quiet out of fear the Conservatives might shoot him, he has stated that our rule of law is invaluable and only through the dissolution of those rights that threaten him is there justice.  What happens if I find his right to free speech a threat?  Can I then demand that his right be infringed as well?  Of course not.  I have no intention to shoot a liberal because he is speaking freely.  I am more apt to take up arms should his, and therefor my right to free expression ever be squelched.

And therein lies a truth, a natural truth – the right to bear arms is an unalienable right that derives from a natural law – individual freedom.  And even more important, it is a right that is intended to protect all others.  Should we not protect each and every right to the extent possible, we will lose each of them gradually until none are left.

As further proof, it can be found that the framers of our government created the second amendment as a protection against an internal evil that might seek to take those rights from us – the tyranny of our own government.

From the “Declaration of Independence”:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..

The founding Fathers made this assertion, but knew it would need material support.  The second amendment makes it visible to anyone who may decide to follow in King George’s path that it will be their undoing.  An armed populace is difficult, if not impossible to control beyond the desires of that population.

The founders were not simply foreshadowing a coming revolution, they were putting in a mechanism in the hopes that it would never be needed.  It is a “show of force” so as to reduce the appetite of our government for the infringement upon our rights.  I certainly hope this never comes to pass, but there is historical precedence and therefor the remotest of possibilities.

The Sum of It All

Tradition, sport, character, responsibility all are influencing factors in why I, and I would think many others, own guns.  Different measures of each for different people dictate their drive.  What all of these have in common is the fact that it is an individual freedom.  One that is protective of itself and the other rights provided for in the Constitution.  I do not wish to delegate any of my rights to the State for the purpose of security.  Should I do so,  over the course of time I or my progeny will have no hold on the remainder.

Obama: Constitution written “20 centuries” ago


“Of the many responsibilities granted to a president by our Constitution, few are more serious or more consequential than selecting a Supreme Court justice. The members of our highest court are granted life tenure, often serving long after the presidents who appointed them. And they are charged with the vital task of applying principles put to paper more than 20 centuries ago to some of the most difficult questions of our time.”

Blogger Insults Gun Owners – He Acted ‘Stupidly’

A poor attempt at satire was posted over at New West Community Blogs. The author attempts to paint gun owners as unintelligent, angry hicks that have guns simply because it feels good. to why somebody would need a semi-automatic assault rifle, like the AR-15, or maybe a sleek Uzi. My answer to that question is, are you effin’ shitting me? Because it FEELS good, you moron! Listen, a lot of us gun owners ain’t got a whole lot going for us, but when we go out to the quarry and blast the shit out of a dirt pile with enough lead to make our own personal Yucca Mountain, well, there just ain’t a feeling like that in the world. Hell, just thinking about it puts a lump in my shorts.

After taking some heat in comments to his post, he tried to explain his actions as a quest for knowledge.

I’ve attempted in the past to engage gun enthusiasts in a conversation. It usually goes something like this: Me: “Why do you feel it’s important to own a handgun or assault rifle?” Them: “Because it’s my Second Amendment right.”

That’s not a reason, and it doesn’t answer a very direct question: What motivates you (as a human, not an NRA member) to own handguns and assault rifles, devices that are expressly designed to kill humans as efficiently as possible?

Well, of course, I had to give him hell about it.

An unfortunate piece at best.

When those gun owners answered your question about gun ownership with, “because it’s my Second Amendment right.” they gave you a valid answer based on an understanding of the Constitution.

Those you were debating didn’t feel the need to craft an insulting, belittling overly-verbose response, they kept it simple – they did so based on the assumption that you understood the reason the founders put that right into the Constitution.

They gave you credit where perhaps none was due. Since I have observed your lack of understanding of their simple statement of reason, I will expound upon their most-correct answer.

To fully understand one’s right to bear arms, it should be measured alongside the Declaration of Independence. This would help the reader gauge the true meaning of a militia, the concern the founders had for tyrannical rule, and for what the 2nd amendment was intended.

Simply put, the second amendment, located in the bill of rights, is intended to insure that we may not lose the other rights afforded to us by either invasion, crime or tyranny.
Those who choose to invoke that right and even gave you a concise reason as to why they do so are not dense, silly people such as the main character in your satire. They are Americans and yes, they own guns because “they can” – it’s their right.

Some would posit that it is also their responsibility. Criticizing someone for their answer, solely because you failed to understand its meaning is self-critical.

So head over to the post and feel free to comment.

The 12th Imam. Why a Nuclear Iran is Terrifying

The entrie transcript of this interview is available here. These are the parts I’m concerned about, which begin in the video at 36 minutes:

NBC’s Ann Curry: In your speeches, you pray for God to hasten the arrival of the hidden Imam, the Muslim messiah. Would you tell us, as I know you will speak about this at the general assembly, as well.  What is your relationship with the hidden Imam, and how soon do you think before the second coming?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, that’s true.  I prayed for the arrival of the 12th Imam. The owner of the age, as we call him.  Because the owner of the age is the symbol of the – justice and brotherly love prevailing around the world.  When the Imam arrives, all of these problems will be resolved.  And a prayer for the owner of the age is nothing but a wish for justice and brotherly love to prevail around the world. And it’s an obligation a person takes upon himself to always think about brotherly love. And also to treating others as equals.

All people can establish such a connection with the Imam of the age. It’s roughly the same as the relationship which exists between Christians and the Christ.  They speak with Jesus Christ and they are sure that Christ hears them.  And responds.  Therefore, this is not limited to us only.  Any person can talk with the Imam.

Curry: You’ve said that you believe that his arrival, the apocalypse, would happen in your own lifetime. What do you believe that you should do to hasten his arrival?

Ahmadinejad: I have never said such a thing.

Curry: Ah, forgive me.

Ahmadinejad: I – I – I was talking about peace.

Curry: Forgive me.

Ahmadinejad: What is being said about an apocalyptic war and – global war, things of that nature.  This is what the Zionists are claiming.  Imam…will come with logic, with culture, with science.  He will come so that there is no more war. No more enmity, hatred.  No more conflict.  He will call on everyone to enter a brotherly love. Of course, he will return with Jesus Christ.  The two will come back together.  And working together, they would fill this world with love.  The stories that have been disseminated around the world about extensive war, apocalyptic wars, so on and so forth, these are false.

This 53 minute long interview was conducted in September 2009 by NBC’s Ann Curry. The problem is that the parts discussing Ahmadinejad’s belief in the 12th Imam were not aired by the network.

Now let me provide a little information on the 12th Imam before I get back to Ahmadinejad. The Shi’ite Muslims believe in following the descendants of Muhammad and one of these is for many of them the 12th Imam.  From American Thinker by John W. Swails III Ph. D.:

To begin our overview of the theology behind the Hidden Imam, we have to recognize that the umma, the worldwide body of Muslims, is divided into two main sects, the Sunni and the Shi’a.  The roots of this division go back to the period directly following the death of Muhammad and the conflict over who should be his successor, or caliph.  The Sunni basically accept all the caliphs who have ruled as legitimate, no matter their genealogy, how they achieved the office, or how good a Muslim they were.

The Shi’a differ. They posit that the true successor to Muhammad has to be a descendant of the cousin and son—in—law of the Prophet, an enormously important figure known to all Muslims, Ali.  As a result, they are called the shiatu—Ali, or the ‘party of Ali.’

To complicate things further, the Shi’a are further subdivided into three main groups.

These three groups are known by the number of Imams they accept.  In the case of the Shi’a, the word for the designated prayer leader—imam with a lower case ‘i’— is also used to designate the descendants of Ali who were legitimate successors to Muhammad. Of course these select successors are marked with the capital letter: Imams.

This, the group of Shi’a which accepts four Imams is called the ‘Fourers’ or ‘Zaydis’ after the fourth Imam in their listing.  The ‘Seveners’ or ‘Ismailis’ are known as such for the same reason.  The ‘Twelvers’ are the group which constitutes over 90% of the population of Iran and around 60% of the population of Iraq.

Now unlike the Sunni caliph, the Shi’a Imam inherited from Muhammad not just his civil rule over the umma but also his prerogative of interpreting the Quran, his infallibility, and his sinlessness (that connotation of impeccability seems far lost today).  The eleventh Imam, al—Hassan al—Askari, died in 874.  He was succeeded by the twelfth Imam, the youthful Muhammad, who ‘disappeared’ in 274/878 in the cave of the great mosque at Samarra without leaving progeny.

He is now known as the ‘expected one,’ (al—Muntazar), the ‘promised one’ (al—Mahdi’), or the ‘hidden one,’ (al—Mustatir).  The theology of the Hidden Imam is that Allah realized at last that the rightful successor to Muhammad was not going to be accepted by Islam at large so he had to be taken into hiding and kept there until he would re—appear to purify the umma and take the world for Islam.

The period of the Twelfth Imam’s hiding was in two parts.  The period from 878 until 941 would be known as the ‘Lesser Occultation,’ a time when the Hidden Imam was still active in this earthly realm, communicating by messengers.  The Great Occultation began in 941, when all contact with the world was broken off.  This date has been misinterpreted by some authors as the date of his disappearance.  The Great Occultation continues to present and will end when he re—appears.

The Wikipedia definition is more indepth and can be found here if interested.

Basically it is believed God has hidden him from the world, but he will come back. Now lets learn about the conditions for his return.


