North Korea: Confrontational and brutal, repressive, and cruel; Religious persecution, Aggression, Militancy, Communism, and Nukes.

 Special Report

Religious Persecution in North Korea

Doug Bandow | 12.9.10 @ 6:07AM

The Kim regime is more than confrontational — it remains brutally repressive and cruel.

North Korea again has demonstrated its recklessness to the world. Pyongyang recently unveiled its uranium enrichment program and bombarded a South Korean island. For a time war clouds circled the Korean peninsula.

But the Kim dynasty in the so-called Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is more than confrontational. The regime is brutally repressive. The North’s prison camps are full of political dissidents, would-be refugees, and religious believers.

The DPRK routinely rates among the world’s worst religious persecutors. Formally atheistic, the regime has turned politics into a quasi-religion. The communist system is holy like a church, the ruling Kims, both father and son, are secular saints, the self-reliance philosophy of Juche amounts to theology, recorded in books of Kim sayings, and heretics are severely punished.

But North Korean repression is largely invisible to the world. We see through a glass darkly wrote the Apostle Paul, and no where was that more true than in the DPRK. The regime is uniquely opaque, with only a minimal foreign presence in Pyongyang. 

In late 2009, 29-year-old Robert Park illegally crossed from China to the North in order to increase attention to persecution in North Korea. He was held for 43 days and tortured before being released. He recently has been speaking about his experience.

Unfortunately, conditions have not improved. The State Department designates the communist state as a Country of Particular Concern. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom also recently cited the North as one of its 13 Countries of Particular Concern. The group Open Doors put the DPRK at the top of its latest World Watch List. International Christian Concern cites North Korea as one of the world’s 10 Worst Persecutors. 

Yet foreign religious delegations sometimes are taken in by the North’s Potemkin Village of faith. Last October, Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy wrote about such a trip organized by the World Council of Churches, which in years past had promoted violent Marxist “liberation” groups. Alas, clerics often are the most credulous of observers, seemingly determined to see the Kim regime as an international victim.

The reality is very different. In the DPRK, explains the State Department, “the government severely restricted religious activity, except that which was supervised tightly by officially recognized groups linked to the government. Genuine religious freedom does not exist.” Those who seek to gather and worship independently face severe repression.

The Commission’s judgment is similar: “Severe religious freedom abuses occur regularly, including: surveillance, discrimination, and harassment of both authorized and unauthorized religious activity; the arrest, torture, and possible execution of those conducting clandestine religious activity; and the mistreatment and imprisonment of asylum-seekers repatriated from China, particularly those suspected of engaging in religious activities or having religious affiliations.” 

In fact, repression has been getting worse, since Pyongyang feels threatened by increased cross-border activity. Reports State: “Recent refugee, defector, missionary, and nongovernment organization (NGO) reports indicated religious persons engaging in proselytizing in the country, and those who have been in contact with foreigners or missionaries have been arrested and subjected to harsh penalties.”

International Christian Concern offers a similar judgment: “In 2009, the North Korean government took new steps to combat religious activity, and halted cross-border support from Chinese Christians. The government set up false prayer meetings and infiltrated underground churches as new tactics to entrap Christian converts.”

Yeo-sang Yoon and Sun-young Han of the North Korean Human Rights Archives and Database Center for North Korean Human Rights, respectively, interviewed North Korean defectors and refugees. They released their latest white paper on religious liberty in the North last year. The report still makes for depressing reading.

Yoon and Han estimate that roughly five percent of human rights violations involve religious persecution. Unfortunately, the authors conclude, “Religious oppression is ongoing with no signs of any improvement.” Nevertheless, there is a small but important bright spot: “The number of unofficial, behind-the-scenes and clandestine religious activities has increased little by little despite the North’s anti-religious policies.”

The Kim dynasty does not recognize individual liberty of any sort. People in the DPRK are expected to be dutiful automatons. They should share the official “religion” of deification of the Kim-led state. Everything people do is expected to glorify the “Great” and “Dear” Leaders. The regime considers real “religion as something to overcome,” write Yoon and Han.

Pyongyang obviously understands the threat posed by belief in God. As Adolf Hitler’s notorious “People’s Court” judge Roland Freisler declared, Nazism (paganism, occultism, rule of individual man) and Christianity had only one thing in common — they claimed the whole person. Similarly, Christianity (and other faiths) and Communism (atheistic rule of individual man) (especially in North Korea) have only one thing in common — they claim the whole person.

Page: 1 2 3 > 

Letter to the Editor

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author and editor of several books, including The Politics of Plunder: Misgovernment in Washington.

________________________________

 

Is the US Willing to Stand Up to North Korea and Iran?

Tuesday, 30 Nov 2010 02:48 PM

By Edward Koch

Has our country reached the point when we, like so many great nations before us, are no longer the leading state of our time?

The evidence of our decline is everywhere, but nowhere is it more apparent than in the way we are being treated by other countries. Some of our allies, including Canada, Holland, and Spain, have left or are leaving us in the lurch in Afghanistan, withdrawing their troops.

Many states, including our allies, have sought to embarrass us diplomatically. The trip that President Obama took recently to the Pacific Rim was an example of that. He was rebuffed by countries large and small. Most media observers called his journey a fiasco of sorts.

There was a time when the U.S. military said it was capable of fighting 2 ½ wars at the same time. Today, as a result of being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, we probably are unable to fight a third war, and our enemies know it.

Last Spring, North Korea sank a South Korean navy ship, killing 46 South Korean sailors. The U.S. is an ally of South Korea with 28,000 U.S. troops in that country. We’ve always been told that those troops are there as a tripwire, so that North Korea would know if it attacked South Korea, it would be attacking the U.S. in the same way that an attack on one NATO country would be seen as an attack upon all NATO members.

In the case of North Korea, it has paid no price for its sinking of the South Korean ship and, just as bad, no price for its recent unprovoked artillery bombardment of a South Korean island which resulted in the deaths of two South Korean soldiers and two civilians, with injuries to 15 others.

Today comes the revelation from the American secret documents disclosed by WikiLeaks that North Korea has been supplying long-range missiles to Iran. According to The New York Times of November 29, the documents “reveal for the first time that the United States believes that Iran has obtained advanced missiles from North Korea that could let it strike at Western European capitals and Moscow and help it develop more formidable long-range ballistic missiles.”