Twelver Shi’as cite various references from the Qur’an and reports, or Hadith, from Imam Mahdi and the twelve Shi’a Imams with regard to the reappearance of al-Mahdi who would, in accordance with Allah’s command, bring justice and peace to the world by establishing Islam throughout the world.

Mahdi is reported to have said:

Shi’as believe that Imam al-Mahdi will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race for no reason. At this time, it is believed, half of the true believers will ride from Yemen carrying white flags to Makkah, while the other half will ride from Karbala, in Iraq, carrying black flags to Makkah. At this time, Imam al-Mahdi will come wielding Allah’s Sword, the Blade of Evil’s Bane, Zulfiqar (Arabic: ذو الفقار, ðū l-fiqār), the Double-Bladed Sword. He will also come and reveal the texts in his possession, such as al-Jafr and al-Jamia.

Shi’as believe that Jesus will also come, (after Imam Mahdi’s re-appearance to follow him.) the Imam Mahdi to destroy tyranny and falsehood, and to bring justice and peace to the world. World News:

Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers — not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims — believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.

The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.

So basically, out of the chaos of the  apocalyps the 12 Imam will come and usher in world peace, with Jesus behind him, through Islam. On the whole not to different from the Christian belief of the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, except of course, for the religious differences.

However, Ahmadinejad doesn’t just believe in the return of the 12th Imam, he seeks to “hasten” it.

From Jan 2006:

But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad – recently described by President George W Bush as an “odd man” – and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission.

In November, the country was startled by a video showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a cleric that he had felt the hand of God entrancing world leaders as he delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly last September.

When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: “What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.”

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad’s piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president’s belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

One of the first acts of Mr Ahmadinejad’s government was to donate about £10 million to the Jamkaran mosque, a popular pilgrimage site where the pious come to drop messages to the Hidden Imam into a holy well.

All streams of Islam believe in a divine saviour, known as the Mahdi, who will appear at the End of Days. A common rumour – denied by the government but widely believed – is that Mr Ahmadinejad and his cabinet have signed a “contract” pledging themselves to work for the return of the Mahdi and sent it to Jamkaran.

Iran’s dominant “Twelver” sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into “occlusion” in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus.

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad’s international debut, his speech to the United Nations.

World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August.

Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote “state terrorism”, impose “the logic of the dark ages” and divide the world into “light and dark countries”.

The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to “hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace”.

From Sept 2007:

The Hidden Imam, as he is also known by his followers, will only return after a period of cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed – what Christians call the Apocalypse – and then lead the world into an era of universal peace.

Rumours abound of Mr Ahmadinejad’s devotion to the 12th Imam, and last year it was reported that he had persuaded his cabinet to sign a “contract” pledging themselves to work for his return.

Another example of his messianic tendencies surfaced after 108 people were killed in an aircraft crash in Teheran. Mr Ahmadinejad praised the victims, saying: “What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.”

For many of the hundreds of delegates who attended Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN this week, his discourse on the merits of the 12th Imam finally brought home the reality of the danger his regime poses to world peace.

Rather than allaying concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Mr Ahmadinejad spoke at length about how a Muslim saviour would relieve the world’s suffering.

The era of Western predominance was drawing to a close, he said, and would soon be replaced by a “bright future” ushered in by the 12th Imam’s return. “Without any doubt, the Promised One, who is the ultimate Saviour, will come. The pleasing aroma of justice will permeate the whole world.”

This is one of the U.N. speeches where he calls for the return of the 12th Imam.

More from the American Thinker article:

At the end of his speech at the United Nations in the fall of 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made an invocation to Allah to bring about the speedy reappearance of the Hidden Imam.

The media and, sad to say, many academic persons were at a loss to explain this eschatological reference.  The situation was complicated by later interviews in which Ahmadinejad reported that many of his co—religionists claimed that while he was making those remarks, they could see about him an aura of light.  He recalled that he too was aware of a celestial light at that time.  He also pointed to the fact that the ‘leaders of the world’ were watching him at that time with a fixed gaze, apparently unable to look away.

February, 1979, over two million lined the road leading from Mehrebad airport into Tehran during the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini, chanting ‘al—Muntazar.’

Khomeini immediately explained in a series of speeches that he was not al—Muntazar, one of the designations of the Hidden Imam, but that he had come to prepare the way for his appearance. In fact, Article Five of the constitution for the Islamic Republic of Iran, promulgated that same year, 1979, proclaimed that the basis for the constitution and its government was the authority of the Hidden Imam.

Moreover, the constitution promised that it would dissolve in his favor, following the  Hidden Imam’s re—appearance.

The IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) is, in actuality, an eschatological construct based on a messianic figure known as the Hidden Imam. With the ongoing pronouncements about the destruction of Israel and the war against the United States, all in the name of the Hidden Imam, it suddenly seems more important to know something about this whole concept.

In 2006 Joel Rosenberg wrote an article for NationalReview Online (NRO) on the subject and included excerpts from a book byAyatollah Ibrahim Amini:

I include key excerpts from the Ayatollah’s book:

When the world has become psychologically ready to accept the government of God and when general conditions have become favorable to the idea of the rulership of the truth, God will permit the Mahdi to launch his final revolution….A few selected individuals…will be the first ones to respond to his call, and will be drawn to him like iron to a magnet in that first hour of his appearance…..On seeing the fulfillment of many of the signs promised in the traditions, a large number of unbelievers will turn towards Islam. Those who persist in their disbelief and wickedness shall be killed by soldiers of the Mahdi. The only victorious government in the entire world will be that of Islam….Islam will be the religion of everyone….The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and the Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise, they will be killed….It seems unlikely that this catastrophe can be avoided….War and bloodshed [are] inevitable.

In his book, Al-Imam al-Mahdi, Amini describes the signs of the coming of the Mahdi in great detail. Chief among them: a massive earthquake and the launching of a global war to kill and/or subjugate Jews, Christians, and other “infidels” under Islamic rule.

In this video Ahmadinejad claims the 12th Imam “is in charge of the world”

Here is a British News Report on how Iran’s Government has become devoted to hastening the return of the 12th Imam.

Here Joel Rosenberg discusses the 12th Imam on The Glenn Beck Program in 2009

And here again in 2010

Here he is in News Reports chanting “Death to Israel” and with a Hitler comparison

My summary is this:

Ahmadinejad and the entire Iranian Regime in power believe in the return of this 12th Imam, no problem. The Iranian Regime seeks to hasten his return, Big Problem. It is believed they have signed contracts to this end. The rhetoric coming out of Iran supports this belief. The argument to allow Iran to have nuclear power has been, “don’t worry they’re not going to attack and commit suicide.” But when Ahmadinejad praises victims of a plane crash, calling them martyrs, and advocates to “hasten” the return of the 12th Imam, which can only be accomplished after or during the Apocalypse, do you really want to take that chance? I don’t.

To hasten the 12th Imam’s return is to start the Apocalypse. I don’t want Ahmadinejad anywhere near anything dangerous, nuclear or otherwise.
Today President Ahmadinejad announced that the Islamic Republic had produced its first batch of 20 per cent enriched uranium. He is pictured here at the Natanz nuclear plant

First Principles – Open Thread

No good understanding of Conservatism can be had without studying what might be considered its first principles.  Philosophically, a first principle is a “basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.”[1] It is the foundation upon which an entire body of thought it based.

A great philosophical debate can and should be had on whether the list is to small or too great, distilled to priori status or still derived from more basic truths.  So let the debate ensue!  It’s an open thread, so comments and debate will be pulled into the post as merited.

First Principles Journal gives us a list from which to start our consideration.  While the list is intended to be of the core principles upon which the United States was founded, I believe it an excellent start on a list of Conservatism’s basic principles: limited government, the rule of law, individual liberty,personal responsibility, free-market economy, and the moral norms of Western civilization.  Now on to seeking the true first principles of Conservatism.  I believe the question to be answered is, are those the true first principles or can they be derived to other more basic principles.  Understanding this will help us develop better tools with which to discuss what has happened and is happening within our Country.

I’ll start things off with an outline of the principles and information that either supports it as a first principle, suggests it should be distilled further, or that it is otherwise inadequate.

Limited Government

  • Equality of Citizens and Sovereigns
  • Hobbes posited the opposite  – hand control to an unaccountable sovereign as a means to avoid what he felt would result in a “state of nature” resembling civil war

The Rule of Law

  • Natural Law (legal theory)
  • Absolute Truth
    • – existence and derivatives? (Descartes)
    • vs. the dangers of relativism
      • blurring of the truth, multiple conflicting truths, confusion and anxiety diminish will to improve methods of thinking
    • Unalterable facts, unalienable truths

Individual Liberty

  • Self-determination
  • Equality of Citizens and Sovereigns
  • Public Sphere
  • Property Rights (Locke – natural rights: life, liberty, estate)

Personal Responsibility

  • Self-determination

Free-Market Economy

  • Haven’t realized the philosophical basis for this principle
  • Property rights?

Moral Norms of Western Civilization

  • Natural Law (moral theory)

[1] Wikipedia – First Principles

Liberal Attacks the Contract from America

A progressive author by the name of Ryan Normandin has an agenda against the Tea Party as he makes obvious by creating a post to dismantle the “Contract From America”.  It is not my self-identified post to defend the Tea Parties, they can do that fine on their own ,but the amount of egalitarian, modernistic, progressive idiocy “Ryan” posits in his/her article is too great to let pass.

I’ll follow his format in the interest of consistency:

1. Protect the Constitution

Specifically, the party would require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that justifies Congressional intervention. This is both unnecessary and a waste of time. It is Congress’s job to make laws, which, for the record, is explicitly stated in Section 8 of the Constitution. Any attempt to limit this power is itself unconstitutional, and is a task already given to the Supreme Court.

Ryan’s Rating: Useless

How much time does Ryan think will be wasted?  Does he not believe that legislators have a clue about the authority which has been granted them?  I don’t think it would be that harmful to slow that bunch down a bit.  We’re learning every day that they rushed Health Care Reform.  Is it too much to ask to have them jot down a justification?  He also apparently misunderstands the purpose.  It isn’t about Section 8, it’s the clauses that are requested.  How would it be harmful to force Congress to think about the framework of our government while doing their work?

Whether this will have a gigantic effect or not remains to be seen, but it will certainly force a tie between legislation and the Constitution.

Rich’s Rating: Ryan didn’t think this one through .. at all.

2. Reject Cap and Trade

Evidently, the Tea Partiers would perpetuate our addiction to foreign oil and the destruction of the planet through global warming.

Ryan’s Ruling: Defer to Al Gore

Kinda weasel-ish..  Defer to Al Gore, if you must, but I wouldn’t.  Cap and trade has little to do with protecting the environment and therefor, rejecting cap and tax is equally not about the environment.  The Tea Party’s rejection of it is probably the same as most Conservatives, massive government exchange where favors will be traded for the right to do business… not cool.  But like he said, he’s letting Al handle this one.

Rich’s Ruling: Deferring to logic

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

This idea sounds great when headlines use the word trillion, but whether or not you agree with the Bush and Obama bailouts, there is no denying that without them, this country would be in a depression right now.

Ryan’s Ruling: Dangerous

Ah yes, asking those who hold the nation’s purse strings to not spend more than we have is truly dangerous, but letting them spend however they like is not.  A fiscally responsible person would suggest that some percentage of annual receipts be held in the “Federal Rainy Day Trust Fund”.   Then again, since the stimulus has been proven to not actually have been beneficial.. the position is silly on its own lack of merit.

Rich’s Ruling: Ryan didn’t think, he/she just threw ideology into the response

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform: Adopt a Single and Fair Single-Rate Tax System

A flat tax would make the poor poorer and the rich richer. Any given percentage of a low-income, impoverished family’s income is far more valuable than the same percentage to a family making six figures. To give an example, $100 could make or break a poor family, but a family earning over $100K would likely not even notice a missing $100. Mocking the length of the internal revenue code, the Tea Partiers would require that a new tax code be no longer than the US Constitution. Yet this is simply an attempt to spark patriotism and fieriness in those who read the Contract; there is no logical reason why a new tax code should have that many words or fewer.

Ryan’s Ruling: Oppressive

Of course a family earning $100,000 would miss $100.00, they know where their money goes.  Would a family making $20k miss $100.00 more?  Sure.  But a single rate system would mean that if the $20k family paid $100 in taxes the $100k family would pay $500 which they would certainly miss, on a fair plane with the $20k earners.  What’s more important is that the $20k family would now be negatively impacted by Congress’ spending and taxation and therefor less likely to respond so positively to spending measures when they know they will not get the free-ride they get today.

Rich’s Ruling: Egalitarian garbage

5. Restore fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government in Washington: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning.

There are quite a few issues here. Broadly stated, the idea itself is excellent. Indeed, something similar was promised by President Obama during his campaign. However, what the Tea Party thinks should be cut is very different than what most Americans would think. Notice the bit where they identify “programs better left for the states or local authorities.” The Tea Party has advocated eliminating both the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. It is not necessary to go into why either change would be disastrous. In addition, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. They have the final word on what the document means, not the Tea Party.

Ryan’s Ruling: Cutting Wasteful Spending? Sure. The Rest? End of United States as We Know It

First Ryan posits that what the Tea Party wants is different than what America wants.  What he/she means is that it is different that what Progressives want.  His intellectually-bankrupt ruling proves that out.

Rich’s Ruling: Not the end of the United States as we know it, the end of America as progressives want it.

6. End runaway government spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

Seems to me that this could pose a problem in wartime or in an economic crisis when massive stimulus is required.

Ryan’s Ruling: Dangerous

Well, that “Federal Rainy Day Trust Fund” comes to mind again.  Only two positions could be taken on such a fund. Either A) we should not be at war so often and this fund will grow substantially to some mandated maximum or B) we are at war too much to save any money and therefor war should just be a budget line item that is equal to that reality.

Rich’s Ruling: Ryan would be dangerous if anyone other than college-aged progressives and people living in their parent’s basements believed his musings.

7. Defund, repeal, and replace government-run health care.

They later clarify how they want to replace the current system: free-market health care. Translation: Wall Street-style, pure capitalistic health care. Right, because at this point we all know that deregulation of industries and letting private companies do whatever they want, including discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, or denying health care altogether, leads to a fair and equitable health care system that gives those that can’t afford it what they need.

Ryan’s Ruling: Downright Stupid

The current health care system isn’t anything close to free-market.  Most health care consumers don’t shop around for their care because for everyday care, they don’t pay anything but a co-pay.  That doctor’s visit doesn’t actually cost $25, it’s in the $125.00+ range for a simple office visit, but most don’t have to pay that.  If oil changes, shocks, brakes and repairs for you car’s engine were paid for by your auto insurance, your premiums would be ridiculous, but you wouldn’t shop around because you only perceived the payment to be the co-pay.  Costs would skyrocket due to the lack of free market competition – not from the presence of it.

Rich’s Ruling: Agreed, Ryan is “Downright Stupid”

8. Pass an “all of the above” energy policy: Authorize the exploration of proven energy and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.

Translation: Drill, baby, drill. Deregulate the oil industry and drill wherever there’s oil. Now that’s truly insightful, since we all know how unlikely that is to end in disaster (as long as you don’t live along the Gulf of Mexico). Not to mention that such a policy would just accelerate the death of the planet. We should be investing in alternative, clean energy, not more oil and coal.

Ryan’s Ruling: Suicidal, on a Planetary and Environmental Scale

Well, let me start with the fact that Ryan’s whole position is based on his/her assumption about what the Tea Party meant by this clause.  While I can’t say what the intent of part 8 is, I would admit that I can’t take it at more than face value.  I will concede that it includes drilling – and solar, wind, gas, geo, cosmic energy, whatever.

Rich’s Ruling: Ugh, this is getting old.. nice ideology based on nothing but self-interest.

9. Stop the pork: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

If Congress ever gets a 2/3 majority on a controversial bill, I will… well… it doesn’t really matter what I would do because that will never happen. Witness the gridlock in Congress in recent months, where the filibuster allowed the Republican Party to prevent the extension of unemployment benefits for those who desperately needed them. Some may think “Yay! End to wasteful spending!” While I certainly agree that earmarks need to be brought under control, killing them altogether is not the way to do it. Earmarks are not all evil, despite their portrayal as such. This is how congressmen bring money and projects into the states they were elected from. They can create jobs, build infrastructure, and fund other state and local initiatives — the very state and local initiatives Tea Partiers seem so fond of. If earmarks are eliminated, state funding is starved. And another thing that will never happen is the government having a balanced budget.

Ryan’s Ruling: Counterproductive

Ending earmarks simply forces debate on the actual bill.  Earmarks are used to slip controversial spending into another bill so that both the base bill (which might be controversial) and the earmark pass without serious debate on either.  Those that would have voted down the base bill get something in the earmark so they will accept the bad base bill and vice versa for the earmark.  Make them vote on single purpose legislation so we know whether they represent us or not.

To address the whole, “They can create jobs..” part, that isn’t the work of Congress.  That’s for the states and cities to manage, and they do a far better job.

Rich’s Ruling: Hope Ryan never gets any position of influence in our government.  He/She has already volunteered to sell his/her soul.

10. Stop the tax hikes: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes (the estate tax), currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

It’s interesting how so many of these Tea Party goals are written in a way that seems appealing to people precisely because they’re written in a way that prevents them from being fully understood. Simply put, this implies extending the Bush tax cuts forever. To sum up what the Bush tax cuts were: tax cuts for the rich, making the wealthy wealthier. While having taxes cut seems great, tax cuts of the magnitude the Tea Party is advocating would starve the federal government (which I’m sure would make the Tea Partiers happy) and increase the gap between rich and poor, accelerating the deterioration of the already vanishing middle class; and with it, the cornerstone of democracy.

Ryan’s Rating: Moronic (three cheers from Wall Street)

Ryan’s objection to this clause is failed at best.  He/She makes an assertion that this extends the “Bush tax cuts” forever.  I believe that the intent is to prevent the constant reconsideration of one set of taxation rates.  If Ryan had instead attacked this clause because it is redundant to clause 4, it would have shown some thought, not just the regurgitation of a failed ideology.  He also would have received agreement from me, clause 10 is unnecessary if 4 is enacted.

Rich’s Ruling: Ryan wasn’t thinking here.

I’m making a final recommendation that Ryan, who appears to be a Freshmen at MIT from his publications, take some philosophy courses and understand his own first principles and bases of thought before pressing them on others.  Reading Nietzsche, Marx et al is not enough, truth exists Mr. Normandin and equality of condition or outcome does not.

Cass Sunstein: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Cass Sunstein. I really don’t have a good (tasteful) way to describe this man other than Extreme Left Wing Socialist Liberal. He has some extremely questionable and left wing views. The position Obama appointed him to makes him very dangerous indeed.