Other than decrying the most recent attack on South Korea and sending the George Washington aircraft carrier to participate in a joint military exercise in South Korean waters, so far as I know, we have done nothing to retaliate.

Undoubtedly, South Korea is reluctant to retaliate or escalate, fearing to expose millions of its citizens to further military action, including a possible nuclear attack by North Korea, which has the fourth largest army in the world. North Korean citizens may be dying of starvation, but their army is well provided for.

Do we have the means or resolve to launch a punishing attack against North Korea, which is perceived as crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack against South Korea or Japan, expecting China to continue to protect it at the U.N. and provide it with military support?

Aside from our not having the resources to take on another war with North Korea, especially if the latter is supported by China — remember General MacArthur’s error in 1951 in approaching the Yalu River and having the Chinese army enter the fray and drive us back to the 38th parallel — most troubling is we don’t have the resolve.

America is simply not prepared or willing to go to war again, after our terrible experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not willing to accept the hardships a war requires, including the need to pay for that war with additional current taxes. Nor are we willing to reimpose the draft requiring everyone to do their part.

We simply are not prepared to protect our national honor and national security as we once were when we went to war with Nazi Germany. Indeed, the situation today is looking more and more like Munich of 1938 when the world caved to the Nazi threats, as we today cave to the threats of countries like North Korea and Iran.

We have even succumbed to the threats of Somali pirates who, according to The New York Times of November 9, are holding for ransom 25 ships and 500 people.

We should tell North Korea and Iran to turn over by a stated deadline their nuclear weapons to China or Russia, countries where we believe the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) still applies, or suffer military consequences. We should warn them that any act of war they engage in worldwide will result in an immediate military response on our part of a devastating nature.

What our current situation requires is the resolve of President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 when he made clear to the U.S.S.R. that the U.S. would immediately respond to the Soviets’ placing nuclear missiles in Cuba deeming it an act of war. Is President Obama up to it? This is his 3 a.m. telephone call. I pray he is.

UPDATE: Obama’s N Korea 3am phone call = FAIL, Hillary’s N Korea 3am phone call = FAIL.

RELATED: Obama’s WikiLeaks 3am phone call = FAIL, Hillary’s WikiLeaks 3am phone call = FAIL.

November 26, 2010

South Korea has to respond to the North’s aggression

Jerry Philipson

North Korea has committed two major acts of war against South Korea so far this year, last March when it torpedoed a South Korean naval vessel in international waters destroying the ship and killing 46 sailors and last Tuesday November 22 when it launched a missile attack on South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island which killed two soldiers and at least two civilians, and has injured dozens more. Just prior to that the North Koreans unveiled a modern up-to-date nuclear facility they constructed which will enable them to enrich uranium and produce more powerful nuclear weapons than the 10 or so they already have. Governments and pundits around the world have been counselling restraint to this latest atack because it is felt that a military response could lead to all out war between the two countries, a war which could involve nuclear weapons and drag in the United States, China and others.

Restraint is precisely the wrong approach to take, at least if you’re South Korean. North Korea is going to continue to commit acts of war against the South and sow death and destruction until she is stopped and the only thing which is going to do that is a strong, unambiguous, targeted military response. Its either that or suffer the death of a thousand cuts. Since South Korea is not willing to undergo that and North Korea will not stop attacking a targeted military response makes a great deal of sense. It may lead to all out war to be sure but then again it may not…no one except the North Koreans seems to want war and cooler heads may prevail once the firing commences. In any event South Koreans have to protect themselves and prevent further attacks and using their military is the only way to do it, unless of course committing slow national suicide is part of their equation.

All of which begs several questions. How much restraint would the United States show if China purposely sunk an American navy ship and killed 50 odd U.S. sailors? What about vice/versa? What if the United States or China launched non nuclear missiles at the other’s territory and killed soldiers and civilians alike? What good would restraint do then? What would a failure to respond tell either country’s antagonists and how would that prevent further attacks and loss of life? How have President Obama’s policies of conciliation, appeasement and containment towards North Korea contributed to the situation and how do the lessons learned pertain to the Middle East and Iran? Etc. etc. etc.

Yes, South Korea has to respond. The United States and China have to restrain North Korea and perhaps themselves once that occurs, but South Korea has to respond.

ONE OF THE WORST PARTS ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING IS THAT NORTH KOREA HAS GROWN TO BE AS BAD TODAY AS THEY WERE WHEN THE KOREAN WAR TOOK PLACE 50 YEARS AGO. THIS TIME THE N KOREAN “ILL” REGIME SHOULD BE CRUSHED AND THE WAY PAVED FOR EITHER: A FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT OF FORMER OPPRESSED DISSIDENTS TO TAKE OVER, OR  FOR A RE-UNIFICATION WITH THE SOUTH.

Castro: Senile or finally an honest statement?: Communism is no good.

Castro: Communism Doesn’t Work in Cuba

Wednesday, 08 Sep 2010 11:35 PM

 

HAVANA — Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba’s communist economic model doesn’t work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.

The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel’s brother Raul, the country’s president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba’s 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba’s economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore,” Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

He said Castro made the comment casually over lunch following a long talk about the Middle East, and did not elaborate. The Cuban government had no immediate comment on Goldberg’s account.

Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations who accompanied Goldberg on the trip, confirmed the Cuban leader’s comment. She told The Associated Press she took the remark to be in line with Raul Castro’s call for gradual but widespread reform.

Since stepping down from power in 2006, the ex-president has focused almost entirely on international affairs and said very little about Cuba and its politics, perhaps to limit the perception he is stepping on his brother’s toes.

Goldberg, who traveled to Cuba at Castro’s invitation last week to discuss a recent Atlantic article he wrote about Iran’s nuclear program, also reported on Tuesday that Castro questioned his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, including his recommendation to Soviet leaders that they use nuclear weapons against the United States.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cuba has clung to its communist system.

The state controls well over 90 percent of the economy, paying workers salaries of about $20 a month in return for free health care and education, and nearly free transportation and housing. At least a portion of every citizen’s food needs are sold to them through ration books at heavily subsidized prices.

President Raul Castro and others have instituted a series of limited economic reforms, and have warned Cubans that they need to start working harder and expecting less from the government. But the president has also made it clear he has no desire to depart from Cuba’s socialist system or embrace capitalism.

Fidel Castro stepped down temporarily in July 2006 due to a serious illness that nearly killed him.