Here’s his Bio from Discover The Networks:

Born in September 1954, Cass Sunstein earned a BA degree from Harvard College in 1975. Three years later, he received a J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he had served as executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.

After graduating from law school, Sunstein clerked for Justice Benjamin Kaplan of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (1978-1979), and then for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (1979-1980).

From 1980-81, Sunstein worked as an attorney-advisor in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and then took a job as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 1981. Two years later he also became an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science. In 1985 he was made a full professor of both law and political science. He would continue to teach full time at the University of Chicago Law School until 2008, at which time his status changed to that of Visiting Professor. Today he also holds the title of Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

Sunstein is a contributing editor to The New Republic and The American Prospect and has frequently testified before congressional committees. He played a particularly active role in opposing the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998.

In 2008 Sunstein served as an advisor for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. After Obama’s 2009 inauguration, Sunstein was appointed to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

In 1993 Sunstein published the book The Partial Constitution, which contains a chapter titled “It’s the government’s Money,” wherein Sunstein writes that “the Constitution … forbids government from refusing to pay the expenses of abortion in cases of rape or incest, at least if government pays for childbirth in such cases.” By Sunstein’s reckoning, a system whereby the government funds childbirth but not abortion “has the precise consequence of turning women into involuntary incubators” and “breeders” whose bodies are sacrificed “in the service of third parties” (i.e., fetuses).

With regard to citizens who object to having their tax dollars finance abortions, Sunstein writes:

“There would be no tension with the establishment clause if people with religious or other objections were forced to pay for that procedure (abortion). Indeed, taxpayers are often forced to pay for things – national defense, welfare, certain forms of art, and others – to which they have powerful moral and even religious objections.”

Also in The Partial Constitution, Sunstein promotes the notion of a “First Amendment New Deal” in the form of a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would authorize a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure that a “diversity of view[s]” is presented on the airwaves.

According to Sunstein, private broadcasting companies do a disservice to the American public by airing programs only if their ratings are high enough, or airing commercials only if advertisers can afford to pay the cost of a 30- to 60-second spot:

“In a market system, this goal [of airing diverse views] may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

“If it were necessary to bring about diversity and attention to public matters,” Sunstein writes, “a private right of access to the media might even be constitutionally compelled. The notion that access [to the airwaves] will be a product of the marketplace might well be constitutionally troublesome.” Government, he sayshas a moral obligation to force broadcast media companies to air commercials that represent a “diversity” of views:

“The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

According to Sunstein, the judicial system should issue rulings to make it clear that private media companies do not have the final say in rejecting “diversity” commercials.

Asserting that government regulation of the broadcasting industry is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, Sunstein writes: “It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech.'” He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming [and] content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

Reasoning from the premise that public television stations provide benefits to society that profit-driven private enterprises do not, Sunstein calls for a government mandate that “purely commercial [television] stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

On April 14, 1999, Sunstein published an opinion piece in The Chicago Tribune titled “Why We Should Celebrate Paying Taxes.” He wrote:

“In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …”

In his 2001 book,, Sunstein argued that the Internet posed a threat to democracy because it promoted cyberbalkanization, a phenomenon whereby people isolate themselves ideologically within groups that share their own political perspectives, while turning a blind eye to any views or facts that might challenge their beliefs. To counter this tendency, he called for government-imposed diversity on websites promoting a particular political perspective. Specifically, he suggested that all partisan websites should feature “electronic sidewalks” providing links to resources that offer opposing views. In a 2001 interview, he elaborated:

“Sites of one point of view [would] agree to provide links to other sites, so that if you’re reading a conservative magazine, they would provide a link to a liberal site and vice versa, just to make it easy for people to get access to competing views. Or maybe a pop-up on your screen that would show an advertisement or maybe even a quick argument for a competing view. [break] The best would be for this to be done voluntarily, but the word ‘voluntary’ is a little complicated, and sometimes people don’t do what’s best for our society unless Congress holds hearings or unless the public demands it. And the idea would be to have a legal mandate as the last resort, and to make sure it’s as neutral as possible if we have to get there, but to have that as, you know, an ultimate weapon designed to encourage people to do better.”

Several years later, Sunstein retracted this suggestion as a “bad idea.”

In 2004 Sunstein published The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than EverArguing that citizens’ rights exist only to the extent that they are granted by the government, the book drew its inspiration from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal of a new bill of rights. WorldNetDaily reports that among the mandates laid out in the book are the following:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

In The Second Bill of Rights, Sunstein states that “if the nation becomes committed to certain rights [such as the foregoing], they may migrate into the Constitution itself.” He adds that “at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America’s constitutive commitments.” Another notable quote from the book is the following:

“Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust ‘government intervention’ and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.” (p. 3)

Sunstein, who believes that the federal courts are dominated by conservatives, agrees with Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s assertion that the Constitution is a “living” document whose meanings and mandates change with the passage of time.

According to The Weekly Standard:

“Sunstein would give up on the idea that law is supposed to be an apolitical discipline in which practitioners put aside their political beliefs. The judiciary Sunstein contemplates would have Democratic and Republican caucuses.”

Contending that “the judiciary is already politicized,” Sunstein says the notion that “judges are not policymakers” is a “myth.” Judges’ “political commitments,” he states, “very much influence their votes.” He contends that “judges are subject to conformity pressures, and like-minded judges go to extremes, in the sense that ideological predispositions are heightened when judges are sitting with others who were appointed by presidents of the same political party.”

In 2005 the American Constitution Society sponsored a conference at Yale Law School titled “The Constitution in 2020,” whose purpose was to give liberal/left lawyers and judges a forum wherein they could trade ideas on what they would like the U.S. Constitution to look like 15 years down the road, and how they could influence it toward that end. Sunstein participated in this forum, where he put forth his ideas about a “Second Bill of Rights.” According to The Weekly Standard:

“The essence of the progressive constitutional project is to recognize ‘positive’ rights, not just ‘negative’ rights, so that citizens are not only guaranteed freedom from specified forms of government interference, but also are guaranteed the receipt of specified economic benefits. The bottom line is that Congress would no longer have the discretion to decline to enact liberal policies. The triumph of the left would be constitutionally mandated.”

Sunstein has argued in favor of bringing socialism (in the form of expanded wefare benefits and wealth redistribution) to the United States, but contends that the country’s “white majority” opposes such a development because of deep-seated racism:

“The absence of a European-style social welfare state is certainly connected with the widespread perception among the white majority that the relevant programs would disproportionately benefit African Americans (and more recently Hispanics).”

Sunstein depicts socialist nations as being more committed than their capitalist counterparts to the welfare of their own citizens:

“During the Cold War, the debate about [social welfare] guarantees took the form of pervasive disagreement between the United States and its communist adversaries. Americans emphasized the importance of civil and political liberties, above all free speech and freedom of religion, while communist nations stressed the right to a job, health care, and a social minimum.”In 2007 Sunstein co-authored (with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner) a 39-page University of Chicago Law School paper titled “Climate Change Justice,” which held that it was “desirable” for America to pay “justice” to poorer nations by entering into a compensation agreement that would result in a financial loss for the United States. The paper refers several times to “distributive justice.”

Sunstein and Posner further speculate about the possibility of achieving this redistribution by means other than direct payments:

  • “It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”
  • “We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”
  • “If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation’s interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives.”
  • “If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

In their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler brainstorm about ways to increase the number of organ donations that Americans make each year. They theorize that the main reason why more people do not arrange to donate their organs posthumously is because in order to do so, they are required to actively give “explicit consent” for such procedures, which few people ever take the time to do. To remedy this, Sunstein and Thaler advocate a policy of “presumed consent” — the opposite of explicit consent — whereby the the government would “presume” that someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation unless that person has explicitly indicated his or her wish to prevent such an action.

Sunstein and Thaler realize, however, that such a proposal “is a hard sell politically” because “[m]ore than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter.” Thus they propose an alternate solution — “mandated choice” — where the government forces all people to make a decision on the matter:

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

Under such a system, government “incentives and nudges” would replace “requirements and bans.”

Sunstein’s views about human cloning have been the subject of much controversy. By his reckoning, cloning should pose no moral dilemma because human embryos are “only a handful of cells.” In 2003 Sunstein wrote:

“It is silly to think that ‘potential’ is enough for moral concern. Sperm cells have ‘potential’ and (not to put too fine a point on it) most people are not especially solicitous about them.”

In a 2002 paper (titled “Is There a Constitutional Right to Clone?”) for the Harvard Law Review, Sunstein wrote:

“Moral repugnance might well be a response to vaguely remembered science fiction stories or horror movies, or to perceptions based on ignorance and confusion (as in the idea that a clone is a complete ‘copy’ of the original, or a ‘copy’ that is going to be evil).”

Added Sunstein:

“For some people, cloning might be the only feasible way to produce a biological offspring. It would certainly not be ludicrous to say that as a matter of constitutional law, the state has to produce a strong justification for intruding on that choice in cases in which it is the only realistic option.”

Sunstein is an animal-rights activist who once said, in a speech at Harvard University: “We ought to ban hunting, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” He also has stated that livestock and wild animals should have legal “rights” and should be empowered to file lawsuits; that the human consumption of meat is a practice that should be ended permanently; and that the use of animals for work, entertainment, science, and food is akin to “human slavery.” “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school. He expanded on these ideas in his 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions.

On July 4, 2008, Sunstein married his second wife, Harvard professor Samantha Power, whom he had met when they both worked as advisors to the presidential campaign of Sunstein’s longtime friend and former University of Chicago Law School colleague, Barack Obama.

In 2008 Sunstein authored a paper proposing that the government use a variety of methods to limit or eliminate conspiracy theories critical of the U.S. government. These methods suggested that the government could:

  • ban conspiracy theories outright
  • impose a tax on those who advance conspiracy theories
  • engage in counter-speech to “discredit conspiracy theories and theorists”
  • hire private parties to engage in counter-speech
  • engage in informal communication with such private parties, encouraging them to help

Added Sunstein: “Our main policy claim here is the government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.”

I changed none of the words above, only added some links direct to his books in Amazon, & to PDF files on his papers.

Lets take a look at some of his radical views caught on film.

Here he is discussing his book on FDR’s Second Bill of Rights

What you need to understand about FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights is that it mirrors the USSR’s Communist Bill of Rights, take a look.

Here he discusses Roe V. Wade

“The Constitution doesn’t refer specifically to Privacy Rights”

Here is Cass Sunstein discussing his book Nudge:

As you can see, your stupid, and since you won’t act in your own best interests, on your own, the government will just “nudge” you into doing what the government thinks is in your best interest.

And here’s a few on Animal Rights and Hunting

“A full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison more rational as well as a more conversible animal than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month.”

Here is a compilation, and he also discusses his position interpretation if the 2nd Amendment

“We ought to ban hunting I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun, that should be against the law, it’s time now”

“Our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen as…..not the same as but in many ways morally akin to slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

And Cass Sunstein on a way to regulate internet free speech

Basically the “Fairness Doctrine” playing out on every website you try to look at.

Now here is Cass Sunstein lying to get Senate Confirmation

Is there really any doubt he lied based on the information above?

Here is Senator Sessions explaining why he cannot vote to confirm Cass Sunstein

Unfortunately, Cass Sunstein was confirmed. Now lets try to understand the job to which this Radical has been appointed.

From WhiteHouse.Gov:

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”) is a Federal office established by Congress in the 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act. It is part of the Office of Management and Budget, which is an agency within the Executive Office of the President. It is staffed by both political appointees and career civil servants.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA reviews all collections of information by the Federal Government. OIRA also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in several areas, including information quality and statistical standards. In addition, OIRA reviews draft regulations under Executive Order 12866.

What does that mean exactly? According to the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Sunstein, a friend of President-elect Barack Obama from their faculty days at the University of Chicago law school, will mark a sharp departure for the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Although obscure, the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.

Here Sean Hannity & Ann Coulter Discuss Cass Sunstein and his Radical Views

Cass Sunstein is a left wing idealogue that would elevate animals over people. Cass Sunstein reinterprets laws and has them sounding exactly the opposite of what actually is written. Cass Sunstein supports a Communist Bill of Rights and redistribution of wealth. Cass Sunstein believes the people are ignorant and need a little push, just a little “nudge,” to do the right thing (determined by government). Basically, Cass Sunstein believes the government should dictate every aspect of your lives, but remember, you are no better than animals. And Cass Sunstein has been handed the position, by Barack Obama, to redefine our written laws, and make these radical views law.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Global Governance and Barack Obama

Zbigniew Brzezinski could be called the Maurice Strong of Foreign Policy. While Strong used the UN and Global Organizations to advocate the need to redistribute wealth in the name of Global Warming/Climate Change, Brzezinski seeks to redistribute power to global organizations, or Global Governance. In all my reports I try to stick to mainstream or credible sources and focus on using the subjects own words to define them, and this one is no exception.

As Discover The Networks did not have a bio on him I had to get another source.

Here is his Bio according to

Zbigniew Brzezinski was born in Warsaw, Poland, on March 28, 1928. After obtaining his B.A. and M.A. degrees from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, he came to the United States in 1953. He was awarded the Ph.D. at Harvard the same year and remained there, first as a research fellow at the Russian Research Center and then as assistant professor of government, until 1960. He became a naturalized American citizen in 1958.

In 1960 Brzezinski moved to Columbia where he continued his rapid climb up the academic ladder. He was promoted to full professor in 1962 and directed the Research Institute in Communist Affairs (later the Research Institute on International Change) from 1962 to 1977. From 1966 to 1968 he had gained valuable experience as a member of the Department of State’s Policy Planning Council during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Identified as a Democrat and a rival of , Brzezinski saw little action during Richard Nixon’s presidency. In 1973 he became director of the and had the to recruit a young and generally unknown governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter. For Brzezinski, the early contact with Carter brought handsome rewards.

Carter declared his candidacy for president in 1974, and Brzezinski quickly approached him with an offer of advice. Of the potential candidates, Henry Jackson of Washington had views on foreign policy that appealed to Brzezinski more than those of Carter, but Jackson did not look like a winner. To most other Democratic presidential aspirants, Brzezinski’s reputation as a “hard-liner” was . By 1975 Brzezinski emerged as Carter’s principal adviser on foreign policy issues.

National Security Adviser

Brzezinski was openly eager to be appointed assistant to the president for national security affairs and when President-elect Carter offered him the position in December 1976. He had not wanted to be secretary of state, confident that he would be more effective in the White House, at the president’s side. From the he was about the president’s idealism and the absence of other appointees likely to give Carter the “realistic and hard-nosed” advice needed in world affairs.

Carter had campaigned against the Ford administration’s “Lone Ranger” diplomacy, the activities of Henry Kissinger. He intended to have a more balanced organization reporting to the president, who would decide policy questions. A triumvirate composed of the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the national security adviser, such as had existed in the Kennedy years, seemed ideal. , Harold Brown, and Brzezinski would do the job.

Brzezinski agreed with Carter’s ideas on organizational structure, but never doubted that his presence in the White House and his daily briefing of the president gave him the upper hand. He moved quickly to assert himself, and neither nor Brown was equal to the challenge. What balance existed – and it was considerable – was provided, as it had to be, by Carter.

Brzezinski’s differences with Vance were often as well, especially on policy toward what was then the Soviet Union. Although Vance had few illusions about the Soviet leadership, he believed that improvement of Soviet-American relations was both necessary and possible. Further arms limitation agreements and cooperation in crisis areas such as the Middle East were essential to avoid nuclear war. He was not willing to progress toward a sounder Soviet-American detente by disregarding Soviet interests in the Middle East or fears of Chinese-American rapprochement. Brzezinski shared Vance’s conception of the Soviet Union and the United States as permanent competitors, but perceived little hope for significant improvement in the relationship. The United States had to be firm, seek every advantage it could garner at Soviet expense, and play on Soviet fears by “playing the China card.” Although Carter initially leaned toward Vance’s view, by the end of 1978 Brzezinski appeared to have prevailed. The handling of the decision to normalize relations with China marked the ascendency of Brzezinski and the increasing alienation of the secretary of state from the policies of the administration.

Another arena in which Brzezinski succeeded in establishing his was in the public presentation of Carter administration policy. Initially, all concerned had agreed that other than the president, the secretary of state would be the sole spokesman on foreign policy. Brzezinski quickly concluded, however, that Vance was not adequate to the task and took it upon himself. The result, given the policy differences that emerged between Vance and Brzezinski, was increased public confusion about America’s course and a decline in confidence in the president’s ability to keep his team running in tandem.

Hostage Crisis in Iran

Although disagreement over the handling of the hostage crisis in Iran finally drove Vance from the administration, Brzezinski had been unhappy with the original course Vance had plotted and Carter had approved during the last days of the Shah’s rule. Brzezinski was a advocate of a foreign policy that stressed concern for human rights, but when he perceived a need to choose between enhancing human rights or projecting American power, power came first. As the Shah’s regime disintegrated in late 1978, Brzezinski wanted the United States to urge the Shah to act aggressively, to use force against his opponents, to carry out a military coup. Carter refused, sharing the within the administration, generally for the means the Shah had already undertaken. After the Shah’s , the return of Khomeini, and the of the American hostages, a desperate president accepted a rescue plan that Brzezinski supported and Vance opposed. Vance resigned. The plan failed.

Brzezinski saw Iran as Carter’s “only” fatal error. Probably more than any other single issue, the prolongation of the hostage crisis cost Carter the election of 1980 (to Ronald Reagan) and resulted in Brzezinski’s return to private life in 1981. Of the accomplishments of the Carter administration, Brzezinski was proudest of its success in the Middle East (the Camp David accords), the normalization of relations with the People’s Republic of China, the Panama Canal treaties, SALT II, the commitment to majority rule in Africa, the identification of American policy with the human rights issue, and the plan to strengthen the military and strategic position of the United States by building the MX missile.

Adviser, Author, and Observer

Brzezinski remained a prominent during the Reagan administration. During this time he conceived and advocated a form of detente which he called “Mutual Strategic Security.” This proposal involved both space-based Strategically Deployed Interballistic missiles (SDI) and ground-based systems to be maintained by the United States. The United States, in turn, would limit its nuclear arsenal to a level well below “first-strike” capability. His conservative politics were notoriously in with right-wing Republican views, with regard to virtually every aspect of foreign affairs. His highly academic approach to foreign policy led some to see him as and . In his various writings he occasionally criticized other politicians for petty idiosyncrasies.

After leaving government service, Brzezinski, still a young man, wrote a memoir, joined the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University, served as a consultant to Dean, Witter, Reynolds, Inc., and waited for another opportunity to exercise power.