He resigned permanently two years later, but remains head of the Communist Party. After staying almost entirely out of the spotlight for four years, he re-emerged in July and now speaks frequently about international affairs. He has been warning for weeks of the threat of a nuclear war over Iran.

Castro’s interview with Goldberg is the only one he has given to an American journalist since he left office.

The Democrats Vietnam lessons, Emperor Obama, and the new but not so improved Jimmy Carter (complete with Iranian nightmares)

June 25, 2010

Have the Democrats Learned Anything from Vietnam?

By Michael Filozof

The Vietnam War was the defining event for the modern Democratic Party. Nearly four decades after the war ended, we ought to ask if the Democrats learned anything from Vietnam that is applicable to Afghanistan.

In Vietnam, the U.S. fought an insurgency in a remote, forbidding jungle that neutralized our tactical advantage. In Afghanistan, we are fighting an insurgency in remote, forbidding mountains that neutralize our tactical advantage.

In Vietnam, the insurgents had no armor and no air power. They attacked American patrols with jury-rigged explosives called “booby traps.” In Afghanistan, the insurgents have no armor and no air power. They attack American patrols with jury-rigged explosives called “IEDs.”

In Vietnam, a socialist country tried to defeat the insurgents before the U.S. became involved. It failed. It was called “France.” In Afghanistan, a socialist country also tried to defeat the insurgents before the U.S. became involved. It also failed. It was called the “Soviet Union.”

In Vietnam, American involvement began by sending advisers, Special Forces, and CIA operatives. Nine years later, we had hundreds of thousands of troops in combat brigades stationed there. In Afghanistan, American involvement began by sending in advisers, Special Forces, and CIA operatives. Nine years later, we have combat brigades and over a hundred thousand troops stationed there.

In Vietnam, the insurgents routinely obtained assistance and sanctuary in a foreign nation where U.S. forces were forbidden to go. It was called “Cambodia.” In Afghanistan, insurgents routinely obtain assistance and sanctuary in a foreign nation where U.S. troops are forbidden to go. It is called “Pakistan.”

In Vietnam, the U.S. sought to protect the population from insurgents through a program called “Strategic Hamlets.” It didn’t work. In Afghanistan, the U.S. is seeking to protect the population from the insurgents with a program called “Clear, Build, and Hold.” It isn’t working, either.

In Vietnam, the U.S. supported a corrupt ruler who rigged elections in an attempt to give his regime a veneer of legitimacy. His name was “Diem.” In Afghanistan, the U.S. is supporting a corrupt ruler who rigged elections to give himself a veneer of legitimacy. His name is “Karzai.”

In Vietnam, the U.S. declared that its goal was to train and equip an indigenous force to hold off the insurgents by themselves. They were called the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam). The ARVN turned out to be incompetent and corrupt. In Afghanistan, our strategy is to train and equip indigenous forces called the ANA (Afghan National Army). The ANA is also incompetent and corrupt.

We fought in Vietnam for over a decade, but Congress never declared war on Vietnam. We have fought in Afghanistan for nine years with no end in sight, and Congress has not declared war on Afghanistan, either.

The Vietnam War was escalated by a Democratic president named “Johnson.” Johnson could not afford to look soft on communism in the 1964 campaign because his Republican opponent was a hawkish fighter pilot from Arizona named “Goldwater.” The Afghanistan war was escalated by a Democratic president named “Obama.” Obama could not afford to look soft on terrorism in the 2008 campaign, because his Republican opponent was a hawkish fighter pilot from Arizona named “McCain.”

Although Johnson was responsible for escalating the Vietnam War, his real interest was in domestic politics, where he presided over a massive expansion of the welfare state and created expensive federal health care programs called “Medicare” and “Medicaid.” While Obama is responsible for escalating the Afghan war, his real interest is in domestic politics, where he has massively expanded the welfare state and created an expensive federal health care program called “Obamacare.”

Rather than leave the battlefield tactics in Vietnam up to his field commanders, Johnson was known for micromanaging the war and manipulating bombing strategies and other rules of engagement that prevented the U.S. forces from going all-out. In Afghanistan, Obama has micromanaged the war with restrictive rules of engagement that prevent the U.S. forces from going all-out.

In Vietnam, the United States lost. In Afghanistan…we’re not winning.

Have the Democrats learned anything from Vietnam? Actually, they have learned many important lessons.

First, they have learned that anti-war riots and protests should be conducted only against Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents. (Isn’t it amazing how Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan disappeared after George W. Bush left office?)

Second, they have learned to not send Jane Fonda to enemy territory to pose for enemy propaganda photos. Unlike the warm reception she received in Hanoi, the Taliban would probably behead her live on the internet for failing to wear a burqa.

Third, they have learned that if a Democratic presidential candidate plans to conduct a foreign policy of national self-abasement and groveling before our enemies, it is probably better to not announce it during the campaign. George McGovern promised that he’d “crawl on his hands and knees to Hanoi and beg for peace” in 1972 and lost 49 states. Obama did not apologize to the Muslim world and bow before foreign monarchs until after he was elected.

Finally, the most important lesson the Democrats have learned is that they should not draft long-haired, stoned hippies and America-hating radicals on college campuses and send them to war. They’ll only riot and try to bomb the Pentagon (like Bill Ayers did). And it makes no sense to offend the voters who are virtually guaranteed to support the Democratic Party anyway.

It’s far better to prosecute a war with patriotic, America-loving volunteers from red states who probably voted Republican in the first place, and to play them for suckers by sending them on a mission about which you’ve said you’re “uncomfortable” using the term “victory.”

The Democrats have indeed learned a lot from Vietnam, haven’t they?

June 25, 2010

Commodus Castigates a Centurion

By Jeannie DeAngelis

Emperor Lucius Aurelius Commodus, son of Marcus Aurelius, the “last of five good emperors,” ruled Rome from AD 177 to AD 192. History tells us that Commodus “proved to be a self-indulgent, disconnected leader.” In fact, Commodus‘ “accession to power ended a spell of 80 years in Roman history which had brought men to the throne by merit rather than birth.”

Supposedly, Imperator Caesar Lucius Aurelius Commodus Augustus was filled with “cruelty, vanity, power and fear,” which “formed into a terrifyingly dangerous mix of bloodlust, suspicion and megalomania.”  