Brzezinski was widely interviewed in 1989 with respect to the Solidarity movement which arose in Poland, as well as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He expressed guarded optimism for the success of the Solidarity movement in his native Poland, and he avowed support for the demise of Communism. He further advocated some degree of laissez-faire policy by the United States in dealing with Eastern Europe at such a fragile moment in history. He published his thoughts on these matters in a book, The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century. Brzezinski then took a into the 21st century, based on a retrospective of the past 100 years, in his publication, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century.

Throughout his career Brzezinski has utilized his aggressive to foster his policies, keeping him in the as a respected political advisor and critic. He has established himself as a deep thinker, as well as a philosopher through his many writings. His published opinions range from cold war politics to human rights to genetic engineering. His ideas are at once and moralistic, especially with respect to the culture of the United States. In a 1993 interview he stated that the “self-indulgent, , consumption-oriented society cannot project a moral onto the world … Our moral consciousness has been corrupted by … the equal we assign to all values as if they were competing products on the supermarket shelf.”

Here is in 1989 discussing the TriLateral Commission

And here in 2007 again

The Washington Post posted that Zbigniew Brzezinski backed Obama’s Presidential Campaign

Washinton Post:  August 2007

Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The former national security adviser announced on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt” that he is supporting the junior senator from Illinois for president.

Obama “recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America’s role in the world,” said Brzezinski, who keeps an office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper hand. He has a sense of what is historically relevant and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.”

Brzezinski, who had a relatively hawkish reputation in the Carter administration but has been an outspoken critic of President Bush and the Iraq war, rejected the notion that Obama’s Senate colleague Hillary Clinton is more experienced in foreign affairs. “Being a former first lady doesn’t prepare you to be president,” he said. “Clinton’s foreign policy approach is “very conventional,” he added. “I don’t think the country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago.”

He also defended Obama’s position in his recent foreign policy tiff with Clinton, in which she called him “naive” for saying he would be willing to meet with the leaders of U.S. antagonists such as Iran and Venezuela. “What’s the hang-up about negotiating with the Syrians or with the Iranians?” Brzezinski said. “What it in effect means,” he said, is “that you only talk to people who agree with you.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski became a campaign issue for Obama when he called Brzezinski, “One of our most outstanding thinkers.”

From New York’s  The Sun: September 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator Obama is standing by one of his top foreign policy advisers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, despite concerns that aligning with the former aide to President Carter will undermine Mr. Obama’s support with the pro-Israel community.

Mr. Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser in the Carter administration, introduced Mr. Obama before a major policy speech on Iraq yesterday in Iowa, where the Illinois senator praised his work on the Camp David Accords and called him “one of our most outstanding thinkers.”

Mr. Obama’s embrace of Mr. Brzezinski has angered some supporters of Israel put off by Mr. Brzezinski’s criticism of the Jewish state in recent years and his praise for the authors of a book that condemns the influence of the “Israel lobby.” Mr. Obama’s campaign has disavowed the book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

A Harvard law professor and supporter of Senator Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, said Tuesday that Mr. Obama had “made a terrible mistake” by aligning with Mr. Brzezinski.

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, Jennifer Psaki, yesterday pointed to the fact that Messrs. Brzezinski and Obama both opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, unlike Mrs. Clinton, and she suggested the Clinton camp was trying to smear Mr. Brzezinski.

Given Mr. Brzezinski’s opposition to the war, she said, “It’s not terribly surprising that those who embraced the war would try to discredit him now.” Ms. Psaki added: “Barack Obama has a strong record in support of a secure Israel and he will continue to foster a strong U.S.-Israel relationship when he is in the White House.”

The Clinton campaign declined comment.

This audio from 2008 shows how much he believes in Global Governance, “The distribution of Global Power”  and that the ends justify the means,  “Today it is infinitely  easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.”

Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Here in 2008 on MSNBC his arrogance is on full display.

In September of 2009 he stated that the US should shoot down any Israeli planes that fly over Iraq in a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

From ABC:

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

“We are not exactly impotent little babies,” Brzezinski said. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? … We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.”

The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski endorsed then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign in August 2007, which at the time was portrayed in the media as a boost to Obama’s foreign policy cred. The Washington Post reported: “Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski.”

Brzezinski was never an official campaign adviser, but Republicans jumped on the endorsement to push the meme that Obama wouldn’t be a friend to Israel, as Brzezinski’s views of Israel attracted criticism from some quarters in the American Jewish community.

“Brzezinski is not an adviser to the campaign,” former Ambassador Dennis Ross, then a senior adviser on Middle East affairs to the Obama campaign, said at the time. “There is a lot of disinformation that is being pushed, but he is not an adviser to the campaign. Brzezinski came out and supported Obama early because of the war in Iraq. A year or so ago they talked a couple of times. That’s the extent of it, and Sen. Obama has made it clear that on other Middle Eastern issues, Brzezinski is not who he looks to. They don’t have the same views.”

Brzezinski plays no role in the Obama administration; the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brzezinski’s comments come within the same week that the White House distanced itself from comments made by former President Carter, who said he thinks “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.”

For the September Issue of Foreign Affairs he wrote an article titled: An agenda for NATO, Toward a Global Security Web:

NATO’s 60th anniversary, celebrated in April with pomp and circumstance by the leaders of nearly 30 allied states, generated little public interest. NATO’s historical role was treated as a bore. In the opinion-shaping media, there were frequent derisive dismissals and even calls for the termination of the alliance as a dysfunctional geostrategic irrelevance. Russian spokespeople mocked it as a Cold War relic.

Even France’s decision to return to full participation in NATO’s integrated military structures — after more than 40 years of abstention — aroused relatively little positive commentary. Yet France’s actions spoke louder than words. A state with a proud sense of its universal vocation sensed something about NATO — not the NATO of the Cold War but the NATO of the twenty-first century — that made it rejoin the world’s most important military alliance at a time of far-reaching changes in the world’s security dynamics. France’s action underlined NATO’s vital political role as a regional alliance with growing global potential.

In assessing NATO’s evolving role, one has to take into account the historical fact that in the course of its 60 years the alliance has institutionalized three truly monumental transformations in world affairs: first, the end of the centuries-long “civil war” within the West for transoceanic and European supremacy; second, the United States’ post-World War II commitment to the defense of Europe against Soviet domination (resulting from either a political upheaval or even World War III); and third, the peaceful termination of the Cold War, which ended the geopolitical division of Europe and created the preconditions for a larger democratic European Union.

This article generated alot of buzz so the magazine conducted this interview with Brzezinski

Within it he discusses Nato governing and acting on decisions, not through Unanimious Consent, but through majority vote. He also talks about kicking out Members of the UN for bad performance, that he is against Israel acting on Iran, and Afganistan.

Here is in a CNN interview praising Obama’s Foreign Policy to the Middle East

Here he is addressing the Council On Foreign Relations

He discusses that people are “Politically awakened” and the difficulties that presents, and Global Governance.

However, lately his tune on Obama has changed a little.

January 2010 he wrote an article on Obama’s Foreign Policy for Foreign Affairs:

From Hope to Audacity, Appraising Obama’s Foreign Policy

The foreign policy of U.S. President Barack Obama can be assessed most usefully in two parts: first, his goals and decision-making system and, second, his policies and their implementation. Although one can speak with some confidence about the former, the latter is still an unfolding process.

To his credit, Obama has undertaken a truly ambitious effort to redefine the United States’ view of the world and to reconnect the United States with the emerging historical context of the twenty-first century. He has done this remarkably well. In less than a year, he has comprehensively reconceptualized U.S. foreign policy with respect to several centrally important geopolitical issues:
•  Islam is not an enemy, and the “global war on terror” does not define the United States’ current role in the world;
•  the United States will be a fair-minded and assertive mediator when it comes to attaining lasting peace between Israel and Palestine;
•  the United States ought to pursue serious negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, as well as other issues;
•  the counterinsurgency campaign in the Taliban-controlled parts of Afghanistan should be part of a larger political undertaking, rather than a predominantly military one;
•  the United States should respect Latin America’s cultural and historical sensitivities and expand its contacts with Cuba;
•  the United States ought to energize its commitment to significantly reducing its nuclear arsenal and embrace the eventual goal of a world free of nuclear weapons;
•  in coping with global problems, China should be treated not only as an economic partner but also as a geopolitical one;
•  improving U.S.-Russian relations is in the obvious interest of both sides, although this must be done in a manner that accepts, rather than seeks to undo, post-Cold War geopolitical realities; and
•  a truly collegial transatlantic partnership should be given deeper meaning, particularly in order to heal the rifts caused by the destructive controversies of the past few years.

Here he is still praising Obama for his efforts into Global Governance but critices him basically, for not implementing them (fast enough?).

In July of 2010 Zbigniew Brzezinki brought back the word that doomed Jimmy carter to describe Obama. From NewsBusters:

Can you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from 1600 Pennslyvania Avenue?  It’s Pres. Obama & Co. reacting to Zbigniew Brzezinki pinning on Barack Obama the word that doomed Jimmy Carter: “malaise.”

On Morning Joe, Carter’s former national security adviser said there “is a sense of pervasive malaise” in America. What’s worse, suggested Zbig, Pres. Obama hasn’t been able to figure out how to deal with the malaise. Ruh-roh!

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think we’re now going through a phase in which there is a sense of pervasive malaise, which affects different groups in society in different ways. So people are dissatisfied; they’re slightly worried; they don’t see a good certain future for themselves or for the country, but in their own narrow sphere.  There’s no grand mobilizing idea. And I have a sense that Obama, who started so well, and who really captivated people—he captivated me!—has not been able yet to generate some sort of organizing idea for an age which combines a malaise that’s pervasive and percolating, and complexity.. . .

PAT BUCHANAN: We need a new paradigm!

BREZINSKI: And the President hasn’t articulated it.

BUCHANAN: No he hasn’t.

BREZINSKI: There goes any further invitation to the White House!

Brzezinski clearly understood the personal implications of his downer of a diagnosis: “there goes any further invitation to the White House!”  The panel all enjoyed a good chuckle, but could anything be much worse for PBO than to be seen as the reincarnation of Jimmy Carter?

So, is Zbigniew Brzezinski working for the Obama Administration? No, however he does hold influence through the organizations of which he is a member, but nothing direct.

He and Obama have similar goals and policies on Israel and Global Governance. What you can see is that Brzezinski backed Obama before, during the campaign and after, but now openly criticizes him, not for what his policies are, but because he hasn’t implemented them yet. And those policies are the ones where the USA would give up soverignty to Global bodies, like the UN.

I Want Your Money Trailer (2010) HD

Must see trailer!

I Want Your Money trailer…Set against the backdrop of today’s headline – 67% of Americans don’t approve of Obama’s economic policies, the film takes a provocative look at our deeply depressed economy using the words and actions of Presidents Reagan and Obama and shows the marked contrast between Reaganomics and Obamanomics.

The film contrasts two views of the role that the federal government should play in our daily lives using the words and actions of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Two versions of the American dream now stand in sharp contrast. One views the money you earned as yours and best allocated by you; the other believes that the elite in Washington know how to best allocate your wealth. One champions the traditional American dream, which has played out millions of times through generations of Americans, of improving one’s lot in life and even daring to dream and build big. The other holds that there is no end to the “good” the government can do by taking and spending other peoples’ money in an ever-burgeoning list of programs.

The documentary film I Want Your Money exposes the high cost in lost freedom and in lost opportunity to support a Leviathan-like bureaucratic state.

The Reality of the Jobs Numbers

Greg Howard tweeted to check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics instead of relying on the media to relay the jobs situation.  If you follow me, you know I love numbers.  Not only did I dig out the numbers, I went and graphed it out.

July 2010 Unemployment Graph

So I don’t have to deal with the LibKiddies saying I made up the numbers.. here’s the basis for the chart: the clearly right-wing, ever-lying.. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  You know us Conservatives, we make up numbers .. not like Obama and his created or saved BS.

So what does the graph say?  I believe everyone would say that last July sucked.  Massive unemployment, housing values crashing, “cats and dogs living together, fire and brimstone, stuff of biblical proportions..” was the norm.  Well, when you look at the graph, notice that the picture hasn’t really changed since last July.

To quote our President, “Uh…”.  Where are those 2 million or 2.5 million or whatever number of jobs that he created or saved?  How could the chart be basically flat if his miracle of Keynesianism was being realized?

Rhetorical question.  Feel free to answer anyway.

Progressives Cry Gun Culture Out-of-Control

They cried that the gun culture is out-of-control, and I let ’em have it.

This article at New Haven Register rants on gun ownership, doesn’t have an author’s name (at least not when I went there), had poorly-sourced statistics and what sounded like the idiocy that usually comes from the left.

Nine more Connecticut families now have to feel the devastation of gun violence in the workplace. A worker at Hartford Distributors went on a rampage, killing eight fellow employees and himself.

Our society has come to accept these shootings almost as normal events. Instead, we should ask: “Is this the culture we want?”

The gun culture has been energized by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of an individual to possess guns in their home for protection. But, let us not forget that every year in this country, guns kill more than 30,000 people

So I commented – and so should you.

Typical progressive tripe, the author knew it and therefor hid their identity.

What about defensive gun use and the lives that might save? There’s a number out there that says that 40,000 lives were saved by lawful gun owners last year.

So using two unsourced stats together (because two wrongs somehow make a right), the net is that guns resulted in 10,000 more people breathing today than otherwise might have been.

In ObamaSpeak, that’s 10,000 lives created or saved.

Obama says his father served in WWII???

“My father served in WWII, and when he came home, he got the services he needed.”

Really? Obama’s website Organizing for America makes no mention of it.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961. His father, Barack Obama Sr., was born and raised in a small village in Kenya, where he grew up herding goats with his own father, who was a domestic servant to the British.

Barack’s mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in small-town Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression, and then signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, where he marched across Europe in Patton’s army. Her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved west to Hawaii.

It was there, at the University of Hawaii, where Barack’s parents met. His mother was a student there, and his father had won a scholarship that allowed him to leave Kenya and pursue his dreams in America.

Barack’s father eventually returned to Kenya, and Barack grew up with his mother in Hawaii, and for a few years in Indonesia. Later, he moved to New York, where he graduated from Columbia University in 1983.

So Stanley Dunham, his maternal grandfather, served in WWII, but not his father, or stepfather Lolo Soetero, because of their dates of birth. Letter to Senators Jim Webb & Mark Warner:

Obama says his father served in World War II

Somebody doesn’t know how to do their math very well…

*Does he even know the difference between truth and fabrication?

*Now Barack’s father served in WW ll”
It must be true as Barack said it in a speech! Is he a compulsive liar? Were there no reporters who double checked these statements and called the party on this? They did for everyone else. Why not him? *Barack Hussein

Obama Sr. (Obama’s father)
*Born 4/4/36
Died 11/24/82 at the age of 46
He was 5 years old when WW 2 started, and less than 9.5 years old when it ended.

*Lolo Soetoro (Obama’s step father)
*Born 1935
Died 3/2/87 at the age of 52
He was 6 years old when WW 2 started, and 10 years old when it ended.
One of these guys must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.

Seeing how Obama wrote a book about his father, (Dreams from my Father) I don’t buy mistaken identity replacing his maternal grandfather for his father. This is just another one of his early lies.

Learning Economics From Chinese Students

As shameful as it is, a Chinese student gets what we’re struggling to understand – government policies are stifling consumption, exports and therefor the economy. post mentioned that when a professor was discussing the nation’s move to keep interest rates low, a student chimed in with true wisdom:

Peking University professor Michael Pettis was discussing declining bank-deposit returns when a student interrupted with a story about her aunt that may stymie China’s plan to boost consumer spending.

“To send her son to university in six years it means she must replace each yuan in lost income with one from her wages,” the student said, according to Pettis.

Read it again, this example demonstrates one of the pressures that government-control of the economy (or in our case, Fed control) exerts.  By keeping interest rates artificially low, investment income is hard to come by through anything but the most-volatile markets: Bond yields stink, CDs are worthless, and savings accounts generate no appreciable income.  That means that savers now have less income to pay for normal expenses and that limits their ability to buy goods and services within the economy.  Without investment income, your paycheck is all there is and that’s not enough.

China’s problem is very much similar to ours:

“Consumption is already at a dangerously low level,” said Pettis, author of the “The Volatility Machine,” a 2001 book that examines financial crises in emerging markets. “If it doesn’t begin to rise very quickly, China has a problem because household consumption will continue to drop as a share of GDP.”

Consumption represents as much as 70% of U.S. GDP.  This lack of non-wage income, a large portion of income of retirees and near-retirees, means there is simply less to spend.  This represents another downward push on the supply of money.  If deposits in banks decline due to CDs and savings accounts being poor investments or not growing effectively, the banks have fewer assets to loan against.  We are a fractional reserve system and only money loaned creates more money.  As I discuss in this post on serious deflationary concerns, that’s the last thing we need.

As the post continues, it raises an interesting point that is of concern with Obama’s current direction.  It’s been well-publicized that the President would like us to rely more on exports and less on consumer spending to power the U.S. economy.

The Group of 20 nations has urged China to boost domestic consumer spending to help offset reduced consumption from debt- strapped consumers in the U.S. and Europe. If Chinese shoppers fail to take over that mantle as the government’s 4 trillion yuan in stimulus wanes, then the nation may have to fall back on exports for growth. That would revive trade disputes with the U.S., which is battling 9.5 percent unemployment, said Huang.

Great, protectionist trade battles to return:  Chicken tariffs anyone?

Low interest rates are intended to create investment through credit and therefor grow the economy, but left too long and in a disinflationary economy, they create a just the environment required to foster deflation.  As this article at states:

On Thursday, James Bullard, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, warned that the Fed’s current policies were putting the American economy at risk of becoming “enmeshed in a Japanese-style deflationary outcome within the next several years.”

So we’re keeping loose monetary policy because even the Fed has figured out that deflation is a real concern.  What’s startling is that the Fed’s next action will pull even more investment income out of the market.

Mr. Bullard, in an conference call with reporters on Thursday, said he was not calling right away for the Fed to drop its position that interest rates would remain exceptionally low for “an extended period,” or to resume buying long-term Treasury securities to stimulate the economy.

When the Fed buys Treasury bonds, it means they are infusing cash into the economy by buying U.S. Treasury debt: monitizing the debt.  This action will lower the rate on bonds (yields) which should make it less-expensive to borrow money.  In economics, there are two sides to every position.  If borrowing costs are low, lending incentive is minimized.  The risk-reward ratio gets out-of-kilter.  Why risk money for  measly 3% return?  If investor/saver mind-set is to stuff cash into a mattress, lowering interest rates won’t fix that and in-fact may make it worse.