Thousands of years have passed, and presently, America is being ruled by Barack Obama. Obama also maneuvers his way through the political empire like a Roman emperor whose objective is retention of power by way of wile, stealth, and intimidation.

Defy or disparage Obama, and a suspicious president adopts dealing with the offender as his top priority and behaves like an obsessed Commodus, pursuing enemies who are armed only with blunted weapons. In fact, Obama’s ancient predecessor Commodus “is said to have feigned a plot against his own life, in order that he might have an excuse for putting many to death.”

Take for example Arizona daring to enact immigration law as a means of self-preservation. Obama views the state as under siege, defending itself from mutiny against the empire, and intends to drag the Grand Canyon state into the coliseum to spank the living daylights out of defiant politicians and policy.

Top commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal also did the inexcusable. In a Rolling Stone article entitled “The Runaway General,” McChrystal candidly described an encounter with Commodus-in-Chief. 

McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his [expletive] war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.”

A highly trained general at the pinnacle of his military career certainly has experience enough to recognize “unpreparedness” when he sees it. Yet the observant general found that one dare not defy Obama, because harsh recompense can befall the mighty at the hand of the weak. Remember, “Whosoever ridiculed [Commodus] he cast to the wild beasts.”

The president, like a power-hungry Roman emperor, seems driven by insecurity and exhibits disdain for disagreement. McChrystal’s comments were defined as flippant insubordination by the “furious” Obama. Thus, America’s highest-ranking legate was summoned from the heat of battle for a face-to-face reproof in Washington, D.C.

If McChrystal thought fighting the Taliban was rough, the Afghan war is nothing compared to being dressed down by a Chicago community organizer whom McChrystal all but called a “wimp in the White House.”

Although imprudent, General McChrystal and his aides spoke with unadulterated veracity about Obama’s inexperience and ineptness. Obama chastising a “Spartan commander” of McChrystal’s caliber can be likened to a Roman emperor throwing an unarmed centurion to the lions.

Though reported as a resignation, truth is President Barack Obama “ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal” as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for contemptuous remarks about administration officials, which Obama contends “undermined civilian control of the military and eroded trust on the president’s war team.”

Ironically, Obama’s irresponsible international diplomacy and “poor judgment” have compromised the safety of our troops numerous times. For an amateur like Barack to intimate that McChrystal’s personal statement compromises the safety of the military in Afghanistan encapsulates the paranoid character of a current-day Commodus.

The comparisons between Barack Obama and Commodus are unsettling. According to historical texts, Commodus was a weak, inexperienced leader who came to power with great pomp and ceremony and fancied himself the god Hercules. Yet Commodus’ reign is credited with “ending years of Roman stability and prosperity.” 

Like Barack Obama, Commodus entered Rome “in a triumphal procession, receiving a hero’s welcome.” To the young, “Commodus [was] an icon of new, happier days to come; his arrival sparked the highest hopes in the Roman people.”

In the name of peace, Commodus relinquished military advances the Roman Empire celebrated under Marcus Aurelius. Militarily, the Roman emperor “surrendered all his father had achieved” and retreated from “direly contested territories.” Emperor Commodus’ retreat was viewed as “an utter betrayal of everything the beloved Marcus Aurelius had stood for.”

Similar retreats from hard-won military advances may be at the crux of General McChrystal’s beef with Obama.

Like Obama, Commodus was “loved by the lower classes” because “generosity was indeed a part of his imperial program … the emperor obtained some of this funding by taxing members of the senatorial class.” The emperor “nearly bankrupted the imperial treasury with his expensive lifestyle” and then “replenished it by accusing senators of treason and having their property seized.”

Can anybody say $13-trillion deficit, “BP shakedown,” or tax the rich and “redistribute the wealth?”

Commodus identified with Roman gladiators who were drawn from the dregs of society. Commodus “played gladiator” while “the empire itself faced hard times.” Two thousand years later, Obama plays golf while Americans experience hard times.   

According to Roman historian Herodian (1.15-17), “In his gladiatorial combats, [Commodus] defeated his opponents with ease, and he did no more than wound them, since they all submitted to him only because they knew he was the emperor, not because he was truly a gladiator.”

Even today, Emperor Obama nibbles clusters of grapes while terrorists sneak over the border, the economy falters, Ahmedinejad is in the process of starting a nuclear friction fire by rubbing a bomb between Iran’s Israel-hating hands, and oil hemorrhages like a severed artery into the Gulf of Mexico, smothering the American coastline.

At a sensitive time in the Afghan conflict, retribution for impertinence toward the Imperious One takes precedence over both strategy and security. General Stanley McChrystal’s resignation is merely additional collateral damage delivered by a disgraceful administration that makes sport of “degrad[ing] the most honorable either by insulting them directly or giving them offices far below their deserts.” 

“Commodus’ reign was filled with bad decisions, causing the people of Rome to suffer.” Truth be known, Obama is nothing more than a high-handed modern-day Commodus whose disproportionate focus is on dealing harshly with critics while Rome burns. 

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

June 26, 2010

Islamic Republic of Iran’s Smoke and Mirrors

By Arash Irandoost

Since 1977, no two men have contributed more to the erosion of America’s credibility and prestige than President Carter and his foreign policy advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (with the verdict not yet in on President Obama).  Jimmy Carter, aided by Mr. Brzezinski, introduced new directions in foreign policy that would ultimately trick Russia to invade Afghanistan in a cold blooded eagerness to payback Moscow for Vietnam and betray one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East.  By orchestrating the Shah’s failure and supporting Khomeini, they created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships, considered by many as the most dangerous threat faced by the United States today.

Their short-sided and ill-conceived policies have been a source of frustration and disappointment towards America leading to lack of trust and loss of respect for this great nation.  Carter’s policies have contributed to making the Middle East an extremely turbulent region giving rise to militant and ideologically-driven Islam that has been reigning terror ever since. Indeed, Taliban and the Islamic Republic are the byproducts of such miscalculated foreign policy decisions. 

Out of character for America in terms of her history, sense of morality and basic decency, policy makers in administration after administration of American continue with their failed policies aided by the intelligence community and liberal ideologues, and orchestrated by Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) financed lobbyists and “so-called: reporters; university professors; opposition and human rights activists; and Iran experts.  America is no longer the nation of Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan. Gone are the days of America standing with democracy and freedom seeking groups.” Bending down and bending backward to appease dictators, extending an open hand to terrorist nations, allowing a regime that randomly arrests, imprisons, tortures, stones, hangs and rapes women to have a seat on UN Women’s Right Commission and ignoring blatant human rights violations by the United Nations member nations have become routine.  

Such policies of appeasement have not gone unnoticed by various friends and foes.  The United States’ continuous acquiescence to IRI leaders has disenfranchised many pro democracy Iranians. Their last glimmer of hope was painfully dashed by Obama soon after his election when he extended his hand and addressed the rapist government of Iran on the occasion Iranian New Year. Frustrated by America’s silence, demonstrators risked their lives and chanted “Obama are you with them or with us?”, providing the United States with yet another opportunity to redeem itself.   Obama turned his back on them and their cries for freedom and democracy went unnoticed. Sadly, such actions have emboldened the mullahs. Reports of torture, rape and hangings continue to pour out of Iran.

Cognizant that its weapons program and human rights violations might eventually be condemned by the world community, the Islamic Republic has been spending millions of dollars on a campaign of smoke and mirrors to legitimize, justify, and hide its criminal activities and weapons program. 

Lobby groups and IRI agents are hard at work to discredit pro-democracy opposition groups and dissuade the world community from taking a decisive action against Iran.  Deceitfully, they have infiltrated the universities, established foundations and mosques, bought out ethnic television stations to shape public opinion and the US policy.  They appear on American television and news stations, write books and articles, and organize public events and orchestrate rallies. Their concerted and coordinated strategy is designed to fool the United States into thinking that Regime is pragmatic, can be reformed and Mousavi is the man to bring about the needed reforms. They oppose sanctions and claim sanctions only hurt ordinary people. They push for dialogue and diplomacy, and assassinate or smear those who oppose them as CIA, Israeli agents or belonging to MEK. All aimed at buying mullahs enough time to build their nuclear bomb to continue their vile existence.

Such handlers never talk about the elephant in the room, which has systematically monopolized major business and economic sectors of the Iranian community, the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the real power in Iran. IRGC will not allow any major economic reform to be implemented.  Mousavi and any other “reformist leaders” will be powerless against them. IRGC has a lot to lose and little to gain by reforms. To some degree decisions on the nuclear weapons program indirectly rest with IRGC and not Khamenei.  IRGC drives massive revenues by keeping the nuclear program alive.  Forcing IRI to abandon its nuclear program translates to loss of a great revenue source for IRGC.

The schizophrenic position of IRI and its propagandists is indeed bizarre at best when it comes to sanctions. On the one hand, Ahmadinejad dares the West to impose strictest of sanctions, yet behind the scene he is frantically engaged in preventing it from happening.  Despite what regime’s handlers have made you believe, sanctions do work and the majority of Iranians are desirous and demanding of the strictest sanctions.  Those who claim that sanctions will hurt the ordinary people are yet to provide any credible evidence to support their assertions. Such false claims are based on a few fabricated and phony surveys. A closer examination of such surveys reveals that they were sent to very few select individuals sympathetic to the regime. There is evidence now to support that lobbyist intentionally mislead Americans and lied to Congress using fabricated information. The majority of Iranians are angry at the West and the UN by not imposing the strictest sanctions in light of regime’s blatant human rights violations.  

Another strategy embedded within the propagandists’ mission is to use the potential for war as the scare tactic and portray opposition groups as “war mongers.” This is yet another ploy to push for dialogue and diplomacy with the rogue regime.  In my opinion, just the opposite is true. Facts are, despite their differences of opinion, the world community is united on one issue.  They are intent on preventing Iran from going nuclear and will not allow Iran to possess a nuclear bomb.  If successful, it is the IRI propagandists, lobby groups and IRI policies that are inching Iran towards an all out war.  Their strategy of aiding IRI to develop a nuclear weapon will ultimately lead to confrontation between Iran and the West.  

The West was fooled once by Khomeini.  He was sold to American as the great visionary, a Ghandhi- and MLK-like character with saintly qualities by agenda driven propagandists. Many of IRI’s criminal activities and human rights violations were initiated by Khomeini and carried out by Mousavi and Mousavi-type characters. Mousavi sees Khomeini as his source of inspiration and dreams of returning Iran to that era. Mousavi is an anti American and a staunch supporter of the nuclear weapons program and was instrumental in establishing Hezbollah. After the imposition of a fourth round of watered down sanctions to stop IRI’s nuclear weapons’ program, and anticipating yet another failure, decision makers in the United States must ask themselves whether they want to continue to be hoodwinked by masterful IRI propagandists and buy in their fuzzy and deceptive logic that dialogue and diplomacy is the answer, or change the course and work towards regime change and support pro democracy groups?  They need to consider that: Thirty one years of appeasement and failed attempts at dialogue has been a source of frustration and embarrassment for various US leaders at various times from Carter, to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and perhaps in the not so distant future, Obama. The regime is intent on developing nuclear weapons. It is a mandate from Khomeini in the aftermath of his failed war with Iraq, and a part of an ideologically driven expansionist agenda to export Islam beyond Iran’s borders. An examination of IRI’s constitution, elections process, and power structure makes it abundantly clear that reform is not possible. In the regime’s mind, it is the West that needs the reform. Theirs is a religious duty and a mandate from Allah. They perceive their theocratic system of governance superior to that of any other nation. Inaction by the West will have disastrous consequences for the world. With nuclear weapons at their disposal, mullahs are bent on wiping Israel off the map, expand their religion to remote corners of the universe and settle some unsettled issues.   Dr. Brzezinski’s strategy of using militant Islam against Russia has been obviously abysmal failure.  IRI not only has not served as a defense against Russia, but has intimately allied itself with her.  Many Iranians, having seen the real face fundamental Islam over the past 31 years, are turning away from it in large numbers and are converting  to Christianity and Zoroastrianism, something which Islamic Republic paid pundits do not tell Americans about. The notion that Iran is going to fall into Communist hands is no longer a valid theory. Iranian Communists and Marxists, after a sequential love and hate relationship with IRI, have now allied themselves with IRI and are working toward regime’s survival. Regime change, if successful, will kill two birds with one stone, and hopefully get rid of both IRI and the Iranian Left.  Iranians during the demonstrations chanted several significant slogans expressing their prevailing views.  Chief among them were slogans directly aimed at Russia, another in solidarity with Israel, and yet another one against Hamas and Hezb’allah.  In reality, this is a great opportunity for the United States to seize the moment and support the Iranian prodemocracy demonstrators, since their political views are closely aligned with that of the United States. Dr. Arash Irandoost is the founder of Pro Democracy Movement of Iran (PDMI) which focuses on human rights and pro democracy initiatives.  He can be contacted at hakemiat.e.mardom@gmail.com. The pen name Arash Irandoost is used due to his concerns for personal safety. Read more of his blogs hakemiat-e-mardom.blogspot.com.

Obama hypocrisy, U.N. hypocrisy, Russian hypocrisy, and Iranians want nukes

1) Mr Obama, The U.S. comes first, and is the most important voice in all matters, not the U.N.

2) As if the Russians haven’t taken advantage of your naivity enough already Mr Obama, you are now worried above our congressional sanctions damaging our relationship. DID YOU NOT GET THE MEMO THAT DESPITE ANY AND ALL SANCTIONS SO FAR, THE RUSSIANS ARE STILL SELLING THE IRANIANS ICB MISSLES. DID YOU HEAR THAT SIR, MISSLES, NOT FOOD, ENERGY, BUILDING MATERIAL, MEDICINE, NO, MISSLES!

Obama Opposes US Sanctions on Iran
by Hana Levi Julian

The Obama administration is working to balance its support of United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran by opposing similar sanctions in the process of being formulated by the U.S. Congress.

The American version of such sanctions would punish firms that sell refined petroleum products to the Islamic Republic or help the country’s oil industry in other ways. The sanctions would apply only to U.S. agencies and companies and would not be binding on other countries.

Other nations are also considering similar measures, now that the U.N. sanctions have been approved.

The White House is concerned that the Congress may go too far in imposing sanctions on those that work with firms based in countries that have cooperated with Iran, such as China, Russia and several European nations, according to the Los Angeles Times. Such a move could damage America’s relationship with those countries, all of whom cooperated with the United States when it came time to vote on the United Nations sanctions against Iran.

European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton recently reminded U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a letter that the U.S. had promised in 1998 not to punish European countries for doing business with Iran.

In order to avoid diplomatic difficulties, the Obama administration is seeking a waiver for countries that have cooperated with the United States on Iran – but the White House may face a tough fight. The senior Republican member on House Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), called the U.N. sanctions a “goose egg.” Ros-Lehtinen is calling for Congress to beef up the international fight against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear development program by imposing “crippling sanctions against Iran” on its own.

OR DOES HE JUST HAVE HIS EYES WIDE SHUT?

Sen. Cornyn: Obama Is Blind to Islamic Extremism

Jun 9, 2010

President Obama shows willful blindness to the threat of Islamic extremism, Sen. John Cornyn tells Newsmax. During an exclusive Newsmax interview, the Texas Republican cites Attorney General Eric Holder s recent refusal in a Senate hearing to say that radical Islam…

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL STORY

Iran Cleric Makes Veiled Call for Nuclear Arms

Newsmax Monday, 14 Jun 2010

The hardline spiritual mentor of Iran’s president has made a rare public call for producing “special weapons” that are currently the monopoly of a few nations, in a reference to nuclear arms.

The Associated Press on Monday obtained a copy of a book written by Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi in which he wrote Iran should not deprive itself of the right to produce these “special weapons.”

Iran’s government, as well as its clerical hierarchy, have repeatedly denied the country is seeking nuclear weapons, as alleged by a number of Western nations.

 Yazdi’s book was written in 2005 and then reprinted last year, but would have only had a very limited circulation among senior clerics and would not have been public knowledge.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran’s most powerful military force, the Revolutionary Guard, said Monday it was not worried by the latest U.N. sanctions that seek to undercut its reach and stall the country’s nuclear program.

 The defiant remarks by senior Guard commander Gen. Hossein Salami were the group’s first reaction since the Security Council last week imposed the toughest sanctions yet in response to Tehran’s refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

 The Guard has a direct hand in Iran’s nuclear research as well as nearly ever critical economic and defense project, including missile technology and Iran’s vital oil industry.

 The Guard’s power has further expanded since last June’s disputed elections after it took charge of the crackdown against opposition forces — leading U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to claim earlier this year that Iran was moving toward a “military dictatorship.”

 The new U.N. sanctions seek to disrupt the Guard’s money flow and areas of influence. They call for an asset freeze on 40 additional companies and organizations: 15 linked to the Guard, 22 involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities.

 The sanctions came after months of efforts to press Iran to accept a U.N.-drafted plan to swap low-enriched uranium for reactor-ready fuel. Iran, instead, responded last month with a separate plan backed by Turkey and Brazil, but it did not mandate a halt on uranium enrichment sought by the West and allies.

 The United States and other nations fear that Iran will continue to upgrade its uranium enrichment program until it can produce a nuclear weapon. Iran says it only seeks energy and research reactors and has the right to enrich uranium under international accords.  The Revolutionary Guard commander Salami said Iran has shaped its defense capabilities “on the basis of the worst case scenarios” and that sanctions won’t stop Iran’s program.

 ”The level, format, volume and severity of sanctions is not worrying for us,” the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying.

 Despite the increased international tensions over the sanctions — supported by key Iranian trading partners Russia and China — Western envoys still hold out hope for a diplomatic solution.

 European Union officials said EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has invited Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to talks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. A diplomat said Iran is expected to respond positively to the proposal, with the talks being held sometime over the summer. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

 But EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg are also looking at imposing their own set of sanctions against Tehran. A draft document said these should target the financial and transport sectors, as well as investments in its oil industry.

 Under the latest U.N. resolution, Iran is banned from pursuing “any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons,” investing in nuclear-related activities such as uranium mining, and buying eight categories of heavy weapons, including attack helicopters and missiles.

 While experts say sanctions can make life more difficult — technically, financially and politically — for Iran, Salami said Iran has got used to living under sanctions for three decades since the first wave of U.S. embargoes after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

 ”We’ve always been subject to sanctions. The Iranian nation and the Guard has experienced life under 31 years of sanctions … and has achieved self-sufficiency. It is the outside world, not Iran, that will lose from sanctions,” IRNA quoted him as saying.

 Associated Press Writer Slobodan Lekic contributed to this report from Luxembourg.

IRAN Situation continues to worsen as Obama Admin continues to fail

AMB. JOHN BOLTON: Here Comes a Nuclear Iran

A Nuclear 9/11: Experts Say It’s ‘Likely’ Within Years

Rep. Cantor Slams Obama on Iran, Russia

Ronald Kessler

Jim Woolsey: Nuclear Iran ‘Extremely’ Likely

Ken Timmerman

Bin Laden in Iran, Documentary Claims

Iran’s Secret Nuke Deal With Zimbabwe?

According to reports, Iran secretly agreed to provide Zimbabwe with oil for African nation’s uranium ore

Sanction-Busting Secret Deal Reveals Iran’s Nuclear

Iranian Threat Grows Daily

Tuesday, 20 Apr 2010 09:32 AM

By: Edward Koch

The silence continues to be deafening with no Democrat in Congress, to my knowledge, crying out against President Obama for continuing to try to diminish the U.S.’ closeness to Israel.

The president is apparently attempting to placate the Sunni Muslim countries in order to establish a coalition opposed to the increasing power of the Shiite Muslim state of Iran that towers in the region like a colossus. The president fails to realize, however, that sacrificing the U.S.-Israel relationship is both unnecessary and dangerous.

The Sunni Arab countries are petrified of Iran’s growing power and are actually aligned with Israel in their opposition to Iran. Furthermore, I have stated before, treating Israel as the problem only emboldens the radical elements in the Middle East and makes the prospect of another Arab-Israeli war more likely.

Only through steadfast U.S. support of Israel will the Arab countries realize that the Jewish state is here to stay. That, in turn, will lead to peace.

While the president continues to hammer Israel, the Iranian nuclear threat increases by the day. The Times reported today “that Mr. Gates had warned in a secret three-page memo that the United States did not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability.”

Our efforts to assemble the needed coalition of nations to impose meaningful sanctions against Iran at the Security Council have failed. Furthermore, today’s New York Times reports on the efforts of the Obama administration to woo American Muslims with the headline “White House Quietly Courts Muslims In the U.S.”

What have the Senate and House done to convey to the president their differences with him on these issues and the outrageous treatment accorded our long-time ally, Israel? They issued joint letters.

The House letter was signed by 333 members and the Senate letter was signed by 76 senators. The letters were addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, when I believe they should have been sent to the president directly, since it is he, not she, who is orchestrating the change in the standing of Israel and the elevation of Arab interests.

The letters consist of a platitudinous statement of why the U.S. and Israel are allies, but do not criticize the president or convey to him that Congress will oppose his efforts to change the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Even more shocking is that some key senators were unwilling even to sign the toothless letter. One can only speculate why the following senators declined to sign — John Kerry, D-Mass., Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee; Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Democratic Party Whip; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Majority Leader, and others.

Was it due to agreement with the president’s plan? Was it fear of the president? I suspect agreement.

There are those, when asked what they are doing to challenge and defeat the president’s actions with regard to these grave matters, who have answered, “I am working behind the scenes.” Those corridors must be heavily crowded and those hidden efforts do not appear to have produced results. I repeat, the silence is deafening.

Custodian of U.S. mosques promotes slaying Americans, U.S. Muslim leaders forbid aid to troops, Iranian official charged with assault in NYC

HOMELAND INSECURITY

Custodian of U.S. mosques promotes slaying Americans

 

NAIT: ‘It is the duty of Islam to fight him until he is killed’

 

Posted: March 07, 2010
10:30 pm Eastern  © 2010 WorldNetDaily

The custodian of most of the major mosques in America acts as a front for the radical Muslim Brotherhood in America, and publishes and distributes Islamic literature that exhorts Muslims to “kill” any Westerners who get in the way of spreading Islam, WND has learned. ”No political system or material power should put hindrances in the way of preaching Islam. If someone does this, then it is the duty of Islam to fight him until either he is killed or until he declares his submission,” asserts an Islamic publication distributed by the North American Islamic Trust.

NAIT holds title to more than 300 mosques in America – including the large Islamic center outside Washington where the Fort Hood terrorist and some of the 9/11 hijackers worshipped.

NAIT also owns and controls the mosque in Orange County, Calif., that converted al-Qaida spokesman Adam Gadahn to Islam.

Gadahn in a video released Sunday exhorted Muslims serving in the U.S. military to follow in the footsteps of accused Fort Hood terrorist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. He also called for attacks on mass transportation, along with assassinations or kidnappings of key figures in the government, industry and media.

In addition, the government identified NAIT as a front for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

Chicago-based NAIT also handles the finances for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Students Association, and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups, which, shockingly, make up the Muslim establishment in America, according to the new book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

Through its subsidiary American Trust Publications, also headquartered in Chicago, NAIT publishes and distributes the pro-offensive-jihad book “Milestones,” by the late Muslim Brotherhood leader Sayyid Qutb of Egypt, Osama bin Laden’s spiritual father.   (see also a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood manifesto)

“Milestones” preaches that Shariah law should be implemented “by force” if Western societies resist this barbaric Islamic code.

more…http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127262

 

U.S. Muslim leaders forbid aid to troops

 

 

Islamic jurists decree giving soldiers food ‘not permissible’

---

Posted: March 08, 2010
10:34 pm Eastern  © 2010 WorldNetDaily

American Muslims are banned from helping U.S. soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq and other “Muslim lands,” according to a shocking fatwa, or religious decree, recently issued by American-based Islamic jurists.

One of the most respected Islamic law authorities in America has decreed it is “not permissible” for even Muslims who are citizens of America to send food or other aid to American troops serving in those Muslim countries.

 MORE…..http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127357

Iranian official charged with assault in NYC

 

Hearing set in November for employee of nation’s U.N. mission

---

© 2010 WorldNetDaily  

The man who attacked a peaceful protester outside Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hotel last weekend when the radical Islamic leader was in New York for the United Nations’ general assembly has been charged with assault, according to sources in the city.An attorney who witnessed part of the incident as it developed said it’s just another case of terror from the rogue state, only this time the actions were inside the United States. And the Iranian U.N. mission has not responded to repeated requests for comment.

City Hall sources in New York said the suspect in the case was identified as Gholamzadeh Mahadi Hossein, an employee of the Iranian U.N. mission in New York.

 According to city sources, the Iranian, 47, is being legally represented by a public defender.

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS, REPRESENTED BY A PUBLIC DEFENDER ON OUR DIME!

“It’s troubling that the Obama Justice Department has not charged Hossein with federal crimes, such as acts of terrorism, since the Islamic Republic of Iran, for whom he works, is a designated terrorist state,” Laary Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch USA, told WND. “This underscores why Obama will do nothing to help the brave freedom fighters in the streets of Tehran, and obtain justice for those who have already been tortured, maimed, and killed.”

more…….http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111544

“AS FAR AS WE’RE CONCERNED Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO COME INTO OUR COUNTRY AND SPEW HIS HATE. THIS FANATICAL MAN IS EVIL, IS A DECLARED ENEMY, IS PROBABLY THE MOST DANGEROUS THREAT ON THE PLANET, AND QUITE FRANKLY THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER OFF WITH HIM DEAD. THIS WRETCH IS NEVER WELCOME IN NEW YORK OR ANYWHERE USA AND WE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT WHAT THE DESPOTIC UNITED NATIONS HAS TO DAY ABOUT IT.

DID WE REALLY JUST SAY THAT! WELL YES WE DID BECAUSE THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT THE AGE OLD FIGHT OF GOOD vs EVIL, IT IS BLACK AND WHITE, AND YOU EITHER WIN OR YOU LOSE!

BE SURE TO SEE ADDITIONAL POSTS BELOW ABOUT THE THREAT OF ISLAM TO OUR WAY OF LIFE, AND OUR VERY EXISTENCE.

Show 521 Atomic Iran: Countdown to Armageddon. Medved talks to author. Audio MP3

Fri, 5 March 2010 Show 521 Atomic Iran: Countdown to Armageddon. Medved talks to author. Audio MP3

Show 521 Atomic Iran: Countdown to Armageddon…How the West Can Be Saved. Michael Medved talks to author Mike Evans. 

Book Description- During Dr. Mike Evans research for this book in Israel in late 2009, he was told by a high-level Israeli government official that should Iran achieve its nuclear ambitions, it would then have a nuclear umbrella which would allow it to accelerate terrorism throughout the Sunni Gulf oil states in an attempt to fulfill its vision of a world caliphate. An ensuing multi-trillion dollar nuclear arms race between the Sunni and Shia states in the region would drive the price of oil to never-before-seen levels for decades to come. The estimate given him was that oil prices could go as high as $200 per barrel. This would further decimate the world economy. With the ascension of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the position of power in Iran, much has been said about the Mahdi. Al-Mahdi was the Twelfth Imam in the line of Ali, who disappeared down a well at the age of five. Refusing to believe that he was dead, his followers imbued him with timelessness. They declared him to be merely hidden, or in a state of occultation, and declared that on some future date he would suddenly reappear to reestablish an Islamic caliphate worldwide. The Twelver’s eschatology, however, proved problematic; it espoused an apocalyptic upheaval in order for the Mahdi, or Hidden Imam, to ascend to his rightful place of leadership. These Twelvers championed the tenet that every individual, regardless of his religious belief, would one day bow to Islam or die. In Ahmadinejad’s mind, an atomic bomb in Tel Aviv would usher in the Mahdi, and all the world’s demise (Jews and Christians) would instantly be converted to Islam. Compared to Ahmadinejad and his Twlever band, al-Qaeda resembles Boy Scouts ushering little old ladies across busy streets. What does the world really think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Twelver beliefs? Are most people aware of his devotion to the Mahdi? Do most understand that he is an ardent Twelver, a dedicated disciple of the Twelfth Imam, who will do anything to insure that the world is made ready for the second coming of a false messiah even if it requires manufacturing his own apocalyptic event to insure a rush to Armageddon? When Dr. Evans met Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s spiritual advisor in New York City for a UN meeting in 2007, he declared that his leader would usher in the Mahdi the twelfth descendant of Mohammad through such an apocalyptic event within three years. President Obama seems incapable of fully accepting his culpability should he pursue talks with Iran’s bloody regime. He was given a legitimate chance to support change for the good of the Iranian populace following the June, 2009 Iranian election. He had an opportunity to respond vigorously, yet he failed to do so in a timely manner. America’s forty-fourth president has all but acquiesced to Iran’s nuclear course. Even during the election process Mr. Obama signified that he was agreeable to a meeting with the regime: I would [talk to Iran's leaders without preconditions]. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this [Bush] administration — is ridiculous. The Iranians saw this as weakness on the part of the American presidential candidate. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has done nothing to counter that opinion. Ahmadinejad has declared the issue closed, not worthy of talks with the leader of The Great Satan. He has rebuffed the advances of a man who apparently wants to dance with Iran. Ahmadinejad feels he is in the driver’s seat, and unless a backbone transplant is in the offing, Mr. Obama will likely acquiesce to whatever terms Ahmadinejad demands prior to any face-to-face talks with the American president. The countdown to Armageddon has begun. 

For all of Michael Medveds shows go to https://www.michaelmedved.com/site to listen live for free or $4.95 per month to download all of his podcasts.- 

Look up American Conservative University on Itunes. Click here for all ACU Podcasts http://acu.libsyn.com/index.php?post_category=Click%20here%20for%20all%20podcasts 

To download this show, right click the direct download file below and select “Save target as…” and save the file on your computer. Mac users should hold down the control key when clicking to get the “Save as…” option. 

Direct download: Medved_Atomic_Iran_a_Countdown_to.mp3
Category: Click here for all podcasts –

Iran – While We Were Asleep….

Iran – While We Were Asleep….

Posted: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:39:33 -0500

With all the Obama-Congressional dog and pony side shows to dazzle the rubes losing their luster, and the country coming to the stark realization that President Obama’s ‘transformational’ leadership is actually the gateway to durance vile for all Americans, have we taken our eyes and attention from what is actually happening in Iran?

With our attention riveted to the battle in Washington over the detested health care legislation, and Congress poised to attempt to thwart the will of the great majority of the American people apparently without regard to political consequences, are we missing the increasingly obvious signs of impending Middle East conflict?

IGLA-S

Syria has ratcheted up the war index by supplying the Lebanese Hizballah with the advanced shoulder-fired Russian-made IGLA-S surface to air missile, ignoring Israel’s pointed warning that such an action would guarantee Israeli retaliation on Syria. The IGLA-S is an all-weather day or night missile which could threaten low-flying F-16 warplanes, drones, helicopters, cruise missiles, transports or surveillance aircraft.
These weapons in the hands of the Lebanese Hizballah could seriously hamper Israeli operations over Lebanon.  read more »