A Chinese student uses a simple story to relate that the world may be heading into an unavoidable deflationary spiral.  Throwing money at it (stimulus), artificially lowering borrowing costs (fed actions) and just pretending that the recovery is happening (Obama and Biden on T.V.) are not the solutions.  It is quite possible that deflation is the solution to the bubbles that governments have caused over the last decade.  If we don’t let them occur, they will anyway.. just worse.  If that’s the case, are you prepared?

Meet Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, an Obama Backer

In this interview, Percy Sutton ( One time attorney for Malcom X) reveals that, at the request of Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, he wrote a letter of support to get Obama into Harvard as President of the Law Review.

So now we must ask, who is this Dr. Khalid Mansour that pulled these strings for Obama. Lets take a look. From Discover the Networks:

Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour is a Muslim lawyer and a black nationalist who made news in 2008 when it was revealed that he had been a patron of Barack Obama and had recommended the latter for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988.

Before becoming a Muslim, al-Mansour in the 1960s was named Don Warden. He was deeply involved in San Francisco Bay Area racial politics as founder of a group called the African American Association. A close personal adviser to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, al-Mansour helped the pair establish the Black Panther Party but later broke with them when they entered coalitions with white radical groups.

In the mid-1970s al-Mansour met Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Tatal, who today is best known for having offered a $10 million donation toward 9/11 relief efforts in 2001 — an offer that was rejected by New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani when the prince suggested that the terrorist attacks were an indication that America “should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause.” Al-Mansour’s relationship with the prince eventually led to al-Mansour’s hiring as attorney to King Saud. He has since been an adviser to Saudi billionaires who fund the spread of Wahhabi extremism in America.

Al-Mansour is an outspoken hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally. In recent years he has accused the U.S. of plotting a “genocide” designed “to remove 15 million black people, considered disposable, of no relevance, value or benefit to the American society.” He has told fellow blacks that “whatever you do to [white people], they deserve it, God wants you to do it and that’s when you cut out the nose, cut out the ears, take flesh out of their body, don’t worry because God wants you to do it.” Alleging further that Palestinians in Israel “are being brutalized like savages,” he accuses the Jews of “stealing the land the same way the Christians stole the land from the Indians in America.”

And from the Discover the Networks Page on Obama:

Harvard Law School and Khalid al-Mansour:

In 1988 Obama applied for admission to Harvard Law School. At the time, a Muslim attorney and black nationalist named Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour asked civil rights activist Percy Sutton to send a letter of recommendation to his (Sutton’s) friends at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

Al-Mansour formerly had been a close personal adviser to Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, having helped them establish the Black Panther Party in the 1960s. He thereafter became an advisor to a number of Saudi billionaires known for funding the spread of Wahhabi extremism in America. Al-Mansour also showed himself to be a passionate hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally.

With al-Mansour’s help, Obama in 1988 was accepted by Harvard Law School, where he became president of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991.

Newsmax conducted an interview with Khalid al-Mansour after the Percy Sutton revelation and here is their article:

Who is Khalid al-Mansour?

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman Who is the “mystery man” former Manhattan Borough Chairman Percy Sutton named as having aided Barack Obama financially at Harvard Law School?

Signs of al-Mansour’s work exists in Malaysia, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and spans four decades in the United States, Newsmax discovered while scouring hundreds of sources for the story it reported on the revelations Wednesday.

His life story could have been written as a Horatio Alger-style rise from rags to riches. He sees himself as something of the “return of Antar,” a mythical black poet-warrior of pre-Islamic times. His real-life exploits range from a surprise one-on-one meeting with the prime minister of India as a college student to mentoring Black Panthers’ founders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in the early 1960s.

Saga Starts With Meeting Saudi King

Al-Mansour’s rise to fame and fortune began with an introduction to the Saudi king in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in 1977.

“I was asked by a Saudi friend – he was a student down in Newport (Calif.) –to go home with him to Riyadh,” al-Mansour told Newsmax.

His friend was a member of the royal family and planned to ask the king for money to help with his studies in the United States. But the king was in no mood to be generous.

“He was mad. And then my friend told me that the basis of his anger was that OPEC was being sued,” al-Mansour said. “This was a very nasty conspiracy that involved some of the biggest respected political names in America. The king didn’t know all of that, but he knew he wasn’t happy.”

Al-Mansour’s friend told the kin he was a lawyer. “The King didn’t know if I was a good lawyer or bad lawyer, but said, ‘Will you do it?’ I said, ‘I’d have to study it.’ He said, ‘Just take it, and get out!’”

The king required that only one lawyer represent the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. “So you win or you lose, based on the outcome because no one’s going to listen to any excuses. You’re either a loser for life, or a winner for life,” al-Mansour said.

Al-Mansour was a winner – big time.

Changed Name After Studying Islam

Born the 11th of 12 children as Donald Warden to a polyglot father who often spoke glowingly about Islam, al-Mansour decided to change his name in 1964 after learning Arabic and studying Islam.

“I found that Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, if you put ’em together, it means that, if I’m eternally the slave of God, and I follow the right path, I will always be victorious. I liked that. So that became my name.”

He met and befriended Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the world’s 19-thealthiest person, when the prince was studying at Menlo College in California in the late 1970s. Al-Mansour’s law partner was representing the prince in a court case in California.

After getting a degree in business administration from Menlo in 1979, Prince Alwaleed went back to Saudi Arabia determined to become extremely successful, al-Mansur recalled.

The two began to work together, and the prince asked him to help him invest in Africa. “He said, let’s make our focus turning Africa around. He has never told me until today where this idea came from, but it became an obsession.”

Al-Mansour says he and the prince flew from country to country as he introduced the prince to heads of state. “It was easy for me, because I knew all the presidents.”

Mum on Relations with Obama

Al-Mansour deflected several attempts to get him to answer direct questions about his relationship with Obama and the Percy Sutton revelations it reported Wednesday.

“In respect to Mr. Obama, I have told him, because so many people are running after him, and when stories get printed they usually get distorted and then he has to spend a lot of time trying to unravel them – and then after the experience of Rev. (Jeremiah) Wright whom I’ve never met, but I’ve followed the media coverage – I was determined that I was never going to be in that situation. I never discuss Barack Obama,” al-Mansour said.

“I wish him the best, and hope he can win the election, and if he wins the election, that he adopts this campaign for education,” he said.

Al-Mansour wants Obama to launch an education and program” for black and Hispanic students, using his rock-star popularity to motivate young people, parents, and teachers to improve achievement standards.

Percy Sutton Revelations

Al-Mansour said is is aware of Percy Sutton’s revelations that identified him as raising money for Obama’s law school education when the presidential candidate was 25.

“But I’ve never confirmed it,” he said. “What you have since I’ve been out of the country is bloggers saying this is the new Rev. Wright — in drag! and he is a nationalist, racist, and worse than Rev. Wright. I’m not getting into that. Any statement that I make would only further the activity which is not in the interest of Barack, not in the interest of Percy, not in the interest of anyone. For the bloggers to not even have the courtesy to call me to ask what’s happening is a clear sign to me. There’s no need. There’s no benefit. So why do it?”

Asked specifically whether he had “spotted” Barack Obama while he was an undergraduate at Columbia as a promising student he wanted to help get into Harvard Law School, al-Mansour pleaded a faulty memory.

“I give a lot of speeches on college campuses, in the US and abroad. So I meet people all the time…. But I can’t say that I remember that.”

Nor would he confirm or deny that he had called Sutton, as Sutton reveals, asking him to help Obama get into Harvard.

“I’m not going to say that,” al-Mansour said. “That lends itself regardless of the answer and regardless of the truth to the type of sensationalism that I don’t consider productive to the goals that I have. I don’t see how this will promote education. I don’t see how this will promote a global respect. I don’t see how it deals with the basic issues we’re faced with in the country. I try to limit my comments to those kinds of issues, to avoid the tendency of the press to sensationalize both positive and negative.”

His attempts to deflect his support of Obama were pretty weak. Here he is practically campaigning for Obama:

Now for more on his radical views:

Here he is in an interview discussing one of his books and “Black Leadership”

Here is a multi part lecture titled: What Your Traditional Leaders Will Never Tell You

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9, Part 10

Part 11, Part 12

Part 13, Part 14

Part 15, Part 16, Part 17

I know theres alot there, Yes I watched all of it. Suffice to say, Dr. Mansour is just a Muslim version of Reverend Wright. While Wright  uses Black Liberation Theology with a Christian-ish face, Dr. Mansour basically does the same with an Islamic face. He has some very radical beliefs on Christianity and on Jewish people.

This lecture is titled: The Birth & Death of Christianity

This could be called the short version of the above

And heres a couple of his book titles taken from and

The Lost Books of Africa Rediscovered: We Charge Genocide by Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour

The Reflections of an African Arabian in American Captivity by Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour is just another radical skeleton that helped get Obama to where he is today. Without Dr. Mansour, Obama would not have gotten to Harvard Law. You can see the similarities of belief between Dr. Mansour, Obama, & Wright. Not the core religion, but the Black Liberation Theology. Obama was a Muslim in his childhood, and in his book stated politically he would stand with them, but I do not believe he himself is a Muslim now, but a Muslim sympathizer. Obama fully embraces Wright’s distorted version of Christianity and has made speeches confirming this. But hearing much of the rhetoric of Dr. Mansour, I can see how they could become close friends.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »