Obama’s Betrayal of His Oath of Office — Traitorous Terrorist Treaty — Iranians Inspect Their Own Military Installations Building Nuclear Weapons –Obama Legacy Is A Sellout of The American People And Unconditional Surrender To Iran’s Demands — Not A Joke — Treason! — Not Trust, Not Verification — Obama Lied And Americans Will Die — Videos

Posted on September 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Documentary, Economics, Education, Elections, Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, Homicide, Investments, Islam, Law, liberty, media, Money, Narcissism, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Shite, Spying, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Taxation, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Story 1: Obama’s Betrayal of His Oath of Office — Traitorous Terrorist Treaty — Iranians Inspect Their Own Military Installations Building Nuclear Weapons –Obama Legacy Is A Sellout of The American People And Unconditional Surrender To Iran’s Demands — Not A Joke — Treason! — Not Trust, Not Verification — Obama Lied And Americans Will Die — Videos

The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

“International inspections should be done by international inspectors. Period.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce

“Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site and report to the U.N. in an open and transparent way is remarkably naive and incredibly reckless. This revelation only reinforces the deep-seated concerns the American people have about the agreement.”

~John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Republican senator

“President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.”

~House Speaker John Boehner

iaea-logo

a-map-of-irans-nuclear-facilitiemap of iran nuclear facilities

Iran Secret Deal “Self Inspection” 

Krauthammer: Iran Self-Inspecting Nuclear Facility Is ‘Scandalous, Farcical’

Megyn Kelly – Amb. Ron Dermer responds to Donald Trump’s Iran strategy

Side Deal Allows Iran To Conduct Its Own Nuclear Inspections

Iran Nuclear Side Deal – Iran Can Conduct Its Own Nuclear Inspections

IAEA: Iran has to allow inspection of country’s military sites

The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?

The Iran Nuclear Deal

MM160 – Iran Side-Deal Exposed

CBN NewsWatch: August 20, 2015

CNBC: Inspections program for Iran nuclear activity ‘a whole lot of bunk’

White House ‘Confident’ IAEA Can Investigate Iran

President Obama: Iran deal not built on trust, but verification

2015 – CNN World News – Obama On Iran Nuclear Deal – Full Speech

Larry Elder Interviews Michael Ledeen

Top three consequences of the Iran nuclear deal

Malzberg | Patrick J. Buchanan weighs in on the Iran Deal

FDD Freedom Scholar Michael Ledeen comments on Iran and radical Islamist ideology.

NETANYAHU on IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL – “One of the Darkest Days in World History”

Malzberg | Dr. Michael Ledeen: “Obama is on Iran’s side”

Michael Ledeen: Bring Down the Iranian Regime

Federal Prosecutor: Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal Clearly Treason

In a interview with Frank Gaffney, Former Federal Prosecutor Andy McCarthy lays out why the Iran nuclear deal put forth by the Obama administration is clearly a act of treason against the United States.

General: Obama’s Iran Deal Is ‘A Treasonous Act Under The Constitution’

Major General Paul Vallely (Ret.) blasted Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran while being interviewed by Alan Colmes on Fox News. The General stated that Obama, Kerry and the State Department are ‘aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States’ and is ‘a treasonous act under the constitution’ in his opinion.

Secret Side Deal “Iran, IAEA Deal” ?

Iran’s parliament upholds ban for IAEA to access military sites, scientists ‘at will’

Iran’s Supreme Leader refuses access to military sites and scientists

Iran’s Guardian Council ratifies bill banning inspection of military sites

Top commander: Iran never to allow foreigners to inspect military sites

Amid nuke talks, Ayatollah says ‘death to America’

IAEA: Iran has to allow inspection of country’s military sites

McConnell Calls for Senate Passage of Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

US Republican-led Senate passes Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act

Mark Levin: “Obama Has Now Planted The Seeds Of World War III” With Iran Deal

Mark Levin: Senate passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act 98 to 1 (audio from 05-07-2015)

Incredible! New George S Patton speech! Iran & modern warfare

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site

The day after a devastating take-down of the Iran deal from Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the Associated Press reports:

Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the U.S., Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the U.S. has denied.

It surely will. “This establishes the exact precedent that Iran always sought and repeatedly claimed: IAEA weapons inspectors will never get physical access into any military sites,” says sanctions expert Mark Dubowitz in an email. “That the Obama administration agreed to Iranian self-inspections tells you everything you need to know about how far it caved on the essential elements of a verifiable and enforceable nuclear agreement.”

The inspection regime and dispute resolution system was already riddled with loopholes that Iran will exploit. But with this there is not even the pretense that there is a viable inspection process. With self-inspection comes the open door for Iran to cheat with impunity. The AP report continues:

The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package. Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site.

Ironically, Menendez’s speech is more true in the wake of the AP report than it was when he delivered it:

For well over a decade, the world has been concerned about the secret weaponization efforts Iran conducted at the military base called Parchin. The goal that we have long sought, along with the international community, is to know what Iran accomplished at Parchin — not necessarily to get Iran to declare culpability — but to determine how far along they were in their nuclear weaponization program so that we know what signatures to look for in the future. . . .

With so much at stake, the IAEA — after waiting over ten years to inspect Parchin, speak to Iranian nuclear scientists, and review additional materials and documents — are now told they will not have direct access to Parchin.  The list of scientists the P5+1 wanted the IAEA to interview were rejected outright by Iran, and they are now given three months to do all of their review and analysis before they must deliver a report in December of this year.  How the inspections and soil and other samples are to be collected are outlined in two secret agreements that the U.S. Congress is not privy to.  The answer as to why we cannot see those documents, is because they have a confidentiality agreement between the IAEA and Iran, which they say ‘is customary,’ but this issue is anything but customary.

“If Iran can violate its obligations for more than a decade, it can’t then be allowed to avail themselves of the same provisions and protections they violated in the first place.  We have to ask:  Why would our negotiators decide to negotiate access to other IAEA documents, but not these documents?  Maybe the reason, as some members of Congress and public reports have raised, is because it will be the Iranians and not the IAEA performing the tests and providing the samples to be analyzed, which would be the equivalent of having an athlete accused of using performance enhancing drugs submit an unsupervised urine sample to the appropriate authority.  Chain of custody doesn’t matter when the evidence given to you is prepared by the perpetrator.

Maybe this is why we did not get a look at the side deal. If Iran is going to inspect itself anyway it hardly matters if we know about PMD’s or how many days inspectors must wait.

Tellingly, according to Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein, the White House put out a weak-kneed statement saying it was “confident in the agency’s technical plans” and insisted if the IAEA was happy, it was happy. According to the Washington Free Beacon, Iran threatened an IAEA official if he revealed the nature of the side deals. No wonder.

It is hard to argue that the contents of the deal amount to anything approaching the stated aim of preventing Iran from going nuclear. Obama frankly wanted a document so badly he literally did not care what was in it, or at least what was in the critical side deal. The deal is an utter farce. Democrats who have not declared their intentions to date will be hard-pressed to justify supporting it.

UPDATE: Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, tells me, “This type of unorthodox agreement has never been done before by the IAEA and speaks to the great lengths our negotiators took to accommodate the Ayatollah despite repeated assurances from the administration that this deal is not based on trust.” House Speaker John Boehner put out a statement, which reads, “The Obama administration has a lot of explaining to do. Why haven’t these secret side agreements been provided to Congress and the American people for review? Why should Iran be trusted to carry out its own nuclear inspections at a military site it tried to hide from the world? How does this not set a precedent for future inspections at suspicious military sites in Iran?” He continued, “President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient – and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents. The American people and their representatives in Congress have serious questions about whether this nuclear agreement will keep our country safe, and it’s time for this administration to provide honest answers.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/08/19/the-latest-iran-revelation-is-utterly-humiliating/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Neo-Conned!–Congressman Ron Paul–Videos

Posted on June 24, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, European History, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Speech given by Congressman Ron Paul on the House floor on July 10, 2003

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11

 

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Iranian Green Revolution Regime Change or The Iranian War–Sooner Rather Than Latter–Videos

Posted on March 31, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Religion, Security, Strategy, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Iranian Green Revolution

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. “

~Martin Luther King, Jr.  

 

Israel Does Not Need U.S. Permission To Attack Iran! John Bolton

Amb. John Bolton – Israel Gains Nothing By Waiting To Attack Iran

The case for the pre-emptive strike on Iran keeps looking stronger

John Bolton: Window Closing for Israeli Military Action Against Iran

US preparing military for possible war with Iran Jan. 9 2010

 

Flynt Leverett Debates Michael Ledeen on Iran Policy 3-3-10

Iranian Protesters Becoming More Aggressive! John Bolton MoxNewsDotCom

Israel Forcing U.S. To Attack Iran And Kill Millions

New CIA Report Says Iran Now Able To Produce Nuclear Weapons

War with Iran imminent, Bunker busters being deployed

final countdown israeli defence force

Massive Naval Exercise Underway Off US Coast In Possible

 

One morning you will wake up and hear on the news that Israel and/or the United States have destroyed Iran’s capability of producing nuclear weapons.

This news will be sooner rather than latter.

Better news would be that the Iranian people have toppled the current regime and want to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The who and when question will not be postponed indefinitely.

An Iranian regime with nuclear weapons is unacceptable to both the Israeli and American people.

Unfortunately, when it come to Iran, President Obama is in denial or naive.

After 31 years of killing American and Iranian citizens the time is long past due for  regime change.

Regime change is much preferred to World War III.

Neither diplomacy nor sanctions have worked. 

Time is running out and options are few.

Either support the Iranian people or have the United States and Israel armed forces take out the religious fanatics and their nuclear weapon facilities.

Yet President Obama talks and talks and talks–the Iranians are not listening and the Americans do not believe a word Obama says.

Keep listening to talk radio.

Either the Iranian Government falls or World War III begins.

Expect $10 a gallon gasoline prices or higher if the news is World War III.

“…THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. …”

~Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

 

Background Articles and Videos

Kissinger threatens Regime Change in Iran if coup fails…

 

War with Iran imminent, Bunker busters being deployed

Could Israel attack Iran?

2010 Mid-East New’s – Israel Poised And Ready To Strike Iran Soon!

IAEA Iran’s uranium enrichment fully supervised – PressTV

CrossTalk on Iran: Regime change crusade?

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Iranians Take Over Iraqi Oil Well and Dismiss US Nuclear Deal–Call Obama’s Bluff–Obama’s Response–Absolutely Nothing

Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu Speaks Truth To Evil and Power–Where Will The American People and President Obama Stand?

The Iranian Revolution and Regime–Videos

Time To Topple Totalitarians–Let Liberty Loose–Message From American People To Iranian People–We Support Your Quest For Freedom

Old Media–Deaf, Dumb, Blind, Silent, Irrelevant and Fading Fast

Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu Speaks Truth To Evil and Power–Where Will The American People and President Obama Stand?

Obama and Clinton Betray Allies and Appease Russia Over Proposed Missile Defense System Against Iranian Missile Nuclear Threat!

Remembering September 11, 2001 On The Eighth Anniversary

Failing The Iranian Test–Barack “Hamlet” Obama–To Be or Not To Be President of The United States And Commander-in-Chief?

The Planted Assumption of The National Intelligence Estimate On Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Assumes It Conclusion–CYA From Partisan Authors!

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

World Wide War Warning–100 Day Countdown!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Individuals–Yes, Collectivists–No, Dissent–Yes, Racism–No, Life–Yes, Abortion–No, Ballots–Yes, Bullets–No–We The People Want Faith, Hope, Charity and Courage!

Posted on March 25, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 “The story of the Athenians in the time of Pericles suggests that the creation and survival of democracy requires leadership of a high order. When tested, the Athenians behave with the requied devotion, wisdom, and moderation in large part because they had been inspired by the democratic vision and example that Pericles had so effectively communicated to them. It was a vision that exalted the individual within the political community; it limited the scope and power of the state, leaving enough space for individual freedom, privacy, and the human dignity of which they are a crucial part. It rejected the leveling principle pursued by both ancient Sparta and modern socialism, which requires the suppression of those rights. By reqarding merit, it encouraged the individual achievement and excellence that makes life sweet and raises the qualtiy  of life for everyone. Above all, Pericles convinced the Athenians that their private needs, both moral and material, required the kind of community Athens had become. Therefore, they were willing to run risks in its defense, make sacrifices on its behalf, and restrain their passions and desires to preserve it.”

~Donald Kagan, Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy, page 273.

“Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”

~Winston Churchill

 

Glenn Beck – Slap Us In The Face Then Smile

Glenn Beck – American Revival Tour This Saturday In Orlando

The collectivists in the United States are primarily progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party led by President Barack Obama.

These progressive radical socialists have crammed down an Obama Care law that the vast majority of the American people who are satisfied with their health insurance plan and/or medical care are opposed to by a significant majority.

Camp Floor Statement Against the Democrats’ Trillion Dollar Health Care Bill

ECONOMIC COLLAPSE under obama budget

The use of the power of the state or the Federal Government to force the American people to buy  mandated health insurance plans or face fines and taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service is both unconstitutional and un-american.

The progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party know the American people are angry and outraged with the Obama Care law.

The progressive radical socialists fear the American people.

The progressive radical socialists fear is well founded.

The progressive radical socialists fear has resulted in an attempt by them to shut the American people up by calling any dissent or opposition to the Obama Care bill–racism that will lead to violence.

The irony is that the Federal funding of abortions through subsidies that go to pay for health insurance plans that cover abortions as basic medical care kills the unborn child–racism and violence of unprecedent magnitude–evil.

The Obama Care bill is aimed directly at blacks, hispanics and the poor  to assist women in killing their unborn children–black, hispanic and poor genocide or democide–death by government.

The majority of the American people oppose the Federal government funding of  abortions, either directly or indirectly through subsidies to those who cannot afford health insurance plans. 

 A Presidential Executive banning the funding of abortions using Federal funds is not the law and can be rescinded at any time and does not have to be implemented. An Executive Order is just words on a piece of paper. The killing of thousands of black, hispanic and poor unborn babies continues daily–mass murder.

Obama Supports Planned Parenthood (Racist Planned Parenthood Organizaton)

Using the power of the state or Federal government to fund abortions is in fact modern day eugenics that was in the past and is now largely supported by those that are truly racist elitists at heart–progressive radical socialists.

The next time a progressive radical socialist of either the Democratic or Republican party asserts that opposition to the Obama Care law is racist and will lead to violence, just tell them to take a look in the mirror and go visit a Planned Parenthood abortion center in black, hispanic and the poor  neighborhoods of their city or the nation’s capital, Washington D.C.–America’s killing fields and concentration clinics.

Abortion and Black Genocide (Barack Obama and the Negro Project)

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Planned Parenthood Exposed (Exposed!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apLjGQnTVg8

 

John Hunter speaks about Maafa 21

Maafa 21–Videos

 

Hannity Exposes Planned Parenthood Fraud in Aurora, IL

 

Watch this video in a new windowPlanned Parenthood Exposed – New Undercover Video

 

 

The American people now know and understand that the progressive radical socialists of the Democratic Party lead by President Barack Obama are today’s racists and killers of the most defenseless Americans– the unborn child and sick mature adults needing medical care and treatment.

The cuts in Medicare that will soon surpass over trillion dollars per year will directly result the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans that will not get the care and treatment they need in a timely manner.

Any American now receiving Medicare or the baby-boom generation that will in the next twenty-five years be relying on Medicare,  should vote all of the progressive radical socialists of both the Democratic and Republicans out of office in the next five elections.

The life you save may be your own or your child’s or grandchild’s baby.

When the progressive radical socialists must daily use lies and false charges of racism and violence against those who disagree with what they did, you know that fear and panic has set in among the progressive radical socialists.

Throw these progressive radical socialist out of office and power by using the ballot box in November and for the next ten years.

Whatever you decide to do, do not be baited into resenting them or using their tactics of lies and false accusations or even violence to respond.

If you do this, know this is exactly how the progressive radical socialists want you to respond.

This is the loser’s  game.

Vote the progressive radical socialists out of office and out of power.

Banish them to the private sector and let them make a living there, if they can.

Athens was the first republic or democracy.

Athens lost Peloponnesian War when Persia (Iran,) became allies and supported  Sparta. Although defeated in war the Athenians eventually recovered from their defeat and ousted both the Four Hundred oligarchs and The Thirty Tyrants in Athens that were backed by Sparta.

America has been at war with Iran supported by the Soviet Union now Russia for over thirty years, despite the efforts of both Republican and Democratic administrations to deny or play down this fact.  The Iranians use proxies to kill Americans and their allies both Britain and Israel.

Iran – The Mother of Modern Islamic Terrorism

America can ill afford a President who  appeases the Iranian regime instead of supporting the vast majority of Iranians  who demonstrate and risk their livies daily to replace the current political regime with a truly fairly elected and  representative government.

Michael Ledeen: Bring Down the Iranian Regime

The American people will not willing let their own representative republic be replaced by the modern day  equivalent of what Sparta imposed on Athens, the Four Hundred oligarchs and The Thirty Tyrants–the czars or commissars surrounding President Obama and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The progressive radical socialist goals are socialized medicine or a Federal Government monopoly over health care with a single payer being the Federal Government and amnesty for the over thirty million illegal aliens living and working in the United States with comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship.

Progressive Caucus: No Compromise On Health Care

 

Grijalva on Public Health Care Option

Velazquez on Public Health Option

Public Option Off the Table?

Fabian Socialist Causus (CPC) – ‘All or Nothing’ – Lynn Woolsey

 

I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Social Security+Medicare Projections

Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP)

Obama Double Talk, Caught In A Lie, Illegals and Healthcare Health Care, Immigration Reform Fox

 

The vast majority of the American people oppose both socialized medicine and amnesty for illegal aliens no matter what lies or words are used to describe Obama Care and Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

The vast majority of the American people want to keep their current health insurance plan, doctor and privacy and want limited legal immigration and illegal alien removal and deportation to their country of origin–immigration law enfocement.

The time has come to cleanup the House of Representatives, the Senate and The Executive Branch and vote out of office and power the progressive radical socialists that are wrecking the United States economy, destroying jobs, and killing the American Dream by creating dependency upon the state or government instead of individual self-reliance and achievement.

The progressive radical socialists are for social justice or stealing the American people’s  hard earned money by government taxation, regulation, force and coercion so that the progressive radical socialists can give the taxes and property stolen from the American people to their political friends and supporters such as ACORN and SEIU. Stealing is stealing now matter what you want to call it and how you accomplish it.

President Obama is the leader of this gang of corrupt crooks or progressive radical socialists.

Vote the progressive radical socialists out of office and power and punish them by putting them in jail where they truly belong!

Pericles speaking of the earlier Athenians  said they were the first to establish democracy by:

“believing the liberty of all to be the strongest source of harmony, by sharing with each other the hopes that arose from their shared dangers they had freedom of soul in their civic life. They used the law for honoring the good and punishing the evil. For they thought that it was the way of the wild beast to be ruled by one another by force, but that men should decide justice by law, to convince by reason, and to serve these two in act by submitting to the sovereignty of law and the instruction of reason.”

~Lysis, Funeral Oration 17-19.

 

“Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”

~Aristotle

 

Background Articles and Videos

17. The Peloponnesian War, Part I

18. The Peloponnesian War, Part I (cont.)

19. The Peloponnesian War, Part II

20. The Peloponnesian War, Part II (cont.)

Conversations with History: Victor Davis Hanson

War and Democracy in Ancient and Contemporary Middle East

Peloponnesian War

The Peloponnesian War, 431 to 404 B.C., was an ancient Greek war, fought by Athens and its empire against the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta. Historians have traditionally divided the war into three phases. In the first phase, the Archidamian War, Sparta launched repeated invasions of Attica, while Athens took advantage of its naval supremacy to raid the coast of the Peloponnese attempting to suppress signs of unrest in its empire. This period of the war was concluded in 421 BC, with the signing of the Peace of Nicias. That treaty, however, was soon undermined by renewed fighting in the Peloponnese. In 415 BC, Athens dispatched a massive expeditionary force to attack Syracuse in Sicily; the attack failed disastrously, with the destruction of the entire force, in 413 BC. This ushered in the final phase of the war, generally referred to either as the Decelean War, or the Ionian War. In this phase, Sparta, now receiving support from Persia, supported rebellions in Athens’ subject states in the Aegean Sea and Ionia, undermining Athens’ empire, and, eventually, depriving the city of naval supremacy. The destruction of Athens’ fleet at Aegospotami effectively ended the war, and Athens surrendered in the following year.

The Peloponnesian War reshaped the Ancient Greek world. On the level of international relations, Athens, the strongest city-state in Greece prior to the war’s beginning, was reduced to a state of near-complete subjection, while Sparta became established as the leading power of Greece. The economic costs of the war were felt all across Greece; poverty became widespread in the Peloponnese, while Athens found itself completely devastated, and never regained its pre-war prosperity.[1][2] The war also wrought subtler changes to Greek society; the conflict between democratic Athens and oligarchic Sparta, each of which supported friendly political factions within other states, made civil war a common occurrence in the Greek world.

Greek warfare, meanwhile, originally a limited and formalized form of conflict, was transformed into an all-out struggle between city-states, complete with atrocities on a large scale. Shattering religious and cultural taboos, devastating vast swathes of countryside, and destroying whole cities, the Peloponnesian War marked the dramatic end to the fifth-century-B.C. golden age of Greece.[3]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

Congressional Progressive Caucus

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is the largest caucus within the Democratic caucus in the United States Congress with 83 declared members, and works to advance progressive issues and positions.[1]

The CPC was founded in 1991 and currently has more than 80 members. The Caucus is co-chaired by Representatives Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). Of the 20 standing committees of the House, 11 are chaired by members of the CPC.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) was established in 1991 by six members of the United States House of Representatives: Representatives Ron Dellums (D-CA), Lane Evans (D-IL), Thomas Andrews (D-ME),Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Then-Representative Bernie Sanders was the convener and first. The founding members were concerned about the economic hardship imposed by the deepening recession, and the growing inequality brought about by the timidity of the Democratic Party response at the time.

Additional House representatives joined soon, including Major Owens (D-NY), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), David Bonior (D-MI), Bob Filner (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Patsy Mink (D-HI), George Miller (D-CA), Pete Stark (D-CA), John Olver (D-MA), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

The CPC’s founding statement of purpose states that it was “organized around the principles of social and economic justice, a non-discriminatory society, and national priorities which represent the interests of all people, not just the wealthy and powerful”. The founding members underscored that the Cold War was over, and that the nation’s budget and overall priorities should reflect that. They called for cuts in outdated and unnecessary military spending, a more progressive tax system in which wealthy taxpayers and corporations contribute their fair share, a substantial increase in federal funding for social programs designed to meet the needs of low and middle-income American families, and trade policies that increase the exports of more American products and encourage the creation of well-paying jobs and sound investment in America. They also expressed their belief that those policy goals could be achieved in concert with a commitment to long-term fiscal responsibility. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

 

Congressional Progressive Caucus

Phone :202-225-5871
URL: Website

 Progressive Caucus (Democratic) (PC-D)'s Visual Map
 
 
 
 
 

  • Radical caucus of nearly six-dozen members of the House of Representatives
  • Until 1999, worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America

The Progressive Caucus is an organization of Members of Congress founded in 1991 by newly-elected House Representative Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), who is a self-described socialist.

As of April 2007, the Progressive Caucus included Sanders (who became a U.S. Senator in 2006), Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and 69 members of the House of Representatives, all of them leftist Democrats and almost all in districts heavily gerrymandered to guarantee the re-election of any Democratic Party incumbent, no matter how extreme.

On November 11, 1999, the Progressive Caucus drafted its Position Paper on economic inequality. It reads, in part, as follows: “Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America’s economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities. … The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our social and cultural fabric.”

In order “to bring new life to the progressive voice in U.S. politics,” the Progressive Caucus has worked closely with Progressive Challenge, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. Progressive Challenge is a coalition through which the activities and talking points of leftist groups are synchronized and harmonized with one another, producing coordinated, mutually-reinforcing propaganda from some 200 seemingly-unconnected groups.

In 2005 the Progressive Caucus crafted its “Progressive Promise” document, which advocates socialized medicine; radical environmentalism; the redistribution of wealth; higher taxes; the elimination of numerous provisions of the Patriot Act; dramatic reductions in the government’s intelligence-gathering capabilities; debt relief for poor countries; and the quick withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. These measures, says the Progressive Caucus, would help “re-build U.S. alliances around the world, restore international respect for American power and influence, and reaffirm our nation’s constructive engagement in the United Nations and other multilateral organizations.”

Until 1999 the Progressive Caucus worked in open partnership with Democratic Socialists of America. After the press reported on this link, the connections suddenly vanished from both organizations’ websites.

As of June 2006, the following Members of Congress belonged to the Progressive Caucus: Neil Abercrombie; Tammy Baldwin; Xavier Becerra; Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Corrine Brown; Sherrod Brown; Michael Capuano; Julia Carson; Donna Christensen; William “Lacy” Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; John Conyers; Elijah Cummings; Danny Davis; Peter DeFazio; Rosa DeLauro; Lane Evans; Sam Farr; Chaka Fattah; Bob Filner; Barney Frank; Raul Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Maurice Hinchey; Jesse Jackson, Jr.; Sheila Jackson-Lee; Stephanie Tubbs Jones; Marcy Kaptur; Carolyn Kilpatrick; Dennis Kucinich; Tom Lantos; Barbara Lee; John Lewis; Ed Markey; Jim McDermott; James P. McGovern; Cynthia McKinney; George Miller; Gwen Moore; Jerrold Nadler; Eleanor Holmes Norton; John Olver; Major Owens; Ed Pastor; Donald Payne; Nancy Pelosi; Charles Rangel; Bobby Rush; Bernie Sanders; Jan Schakowsky; Jose Serrano; Louise Slaughter; Hilda Solis; Pete Stark; Bennie Thompson; John Tierney; Tom Udall; Nydia Velazquez; Maxine Waters; Diane Watson; Mel Watt; Henry Waxman; and Lynn Woolsey.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6497

 

Victor Hanson – Illegal Immigration Backlash

 

 

Flynt Leverett Debates Michael Ledeen on Iran Policy 3-3-10

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Donald Kagan–Ancient Greek History–Open Yale Course–Videos

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Eugenics and Population Control

Margaret Sanger–Videos

The Progressive Radical Socialists’ Darkest Secret–Eugneics–The American Crusade To Create A Master Race

Maafa 21–Videos

Black Genocide–Eugenics–Planned Parenthood–Population Control–Videos

Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos 

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Time To Topple Totalitarians–Let Liberty Loose–Message From American People To Iranian People–We Support Your Quest For Freedom

Posted on October 1, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Foreign Policy, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Strategy, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

asn03_rpshape_02

 

“All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.”

~Winston Churchill 

 

“Regime Change is the only Moral and Practical Foreign Policy Objective of the United States Toward Iran.

While the United States should actively work bilaterally with Russia and multilaterally through international institutions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, let us keep our eye on what should be our overall objective–regime change in Iran. We must actively work toward the day when Iranians can have free elections and a government that is accountable to the people. ….”

~Newt Gingrich

 

“The Obama administration’s talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.”

~Michael Ledeen

 

Anti-Israel Day Becomes Anti-Iranian Government Day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50HTJ2B98yc

 

A TRIBUTE TO THE BRAVE AND COURAGEOUS CITIZENS OF IRAN **- election June 2009


 

Michael Ledeen Interview

 

Michael Ledeen: Bring Down the Iranian Regime 

 

John Bolton – Does Iran Need a “Regime Change?”

 

Nuclear Talks

 

Iran Nuclear Talks: Geneva Negotiations (Raw Video)

 

Crosstalk: Iran’s challenge to Russia & US. Unite or divide?

 

For over thirty years the Iranian regime has been at war with both the Iranian and American people in imposing its fanatical religious views.

A tipping point has been reach.

Any day now the Iranian regime could fall as tens of million of Iranians demand life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The American people support the Iranian people in their efforts to find freedom and prosperity.

The time is now for President Obama to send a public message of support to the Iranian people.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton should inform the Foreign Minister of Iran, Manouchehr Mottaki, currently in Washington D.C. for the first times in decades, that their time is up.

The Iranian regime must step down or face the wrath of the Iranian people and the destruction of its nuclear weapons program by the United States.  

 

 Iran dominant regional superpower – part 1/3

 

Iran dominant regional superpower – part 2/3

 

   Iran dominant regional superpower – part 3/3

 

CIA, Iran and the Election Riots – 14 Jun 09

 

“Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.”

~Michael Ledeen 

 

“The United States must use the power of the spoken word to condemn the leaders of the current Iranian regime, keeping in mind what President John F. Kennedy said about Winston Churchill in making him an honorary American citizen,  “he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.”

~Newt Gingrich

 

“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!”

~Winston Churchill

 

Background Articles and Videos

Inside Story – Iran unrest prosecutions – 11 Aug 09

P1/6: Nuclear Confrontation

 

P2/6: Nuclear Confrontation

 

P3/6: Nuclear Confrontation

 

P4/6: Nuclear Confrontation

 

P5/6: Nuclear Confrontation


 

P6/6: Nuclear Confrontation

 

Iran foreign minister in US but no talks planned

“…Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki made a rare visit to Washington to inspect Iran’s unofficial diplomatic office but there were no plans for him to meet U.S. officials, the State Department said on Wednesday.

One day before Iran meets in Geneva with the United States and other powers worried about its nuclear program, the State Department granted Mottaki’s request to visit the Iranian interests section at Pakistan’s embassy, which represents Tehran in Washington in the absence of diplomatic ties.

U.S.-based analysts and diplomats said it was the first such visit in years, possibly since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979.

“I wouldn’t read too much into this … It was a straightforward request and we granted it,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told a news briefing, saying there were no plans for Mottaki to meet U.S. officials or anyone acting on behalf of the U.S. government. …”

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN30237587

 

We’ve Been Talking to Iran for 30 Years

The seizure of the U.S. embassy followed the failure of Carter administration talks with

By Michael Ledeen

“…The Obama administration’s talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.” …”

 

“…Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.”

Mr. Ledeen, a scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is the author, most recently, of “Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West,” out next month from St. Martin’s Press.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574442901560824682.html

 

There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran

An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon.

By ELIOT A. COHEN

“…At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.

The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.

It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.”

Mr. Cohen teaches at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. He served as counselor of the State Department from 2007 to 2009.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574420641457091318.html

 

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask?

With Twitter’s help, the youth of Iran take on the ayatollahs.

“…A small point on the technological aspects of the Iranian situation. Some ask if the impact of the new technology is exaggerated. No. Twittering and YouTubing made the story take hold and take off. But did the technology create the rebellion? No, it encouraged what was there. If they Twittered and liveblogged the French Revolution, it still would have been the French Revolution: “this aft 3pm @ the bastille.” It all still would have happened, perhaps with marginally greater support. Revolutions are revolutions and rebellions are rebellions; they don’t work unless the people are for it. In Iran, Twitter reported and encouraged. But the conviction must be there to be encouraged.

The interesting question is what technology would have done after the Revolution, during the Terror. What would word of the demonic violence, the tumbrels and nonstop guillotines unleashed circa 1790-95 have done to French support for the Revolution, and world support? Would Thomas Jefferson have been able to continue his blithe indifference if reports of France grimly murdering France had been Twittered out each day?

The great question is what modern technology can do not in the short term so much as the long. It is not the friend of entrenched tyranny. Connected to which, it would be nice if the technologies of the future were not given babyish names. Twitter, Google, Facebook, etc., have come to be crucial and historically consequential tools, and yet to refer to them is to talk baby talk. In the future could inventors please keep the weight and dignity of history in mind? …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124535660563828707.html

 

The Threat of the Current Regime in Iran

By Newt Gingrich

“…Shortly following the 1979 Iranian revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran was transformed into a theocratic state and quickly drafted a constitution that is still in place today. Its preamble sets forth the mission of the post-revolutionary theocratic state:

[I]t is the mission of the Constitution to materialize the ideology of the Movement and create such conditions under which Man may grow according to the noble and universal values of Islam.

With due consideration to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, which was a movement for the victory of all the oppressed people over their oppressors, the Constitution paves the way for the perpetuation of this Revolution in and outside the country, particularly in the area of expansion of international relations with other Islamic and peoples’ movements; it tries to prepare the ground for the creation of a single world community… and the perpetuation of the struggle for delivering all the deprived and oppressed nations of the world…[emphasis added]
Ideological Army

In establishing and equipping the defense forces of the country, it shall be taken into consideration that faith and ideology are the basis and criterion. Therefore, the Army of the Islamic Republic and the Revolutionary Guard Corps will be formed in conformity with the above objective, and will be responsible not only for protecting and safeguarding the frontiers but also for the ideological mission, that is, Jihad. For God’s sake and struggle for promoting the rule of God’s law in the world. [emphasis added]

Thus dedicated to spreading the goals of the 1979 revolution to other nations, Iran has engaged in a 25 year campaign of terror and murder.

Among the highlights:

(i) Inventing, creating, funding, training, and operating to this day Hezbollah in Lebanon, arguably the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world;
(ii) Financing Hezbollah to the tune of approximately $100 million a year, although some analysts think the figure is closer to $200 million a year;
(iii) Ordering and financing the attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in October 1983 that resulted in the death of 241 American servicemen. It was the largest non-nuclear explosion that had ever been detonated on earth, with a force of between 15,000 to 21,000 pounds of TNT;
(iv) Providing support for the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 that killed 19 American Servicemen and one Saudi national;
(v) Funding Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and incentivizing the murder of hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings;
(vi) The assassination of four leaders of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, an Iranian dissident group;
(vii) The bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish community center in 1994; and
(viii) The registration of more than 25,000 “martyrdom seeking” volunteers to take part in the attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq.

It is against this backdrop that we must consider Iran’s drive to develop nuclear weapons and its ability to deliver such weapons. It is also only against this backdrop that we can properly understand the seriousness of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s threat to wipe Israel off the face of the map. …”

http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1980/The-Threat-of-the-Current-Regime-in-Iran.aspx

 

The Case for Iran: Fighting for Freedom

By Pamela Geller

“…The Iranian people are dying for their aspirations. As Arash Irandoost’s appeal suggests, those aspirations do not include the destruction of America or Israel. The freedom fighters must travel an uphill road against a cruel, vicious theocracy and a huge fundamentalist peasantry. But they have been fighting, and dying tragically — dying magnificently and bravely, trying to better their society.

It is a stain on the America’s great history as a force for good that we elected a President who would give tacit support to murderers and savages, and abandon those dying for freedom. Yes, freedom.
If we have lost prestige in the world, it is not because of George W. Bush. He was reluctantly respected. Bush was derided to bring America down a peg: the hatred of the good for being good. The realities of Bush’s approach to the world versus Obama’s capitulation and appeasement will continue to wreak untold havoc on a world driven by leftists, elitists and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
The Green revolution, like the Cedar revolution, the Rose revolution (Georgia), and all those purple fingers were the manifestation of an idea, an idea that men yearned for: liberty and freedom. And while not everyone wants freedom, those who do ought to be given their inalienable human right to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Iranians taking bullets, axe blows and the crushing blows of batons are those very people. And these courageous and desperately isolated people deserve the wholehearted support of all free people. Hope! Change! Indeed. …”
 
 
 

Can Sanctions “Cripple” Iran?

By Clifford D. May

 “…Time is of the essence: Iran’s rulers already are conspiring with anti-American autocrats – in Russian, China, Venezuela and Turkmenistan, for example – to find ways to break such an embargo, should it be imposed. http://defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11786871&Itemid=105
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Politics of Iran

 

 

 

 

 

“…The politics of Iran takes place in framework of a republic with an Islamic ideology. The December 1979 constitution, and its 1989 amendment, define the political, economic, and social order of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It declares that Shi’a Islam of the Twelver school of thought is Iran’s official religion.

As in almost all revolutions, the early days of the regime were characterized by political turmoil. In November 1979 the American embassy was seized and its occupants taken hostage and kept captive for 444 days. The eight year Iran–Iraq War killed hundreds of thousands and cost the country billions of dollars. By mid-1982, a succession of power struggles eliminated first the center of the political spectrum and then the leftists[1][2][3] leaving the Ayatollah Khomeini and his supporters in power.

Iran’s post-revolution challenges have included the imposition of economic sanctions and suspension of diplomatic relations with Iran by the United States because of the hostage crisis and other acts of terrorism that the U.S. government and some others have accused Iran of sponsoring. Emigration has cost Iran “two to four million entrepreneurs, professionals, technicians, and skilled craftspeople (and their capital).” [4][5] For this and other reasons Iran’s economy has not prospered. Poverty rose in absolute terms by nearly 45% during the first 6 years of the Islamic revolution [6] and per capita income has yet to reach pre-revolutionary levels.[7][8]

The Islamic Republic Party was Iran’s ruling political party and for some years its only political party until its dissolution in 1987. Iran had no functioning political parties until the Executives of Construction Party formed in 1994 to run for the fifth parliamentary elections, mainly out of executive body of the government close to the then-president Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani. After the election of Mohammad Khatami in 1997, more parties started to work, mostly of the reformist movement and opposed by hard-liners. This led to incorporation and official activity of many other groups, including hard-liners. The Iranian Government is opposed by a few armed political groups, including the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, the People’s Fedayeen, and the Kurdish Democratic Party.

Although he remains aloof from the competition of politics, the most powerful political office in the Islamic Republic is that of the Supreme Leader, of which there have been two: the founder of the Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and his successor, Ali Khamenei.

The Leader appoints the heads of many powerful posts – the commanders of the armed forces, the director of the national radio and television network, the heads of the major religious foundations, the prayer leaders in city mosques, and the members of national security councils dealing with defence and foreign affairs. He also appoints the chief judge, the chief prosecutor, special tribunals and, with the help of the chief judge, half of the 12 jurists of the Guardian Council – the powerful body that decides both what bills may become law and who may run for president or parliament.[9]

The Constitution defines the President as the highest state authority after the Supreme Leader. The President is elected by universal suffrage, by those 18 years old and older[1], for a term of four years. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Council of Guardians prior to running. The President is responsible for the implementation of the Constitution and for the exercise of executive powers, except for matters directly related to the Supreme Leader. The President appoints and supervises the Council of Ministers, coordinates government decisions, and selects government policies to be placed before the legislature. Currently, 10 Vice-Presidents serve under the President, as well as a cabinet of 21 ministers, who must all be approved by the legislature. Unlike many other states, the executive branch in Iran does not control the armed forces. Although the President appoints the Ministers of Intelligence and Defense, it is customary for the President to obtain explicit approval from the Supreme Leader for these two ministers before presenting them to the legislature for a vote of confidence. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_Government_of_Iran

 

Mullahs are Watching PJTV

 

 

Iran – Friends or Enemies?

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Iranian Revolution and Regime–Videos

Old Media–Deaf, Dumb, Blind, Silent, Irrelevant and Fading Fast

Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu Speaks Truth To Evil and Power–Where Will The American People and President Obama Stand?

Obama and Clinton Betray Allies and Appease Russia Over Proposed Missile Defense System Against Iranian Missile Nuclear Threat!

Remembering September 11, 2001 On The Eighth Anniversary

Failing The Iranian Test–Barack “Hamlet” Obama–To Be or Not To Be President of The United States And Commander-in-Chief?

The Planted Assumption of The National Intelligence Estimate On Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Assumes It Conclusion–CYA From Partisan Authors!

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

World Wide War Warning–100 Day Countdown!

There are those advising President Obama that such pressure can only serve to antagonize Iran’s rulers – who, they insist, have legitimate grievances against us but really only crave respect and are eager for dialogue, compromise and cooperation.  It requires forbearance — given repeated Iranian nuclear cheating, the fraudulent elections and the brutal oppression of protestors, the empowerment of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the use of Iranian weapons and perhaps operatives to kill Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and, before that, in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, the Holocaust denial and the genocidal threats — not to regard these advisors as terminally naïve.

Others argue that nothing short of military force can be effective, that Iran’s rulers will withstand economic pressure,  no matter how crippling, in order to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction they can use to intimidate – or incinerate — those they see as enemies of God. They believe it is too late for sanctions to work.

But why not test that theory – and quickly given that Iran is now sprinting toward the finish line? If sanctions prove ineffective, at least we will know for certain that only two options remain. The first is bad:  the use of force by the U.S. or, more likely, Israel. The second is worse: watching passively for the second time in less than a hundred years as fanatical and ruthless tyrants acquire the capabilities to match their clearly stated intentions.

Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Old Media–Deaf, Dumb, Blind, Silent, Irrelevant and Fading Fast

Posted on September 29, 2009. Filed under: Communications, Crime, Culture, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Religion, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

three_monkies 

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-A

 

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-B

 

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-C

 

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-D

 

Glenn Beck-09-29-09-E

 

New media in particular blogs and videocasts are growing as are online versions of old media such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review Online.

Old media is in decline or stagnant: 

“…While old media is still on top, the trends in the survey, which has been conducted each of the last three years, point to a familiar story: media consumption habits are quickly changing. That said, some forms of new media are performing much better than others. For example:

– Blogs are now used by 24% of Internet users, up from 13% in 2006

– Social networks are now used by 26% of Internet users, up from 17% in 2006

– Videocasts are now used by 11% of Internet users, up from 6% in 2006

mediausage

 http://mashable.com/2009/01/29/stats-old-media-decline/

 

Michael Ledeen Interview

 

Mullahs are Watching PJTV

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

We’ve Been Talking to Iran for 30 Years

The seizure of the U.S. embassy followed the failure of Carter administration talks with

By Michael Ledeen

“…The Obama administration’s talks with Iran—set to take place tomorrow in Geneva—are accompanied by an almost universally accepted misconception: that previous American administrations refused to negotiate with Iranian leaders. The truth, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said last October at the National Defense University, is that “every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed.” …”

 

“…Thirty years of negotiations and sanctions have failed to end the Iranian nuclear program and its war against the West. Why should anyone think they will work now? A change in Iran requires a change in government. Common sense and moral vision suggest we should support the courageous opposition movement, whose leaders have promised to end support for terrorism and provide total transparency regarding the nuclear program.”

Mr. Ledeen, a scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is the author, most recently, of “Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West,” out next month from St. Martin’s Press.

There Are Only Two Choices Left on Iran

An Israeli or U.S. military strike now, or a nuclear Tehran soon.

By ELIOT A. COHEN

“…At the heart of the problem is not simply the nuclear program. It is the Iranian regime, a regime that has, since 1979, relentlessly waged war against the U.S. and its allies. From Buenos Aires to Herat, from Beirut to Cairo, from Baghdad to, now, Caracas, Iranian agents have done their best to disrupt and kill. Iran is militarily weak, but it is masterful at subversive war, and at the kind of high-tech guerrilla, roadside-bomb and rocket fight that Hezbollah conducted in 2006. American military cemeteries contain the bodies of hundreds, maybe thousands, of American servicemen and servicewomen slain by Iranian technology, Iranian tactics, and in some cases, Iranian operatives.

The brutality without is more than matched by the brutality within—the rape, torture and summary execution of civilians by the tens of thousands, down, quite literally, to the present day. This is a corrupt, fanatical, ruthless and unprincipled regime—unpopular, to be sure, but willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. With such a regime, no real negotiation, based on understandings of mutual interest and respect for undertakings is possible.

It is, therefore, in the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Not by invasion, which this administration would not contemplate and could not execute, but through every instrument of U.S. power, soft more than hard. And if, as is most likely, President Obama presides over the emergence of a nuclear Iran, he had best prepare for storms that will make the squawks of protest against his health-care plans look like the merest showers on a sunny day.”

Mr. Cohen teaches at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. He served as counselor of the State Department from 2007 to 2009.

 

Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask?

With Twitter’s help, the youth of Iran take on the ayatollahs.

“…A small point on the technological aspects of the Iranian situation. Some ask if the impact of the new technology is exaggerated. No. Twittering and YouTubing made the story take hold and take off. But did the technology create the rebellion? No, it encouraged what was there. If they Twittered and liveblogged the French Revolution, it still would have been the French Revolution: “this aft 3pm @ the bastille.” It all still would have happened, perhaps with marginally greater support. Revolutions are revolutions and rebellions are rebellions; they don’t work unless the people are for it. In Iran, Twitter reported and encouraged. But the conviction must be there to be encouraged.

The interesting question is what technology would have done after the Revolution, during the Terror. What would word of the demonic violence, the tumbrels and nonstop guillotines unleashed circa 1790-95 have done to French support for the Revolution, and world support? Would Thomas Jefferson have been able to continue his blithe indifference if reports of France grimly murdering France had been Twittered out each day?

The great question is what modern technology can do not in the short term so much as the long. It is not the friend of entrenched tyranny. Connected to which, it would be nice if the technologies of the future were not given babyish names. Twitter, Google, Facebook, etc., have come to be crucial and historically consequential tools, and yet to refer to them is to talk baby talk. In the future could inventors please keep the weight and dignity of history in mind? …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124535660563828707.html

Old Media

“… The old media or legacy media are traditional means of communication and expression that have existed since before the advent of the new medium of the Internet. Industries that are generally considered part of the old media are broadcast and cable television, radio, movie and music studios, newspapers, magazines, books and most print publications. Many of those industries are now less profitable than they used to be and this is has been attributed to the growth of the new media.

Old media, also known as traditional media, comprise art forms like music, dance, puppetry, street plays, theatres, fine art, folk-art and tribal art. Traditional media are used to spread awareness about social messages, social evils, bad practices that need to be stopped. In West Bengal, India, puppetry was used to create awareness about HIV and AIDS. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfPoLtnXLr8&feature=channel_page

 

Making Old Media New Again

“….It’s make-or-break time for many newspapers. Denver and Seattle recently lost dailies, the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times are both in bankruptcy, and owners of the Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle threaten closure. One reader mourned the loss of her local newspaper in Connecticut by lamenting that she had gone from living in a city to living off just another exit on Interstate 95. As comedian Stephen Colbert put it last week, “The impending death of the newspaper industry: Where will they print the obituary?” …”

“…The recession is accelerating these trends, with advertising so soft even Web-only news operations, which don’t have the legacy costs of print, are now struggling to support journalism. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958338833312319.html

 

Twelver

“…Twelver or Imami Shī‘ism (Ithnā‘ashariyyah’, Arabic: اثنا عشرية‎) is the largest branch of Shī‘ī (Shi’a) Islam. An adherent of Twelver Shī‘ism is most commonly referred to as a Twelver, which is derived from their belief in twelve divinely ordained leaders, known as the Twelve Imāms. Approximately 85% of Shī‘a are Twelvers, representing the largest branch of the Shī‘a, and the term Shi’a Muslim as commonly used in English usually refers to Twelver Shī‘a Muslims only.

Twelvers share many tenets of Shī‘ism with related sects, such as the belief in Imāms, but the Ismā‘īlī and Zaydī Shī‘ī sects each believe in a different number of Imāms and for the most part, a different path of succession regarding the Imāmate. They also differ in the role and overall definition of an Imām.

The Twelver faith is predominantly found in Iran (90%), Azerbaijan (85%), Bahrain (80%), Iraq (65%), Lebanon (35%), and Kuwait (35%). It also forms a large minority in Pakistan (30%), and Saudi Arabia (10–15%).[1]

 …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelvers

 

Why Iran? … Why not Iran?!

 

Chants in Iran: Death to America, the infidel

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Revolt of The American People–Susan’s, A Mother of 7, Call To Rush Limbaugh–Millions of Americans Cheering!

A 9-12 Project Report–The Mother’s Challenge: Moms To Politicians–Your Massive Government Spending Is Killing Our Children’s and Grandchildren’s Future

Michael Scheuer’s Ten Foreign Policy Questions for President Barack Obama

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Unconstrained Obama vs. Constrained McCain: A Conflict of Visions

The American People: Start Drilling and Control The Border. When? Now!

Open Borders — The Unintended Consequences — Mexicans Invade USA, Russians Invade Georgia

Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP)–The Ultimate Iranian Terrorist Weapon

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

Solzhenitsyn On Writers and Lying–May He Rest In Peace

Clear, Hold, Build– Strategy for Victory In Iraq–Now Ready for Prime Time in America– Operation Criminal Alien Removal (CAR)!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

The Big Lie–935 Lies of The Center for Public Integrity

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

US Immigration Videos 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Failing The Iranian Test–Barack “Hamlet” Obama–To Be or Not To Be President of The United States And Commander-in-Chief?

Posted on June 17, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Foreign Policy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, War | Tags: , , , , , , , |

hamlet

Hamlet

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of dispriz’d love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere’d country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 1, 55–87

Obama_sarkozy

 
    “The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction.
    “It is a tragedy, but it is not negative to have a real opinion movement that tries to break its chains.”

    “If Ahmadinejad has really made progress since the last election and if he really represents two thirds of the electorate… why has this violence erupted?”

~President of France Sarkozy 

 

Mike Pence on the Iranian Election and Protests

 

Iran: The Coming Crisis

 

THE RADICAL AXIS–IRAN, HAMAS, HIZBULLAH AND TERROR IN THE 21ST CENTURY

 

Hezbollah: Iran to support Lebanon

 

President Obama’s Statement On Iranian Presidential Election

 

Fox News Panel Discuss The Iranian Election and Obama’s Reaction To The Situation

 

Brit Hume on Obama’s Reaction to the Iranian Election

 

Hugh Hewitt interviews Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election

 

Thousands protest riot – fake elections tehran iran – voter fraud – fight for freedom 6-13-09 PEACE

 

Iran Revolutionary Guard Cracks Down On Online Media

 

Barack Obama has a history of hiding his true position on an issue behind a mask.

Obama repeatedly voted present instead of voting for or against an issue being considered.

In many of his speeches both sides of an issue are seemingly supported by the text of the speech.

The American people fully expect the President of the United States to speak for the nation.

For over thirty years the Iranian regime has been at war with the United States.

This war was fought largely by proxies or third-parties such as Hamas and Hezbollah that killed , injured, and captured Americans both civilian and military.

The time has come for President Obama to step up to the podium and read from the teleprompter a short statement on the Iranian after election protest and violence:

The American people and the United States government condemns the violence inflicted upon the Iranian people by current Iranian regime.

We support the Iranian  people’s quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness under a democratically elected representative government.

Our prayers go out to the families and friends of Iranians who have been killed or injured in the recent post-election events.

We look forward to working with the Iranian people and representative government to establish cordial and friendly relations that will benefit both the American and Iranian people and nations.

Let me make clear to the nations of the world that the United States firmly opposes any and all efforts by the current Iranian regime to develop and produce nuclear weapons that would be a clear and present danger to the security of all nations in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

The United States will stop by any means necessary the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

The American people and the United States seek peace in the Middle East and hope the Iranian people will assist us in achieving this goal.

While I am sure the President has speech writers that can improve upon the above, saying you are present and will not meddle in Iranian affairs lacks moral clarity and courage. 

The American people totally despise the current Iranian regime and would side with and support the Iranian people that overthrew the regime.

The Iranian regime is responsible for the killing of Americans starting in October 23, 1983 in Beirut Lebanon and continuing to this day in Iraq.

Step up to the podium Mr. President.

24th MAU They Came In Peace: 1983 Marine Barracks Bombing

A tribute to the soldiers, sailors, and Marines killed in the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut.

Beirut Remembered

POTUS_Standard

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Death to Dictatorship: U.S. Must Support Revolution in Iran

Iranian dissidents are risking their lives fighting for their future. The silence from the White House is deafening.

By Nicholas Guariglia 

“…Foreign journalists have been kicked out of the country. Revolutionary Guard thugs have taken to the streets as well, as have regime-loyalist Basij paramilitaries who are out in full force beating, clubbing, machete-slicing, tear-gassing, shooting, arresting, and killing the protesters. One report said upwards of 100 people were killed in Tehran alone. That number is unconfirmed, however.

Should these protests be nurtured and encouraged to proceed to their logical conclusion, this could turn into the best development to come out of the Middle East in sixty years. Should the protesters and rioters be aided, our greatest adversary could become one of our greatest allies overnight. This is a perfect opportunity to advantageously exploit. But how is the United States responding?

Vice President Biden said, “We’re going to withhold comment.” Secretary of State Clinton said, “The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran.” The State Department has refused to condemn the regime’s brutal crackdown. Press Secretary Gibbs said, “Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.” One unnamed White House official said, “There’s no reason to think the [Iranian] regime is not in control.” Another said, “[The election result] might also cause engagement to proceed more swiftly.” …”

“…President Obama’s silence is deafening. This will undoubtedly be considered the most important moment of his first term and he is as quiet as a lamb. According to reports, Obama has received updates on the situation in Iran but “did not convene any high-level White House meetings or conference calls.” Like so many times throughout his short and unlettered Chicago career, Obama has once again decided to vote “present.” Except this time, the issue is not some mundane community organizing red-tape dilemma. The issue is the lifespan of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and the future of war and peace in Southwest Asia.

Where is the condemnation of Ahmadinejad? Where is the criticism of Khamenei? Where is the denunciation of this stolen election? Where is the show of support and solidarity with the protesters? Where is the rhetorical support for the dissidents and democracy? Better question: where is President Obama, the man who campaigned and effeminately talked the talk about “soft power” until our ears bled? …”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/death-to-dictatorship-us-must-support-revolution-in-iran/

Iran Election: The Beginning of the End

By Amil Imani & Dr. Arash Irandoost

“…Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Islamic Republic’s repressive Revolutionary Guard, took office on August 3, 2005, after unexpected win in a sham presidential election — there are no democratic elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran. All candidates are prescreened by the Guardian Council before they are allowed to run for office.  In practice, a president of Iran is already chosen through a farce process of giving the voters a chance to elect one of the men hand-picked from the regime’s functionaries, as was the case with President Ahmadinejad.

During the previous “election,” only a small percentage of the voters bothered to vote, since voting under the pre-screening and undemocratic system of the mullahs is more like selection than election. The result of staying away from the polls materialized in the person of the fascist Ahmadinejad.

 

The great majority of the people of Iran are disillusioned and even disgusted by the mediaeval incompetent, oppressive, and corrupt rule of the mullahs, irrespective of which mafia gang is in power. The votes, more than anything else, are protest ballots cast against the entire system, rather than indications of support for the so-called conservative-moderate coalition.

 

It took less than 4 years for Iranians to realize that boycotting the so-called elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran can only bring to power even a worse bunch of Islamofascists. This time around the people turned out to vote for the lesser of two camps of evil — the mullah dominated gang of conservatives and “moderates.”  …”

 

“…The vicious attacks on people by the hired thugs of the regime are failing more and more as the mullahs’ instrument of rule by terror. The police and official security apparatus are less and less willing to exercise brute force to suppress the people. That’s exactly why the regime has imported Arab speaking terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hizbollah and Palestinian thugs.  
In short, Iran is in a state of serious upheaval. Replacing Ahmadinejad with the already tried and proven wanton gang of Rafsanjani-Khatami-Mousavi is not going to change matters much. 

 

As for the West, it is prudent that it does not embark on a trigger-happy, self interested policy. The mullahs’ lease on life, [short of brutal massacre of the Iranian people in the absence of any foreign media] is just about over. A concerted political, economic, and moral support for the long-suffering and valiant Iranian people and the secular opposition can put an end to the shameful and hate-driven Islamofascists of any and all stripes. …”  

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/iran_election_the_beginning_of.html

 

Iran: What next?

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 16, 2009 10:44 AM

maydar
 

 

 

 

Photo via #iranelection twitterer maydar

Michael Ledeen weighs in:

What’s going to happen?, you ask. Nobody knows, even the major actors. The regime has the guns, and the opposition has the numbers. The question is whether the numbers can be successfully organized into a disciplined force that demands the downfall of the regime. Yes, I know that there have been calls for a new election, or a runoff between Mousavi and Ahmadinezhad. But I don’t think that’s very likely now. The tens of millions of Iranians whose pent-up rage has driven them to risk life and limb against their oppressors are not likely to settle for a mere change in personnel at this point. And the mullahs surely know that if they lose, many of them will face a very nasty and very brief future.

If the disciplined force comes into being, the regime will fall. If not, the regime will survive. Can Mousavi lead such a force? If anyone had said, even a few days ago, that Mousavi would lead a nation-wide insurrection, he’d have been laughed out of the room. Very few foresaw anything like the current situation, although I will claim credit for predicting that neither side in the electoral circus would accept the official verdict.

Does Mousavi even want to change the system? I think he does, and in any event, I think that’s the wrong question. He is not a revolutionary leader, he is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him. The real revolutionary is his wife, Zahra Rahnavard. And the real question, the key question in all of this, is: why did Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei permit her to become such a charismatic figure? How could he have made such a colossal blunder? It should have been obvious that the very existence of such a woman threatened the dark heart of the Islamic Republic, based as it is on the disgusting misogyny of its founder, the Ayatollah Khomeini. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/16/iran-what-next/

 

More scenes from Iran’s uprising; Update: Gunfire at protest

By Michelle Malkin 

“…You can see real-time photos pouring in over Twitter/Twitpic via this PicFog page. A small sample: …

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/15/more-scenes-from-irans-uprising/

 

 

1983 Beirut barracks bombing

“…In the Beirut barracks bombing (October 23, 1983 in Beirut, Lebanon) during the Lebanese Civil War, two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon—killing 299 servicemen, including 220 U.S. Marines. The organization Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the bombing, but that organization is thought to have been a nom de guerre for Hezbollah—or a group that would later become part of Hezbollah[1]—receiving help from the Islamic Republic of Iran.[2]

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs, and the explosives used at the Marine barracks were equivalent to 5,400 kg (12,000 pounds) of TNT. Two minutes later, a similar attack levelled the eight-story ‘Drakkar’ building, killing 58 French paratroopers from 1er RCP (Régiment de Chasseurs Parachutistes). In the attack on the American barracks, the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and three Army soldiers, along with sixty Americans injured, representing the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima of World War II, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[3] In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured, in the single worst military loss for France since the end of the Algerian War.[4] In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines’ building was killed in the first blast.[5]

The blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization following the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

Hamas

“…Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning “Islamic Resistance Movement”) is a Palestinian Islamic socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.[2][3]. On January 25, 2006, Hamas won the legislative elecions held in the Palestinian Territories, gaining the majority seats in the Palestinian parliament.[5] This further complicated matters in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is considered wholly, or in part, a terrorist organization by certain countries and supranational organizations. Since June 2007, after winning a large majority in the Palestinian Parliament and defeating rival Palestinian party Fatah in a series of violent clashes, Hamas has governed the Gaza portion of the Palestinian Territories.

Hamas was created in 1987 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of the First Intifada, an uprising against Israeli rule in the Palestinian Territories. Hamas launched numerous suicide bombings against Israel,[6] the first of them in April, 1993.[7] Hamas ceased the attacks in 2005 and renounced them in April, 2006.[8] Hamas has also been responsible for Israel-targeted rocket attacks, IED attacks, and shootings, but reduced those operations in 2005 and 2006.[9] In 2008 the rockets reached their peak and then once again went down after Operation Cast Lead.[citation needed]

In January 2006, Hamas was successful in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, taking 76 of the 132 seats in the chamber, while the previous ruling Fatah party took 43.[10] After Hamas’s election victory, violent and non-violent infighting arose between Hamas and Fatah.[11][12] Following the Battle of Gaza in June 2007, elected Hamas officials were ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority government in the West Bank and replaced by rival Fatah members and independents. Hamas retained control of Gaza.[13][14] On June 18, 2007, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah) issued a decree outlawing the Hamas militia.[15] Israel immediately thereafter imposed an economic blockade on Gaza, and Hamas launched rocket attacks upon areas of Israel near its border with Gaza.[16] After the end of a six-month ceasefire the conflict was escalated, and Israel invaded Hamas-ruled Gaza in late December, 2008.[17] Israel withdrew its forces from Gaza in mid-January, 2009,[18] but has maintained its blockade of the Gaza border and airspace.

Through its funding and management of schools, health-care clinics, mosques, youth groups, athletic clubs and day-care centers, Hamas by the mid-1990s had attained a “well-entrenched” presence in the West Bank and Gaza.[19] An estimated 80 to 90 percent of Hamas revenues fund health, social welfare, religious, cultural, and educational services.[20][21][22]

Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[23] However, Khaled Meshal, Hamas’s Damascus-based political bureau chief, stated in 2009 that the group would accept the creation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders and, although unwilling to negotiate a permanent peace with Israel, has offered a temporary, long-term truce, or hudna, that would be valid for ten years.[24]

Hamas describes its conflict with Israel as neither religious[25] nor antisemitic,[26][27] the head of Hamas’s political bureau stating in early 2006 that the conflict with Israel “is not religious but political”, and that Jews have a covenant from God “that is to be respected and protected.” [25] Nonetheless, the Hamas Charter and statements by Hamas leaders are believed by some to be influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories.[28]

Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Canada,[29] the European Union,[30][31][32] Israel,[33] Japan,[34] and the United States.[35] Australia[36] and the United Kingdom[37] list the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organization. The United States and the European Union have implemented restrictive measures against Hamas on an international level.[38][39]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Hezbollah

“…Hezbollah[1] (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-‘llāh(i),[2] literally “party of God”) is a Shi’a Islamist political and paramilitary organisation based in Lebanon.[3] Hezbollah is now also a major provider of social services, which operate schools, hospitals, and agricultural services for thousands of Lebanese Shiites, and plays a significant force in Lebanese politics.[4] It is regarded as a resistance movement throughout much of the Arab and Muslim world.[3] Many governments, including Arab ones, have condemned actions by Hezbollah while others have praised the party.[5][6] Six western countries, including Israel[7] and the United States,[8] regard it in whole or in part as a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah first emerged as a militia in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, also known as Operation Peace for Galilee, in 1982, set on resisting the Israeli occupation of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war.[3][9] Its leaders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of Iranian Revolutionary Guards.[10] Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto listed its three main goals as “putting an end to any colonialist entity” in Lebanon, bringing the Phalangists to justice for “the crimes they [had] perpetrated,” and the establishment of an Islamic regime in Lebanon.[11][12] Recently, however, Hezbollah has made little mention of establishing an Islamic state, and forged alliances across religious lines.[10] Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a “Zionist entity… built on lands wrested from their owners.”[11][12]

Hezbollah, which started with only a small militia, has grown to an organization with seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television-station, and programs for social development.[13] Hezbollah maintains strong support among Lebanon’s Shi’a population, and gained a surge of support from Lebanon’s broader population (Sunni, Christian, Druze) immediately following the 2006 Lebanon War,[14] and is able to mobilize demonstrations of hundreds of thousands.[15] Hezbollah alongside with some other groups began the 2006–2008 Lebanese political protests in opposition to the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.[16] Later dispute over Hezbollah preserve its telecoms network led to clashes and Hezbollah-led opposition fighters seized control of several West Beirut neighborhoods from Future Movement militiamen loyal to Fouad Siniora, this areas then handed over to the Lebanese Army.[17] Finally, on the basis of Doha Agreement, Hezbollah was granted veto power in Lebanon’s parliament. In addition, National unity government was formed which Hezbollah has one minister and controls eleven of thirty seats in it.[4][18]

Hezbollah receives its financial support from Iran, Syria, and the donations of Lebanese and other Shi’a.[19][20] It has also gained significantly in military strength the last few years.[21] Despite a June 2008 certification by the United Nations that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory,[22] in August of that year, Lebanon’s new Cabinet unanimously approved a draft policy statement which secures Hezbollah’s existence as an armed organization and guarantees its right to “liberate or recover occupied lands.” Since 1992, the organization has been headed by Hassan Nasrallah, its Secretary-General. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

Edwards Calls Out Obama on Lame “Present” Vote

 

 

Two Guys in a Newsroom (June 17, 2009)

 

Karl Rove on Obama’s reaction to the election in Iran

 

Fox Report on Unrest in Iran – Post Election

 

 

Iranian Riots – Protesters show the Riot Police some kindness (Jun 16th)

 

 

Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election – Part 1

 

Michael Ledeen on the Iranian Election – Part 2


 

 

Laura Ingraham goes nuclear on Obama over Iranian crisis

 

Iranian Nuclear Power Plant Open For Business

 

John Bolton about Iran nuclear testing


 

Dennis Miller interviews Mark Steyn, June 16, 2009. Part 1/2

 

Dennis Miller interviews Mark Steyn, June 16, 2009. Part 1/2

 

Riz Khan- The Neocons and Iran

 

Iran’s Supreme Leader Dismisses Obama Overtures


 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The American People Celebrate Independence Day–Saturday, July 4, 2009–By Marching in 1000 Cities and Towns and Attending Ice Tea Parties To Freeze Federal Government Spending, Taxes and Deficits–30 Million Expected Nationally–1 Million In Washington D.C.!

 United States Economic Depressions–The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly–Obama’s Depression–Over 15,000,000 Americans Seek Full Time Job! 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 15 so far )

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Posted on September 16, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Economics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Links, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Beatles – Revolution

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

~Thomas Jefferson et al,

The Declaration of Independence

UPDATED

The Truth About Neocons

Many movement conservatives deeply resent being called neoconservatives or neocons.

I consider myself to be a movement conservative that is comfortable in both the traditionalist and libertarian wings of the conservative movement represented by the works of the late Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friederick Hayek.

While I agree with neoconservatives on many occasions and issues, I part company when they advocate preemptive attacks on nations that have not attacked the United States, democracy nation-building, open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, where I agree with Pat Buchanan. I part company with Mr. Buchanan’s views on free trade. I am a free trader.

Neoconservatives are first and foremost big government conservatives, which I regard as the problem, not the solution. I agree with the late President Ronald Reagan:

A Reminder from Ronald Reagan

Should Senator McCain be elected President, which I think he will, and should Senator McCain propose neoconservative policies and programs, I for one will advocate and support the formation of another political party.

I will follow the sage advice of Dick Armey and leave.

Dick Armey discusses big government conservatism

I am tired of being betrayed by Republicans who say one thing to get elected and turn around and do the exact opposite–Presidents George H. Bush and George W. Bush to name two, who I voted for with great expectations and now have very deep regrets for doing so.

Both Presidents increased taxes– the first directly and the second indirectly by massive deficit spending and open borders resulting in dramatic increases in local and state taxes to provide for education, services, medical care, welfare, jails, and prisons for illegal aliens. Not a single Federal department was eliminated such as Education, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, and Commerce for starters. Few spending bills were vetoed, a sheer mockery of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Bush Has Doubled National Debt with Deficits

You can say I am a conservative, libertarian, or classical liberal, but please not a neoconservative, and if things are not changed or reformed in Washington, I will not be voting Republican much longer.

Background Articles and Videos

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

The Pentagons New Map – Thomas Barnett lecture

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025

Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being ‘new’ conservatives.[1][2]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had “moved to the right”.[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about.”[1]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term and considered its founder is Irving Kristol, an American Jew from an orthodox Jewish family[6], and father of William Kristol who became the founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol had been an active supporter of Trotskyism, but wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[3] Kristol’s ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[7]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[8][9] The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence and considered central to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, shortly before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. Neoconservative influence on American foreign policy later became central with the Bush Doctrine.

Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Neocons aiding ’08 Republicans

“Most Americans disapprove of the Iraq war and of exporting democracy by force, yet neoconservative proponents of those policies advise the leading Republican presidential hopefuls.

“There is an overwhelming presence of neoconservatives and absence of traditional conservatives that I don’t know what to make of,” said Richard V. Allen, former Reagan White House national security adviser.

Advisers to Sen. John McCain of Arizona include Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), while former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s policy team includes Norman Podhoretz, a founder of the neoconservative movement, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gets advice from Dan Senor, who counseled L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator in Iraq.

Critics say neoconservatism casts American foreign policy as a new and benevolent form of imperialism, and conflicts with the traditional conservative, who prefers U.S. military power be reserved for defending against direct threats to America‘s vital interests. …”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/06/neocons-aiding-08-republicans/

The Neocons’ Palin Project

by Patrick J. Buchanan

“…In fairness to Palin, on issues like NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, her answers reflect the views of the man who chose her. She has no option at present but to follow the line laid down by Scheunemann.

But make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.

Wasilla, Alaska, is not a natural habitat of neoconservatives.

And her unrehearsed answers to Gibson’s questions reveal her natural conservatism. Asked if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine, Palin asked for clarification. “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “Do we have the right of an anticipatory self-defense?”

Yes, said Palin, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against (the) American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Exactly. The intelligence must be legit and the threat “imminent.” …”

http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/09/16/the_neocons_palin_project?page=2

American Enterprise Institute

“The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943. According to the institute its mission is “to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.”[1] AEI is an independent, non-profit organization. It is supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is located in Washington, D.C.

AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions.[3] Former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar, and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is a senior fellow.[4]

AEI is often cited as a right-leaning counterpart to the left-leaning Brookings Institution.[5][6] In 1998, AEI and Brookings established the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.[7] In 2006, the two organizations jointly launched the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project.[8]

AEI has connections with the neoconservative movement in American politics.[9] Irving Kristol, widely regarded as the movement’s founder, is a Senior Fellow at AEI. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Project for the New American Century

“The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as “a non-profit educational organization” by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership.”[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4] ….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Flight of the Neocons
From liberal hawks to “National Greatness” conservatives
Michael C. Moynihan | May 2008 Print Edition

“…To Heilbrunn, the legacy of neoconservatism is one of long-term disaster for the Republican Party, an ideological digression that “quite possibly not only destroyed conservatism as a political force for years to come but also created an Iraq syndrome that tarnishes the idea of intervention for several decades.” This sounds right. The surge has undeniably mitigated the violence in Iraq, but it seems likely that—barring a continued military presence in Iraq for “100 years,” as John McCain posited—the neocons’ nation-building project will be a millstone around the movement’s neck. The Iraq fiasco will also obscure the fact that many of their Cold War–era arguments with the left were prescient. They were right about the ineffectiveness of Great Society welfare programs and about the colossal evil of the communist bloc.

But the failures of the neoconservative approach to both foreign and domestic policy are recognized even by consummate neocon David Frum, partial author of the infamous “axis of evil” State of the Union speech. In his recently released book Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, Frum concedes Heilbrunn’s point that a conservative regeneration is needed after the Bush administration’s big spending and disastrous foreign policy. While Frum is upbeat about conservatism’s prospects, Heilbrunn ends They Knew They Were Right on an ominous note: “These reckless minds…aren’t going away. Quite the contrary.”

Perhaps. But unless Iraq becomes an Arab version of Switzerland in the next decade, I wouldn’t bet on it. …”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125472.html

John McCain, Neoconservative

“…The neoconservatives, who believe, or pretend to believe, that supposed foes abroad always represent new Hitlers and that wimpy liberals are about to recapitulate the appeasement that English liberals espoused in the 1930s, are constantly searching for a new Churchill. They see Churchill as the last great representative of the Victorian era in contrast to the weaklings that surrounded him. (George W. Bush himself keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.) For the neocons, McCain, a military hero who has written a number of books and become a politician, eerily resembles Churchill himself. McCain himself has made his admiration for Churchill abundantly apparent in his most recent book, Hard Call, in which he hails the great man’s prescience in warning of Germany’s aggressive intentions in the run-up to both World War I and World War II. But more to the point, McCain represents for the neocons the ultimate synthesis of war hero and politician. And McCain, in turn, has been increasingly drawn to the neocons’ militaristic vision of the U.S. as an empire that can set wrong aright around the globe.The neocons became close to McCain in the 1990s, when they supported American intervention in the Balkans. According to the New Republic’s John Judis, the first sign of neocon influence on McCain came in 1999. McCain delivered a speech at Kansas State University in which he touted “national greatness conservatism,” arguing: “The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history.” He went on to state that the U.S. should have “every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity’s benefit.”

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-mccain-neoconservative.html

The Open-Borders Conspiracy
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com

“If I could choose to have my readers learn one and only one thing from what I write, it would be that America’s problems are not the result of blind, much less inevitable, forces, but are the consequences of deliberate political action by motivated individuals and groups. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of our ongoing immigration crisis. Let’s trace the lines of influence in the open-borders conspiracy, a word I use despite its connotations of grassy knollology because in this case it is factually appropriate. Given who has been pushing mass immigration in America and how open they have been about why they are doing it, it boggles my mind that anyone who considers himself conservative can still support this policy. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850953/posts

Shamnesty John McCain is back in full force: No, he never “got the message”
By Michelle Malkin

“…And, now, straight from the campaign trail with Arnold “Move Left” Schwarzenegger, McCain has shed every last pretense that he “got the message” from grass-roots immigration enforcement proponents and is back to his full, open-borders shamnesty push. No surprise to any of you. But his complete regression back to the “comprehensive immigration reform” euphemism is a notable milestone.

Also, you don’t need to guess anymore how he would have voted on the Feinstein/Craig illegal alien farmworker amnesty: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/22/shamnesty-john-mccain-is-back-in-full-force-no-he-never-got-the-message/

Translation: McCain’s suck up to La Raza

By Michelle Malkin

The other half of the La Raza twins is set to speak today at 12:45 Pacific time. While John McCain’s lips move this afternoon during his speech to the Race’s open-borders lovefest, let me serve as your interpreter:

MCCAIN: My friends, you are right. Those people who killed my shamnesty bill have ill intentions. They are bigots, just like my friend Lindsay Graham told you they were when he spoke before you two years ago. …”

My friends, I don’t want to talk about securing the border any more than you do. But trust me, when the “border” is “secure” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), then we’ll do what we all want to do: Formalize our Sanctuary Nation. Rejoice that illegal aliens are serving in the military. And sanctimoniously demonize and marginalize all those pesky bigots who keep obsessing about immigration enforcement and national security. I’m as committed to peddling sob-story platitudes and whitewashing your ethnic nationalism as you are! (What was that about the 15 things about The Race you should know? Shhhhhhhhhhh!)

Just work with me here, ok? Brother Obama may have marched with you at the Chicago May Day illegal alien parade. But I have a lifetime commitment to Hispandering! And you have showered with me with honors for my open-borders work.

Remember?

They don’t call me La Raza’s voice in Washington for nothing.

Just ask my friend, Juan Hernandez.

My friends.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/translation-mccains-suck-up-to-la-raza/

Mexico–United States border

“The international border between Mexico and the United States runs from San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Baja California, in the west to Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Brownsville, Texas, in the east. It traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to inhospitable deserts. From the Gulf of Mexico it follows the course of the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; westward from that binational conurbation it crosses vast tracts of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert, the Colorado River Delta, westward to the binational conurbation of San Diego and Tijuana before reaching the Pacific Ocean.

The border’s total length is 3,169 km (1,969 miles), according to figures given by the International Boundary and Water Commission.[1] It is the most frequently crossed international border in the world, with about 250 million legal crossings every year.[2]

The nearly 2000 mile (3,138 km or 1,950 miles) international border follows the middle of the Rio Grande — according to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the two nations, “along the deepest channel” — from its mouth on the Gulf of Mexico a distance of 2,019 km (1,254 miles) to a point just upstream of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. It then follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 858 km (533 miles) to the Colorado River, during which it reaches its highest elevation at the intersection with the Continental Divide. Thence it follows the middle of that river northward a distance of 38 km (24 miles), and then it again follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 226 km (141 miles) to the Pacific Ocean.

The region along the boundary is characterised by deserts, rugged mountains, abundant sunshine and by two major rivers — the Colorado and the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) — which provide life-giving waters to the largely arid but fertile lands along the rivers in both countries.

The U.S. states along the border, from west to east, are:

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

The Mexican states are:

Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.

In the United States, Texas has the longest stretch of the border of any State, while California has the shortest. In Mexico, Chihuahua has the longest border, while Nuevo León has the shortest. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border

Us-mexico-border.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us-mexico-border.jpg

Re: John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Who Is Juan Hernandez?

John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Lou Dobbs – These Candidates Would Say ANYTHING

The Dangers of the “North American Union” by Jerome Corsi

Why Bill Kristol thinks Ron Paul is a “Crackpot”

Charlie Rose – WOLFOWITZ / HOLMES

Paul Wolfowitz speaks at Hudson Institute

Countdown – No Iranian Nukes and Wolfowitz is Back

Paul Wolfowitz speech June 6 2001

 Iraq War Mastermind Speaks Out

Charlie Rose – Sen. Dick Durbin / Douglas Feith / Sen. Ron Wyden

Book TV: Douglas Feith, author of “War and Decision”

Riz Khan – Richard Perle – 18 Mar 08

Charlie Rose – PERL & FRUM

Who is Randy Scheunemann?

Bill Kristol Anthology

Neo-cons War Lobbying To Bomb Iran

NeoConservative Charles Krauthammer discusses U.S. options against Russia

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 1

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 2

Krauthammer: What will Obama give to Iran?

Next President 1

Next President 2

Why I love Charles Krauthammer

Bolton and Krauthammer on Russian Expansion past Georgia

Fred Kagan on Jim Lehrer

Fred Kagan Debates Nir Rosen on Iraq Surge (Part 1)

Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer

Conversations With History: John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt

the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

 the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

John Bolton – Does Iran Need a “Regime Change?”

Neocon John Bolton Pushes War Against Iran

Norman Podhoretz on Iran

Norman Podhoretz on His New Book

Riz Khan- The Neocons and Iran- 10 Dec 07

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (1 of 2), 2008

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (2 of 2), 2008

Charlie Rose: March 4, 2003 with Ron Brownstein and Robert Kagan

Why CIA Veterans Are Scared of McCain

“…These critics point especially to the McCain campaign’s top national security adviser Randy Scheunemann—who ran a front group promoting war with Iraq and the fabrications of controversial Iraqi exile politician Ahmad Chalabi, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and who has lobbied for aggressive NATO expansion. Scheunemann’s record, they argue, encapsulates everything wrong with the past eight years of Bush leadership on intelligence issues, from a penchant for foreign policy freelancing and secret contacts with unreliable fabricators, to neoconservatives’ disdain for the perceived bureaucratic timidity of the CIA and State Department, to their avowed hostility for diplomacy with adversaries. If McCain wins, “the military has won,” says one former senior CIA officer. “We will no longer have a civilian intelligence arm. Yes, we will have analysts. But we won’t have any real civilian intelligence capability.”

“McCain would be an absolute disaster,” says a second recently retired senior US intelligence operations officer. “He is prejudiced against the CIA. The day after the 2004 election when Bush won, McCain came on TV and gave an interview in which he said something to the effect of, ‘The CIA tried to sabotage this election. They’ve made their bed and now they have to lay in it.’ I used to like McCain, but he is inconsistent.” Columnist Robert Novak quoted McCain in November 2004 as saying, “With CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.”

McCain is influenced by a circle of hardline Republican legislators and congressional staff as well as disgruntled former Agency officials “who all had these long-standing grudges against people in the Agency,” the former senior intelligence officer said. “They think the CIA is a hotbed of liberals. Right-wing, nutty paranoia stuff. They all love the military and hate the CIA. Because the CIA tells them stuff they don’t want to hear.” …”

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/08/why-cia-veterans-are-scared-of-mccain.html

McCain’s ACU Ratings
By Randall Hoven

“…What this means is that McCain’s ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona’s other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).

Not much the cheer about here.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html

Whose War?      PDF

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan accuses ‘McCain’s neocon warmonger’ of treason Stephen C. Webster
“…According to conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, Sen. John McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann is a ‘dual loyalist,’ ‘neocon warmonger’ involved in activities that ‘none dare call treason.’

Scheunemann’s former employer, Orion Strategies, is a lobbying firm with strong ties to Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration in Georgia.

Since Georgia attempted to retake South Ossetia by force, triggering a sharp, violent rebuke by Russian forces, Sen. McCain has been by far the most strident advocate of US support for the former Soviet state. And his top adviser, says Buchanan, may well be the next Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski.

“He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man,” he wrote. …”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Buchanan_accuses_McCains_neocon_warmonger_of_0822.html

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

Among the Neocons      PDF

A foot soldier in the ideological wars relates

By Scott McConnell

“…Two new issues broke apart the 1980s Reaganite conservative consensus. The first was immigration. By the late 1980s, the impact of the 1965 immigration law had begun greatly to accelerate the pace of immigration. Younger readers may not recall the vital role National Review began to play in analyzing that law and the social, environmental, and political consequences it brought about. The battle was joined when John O’Sullivan (NR’s editor since 1988) published in 1992 Peter Brimelow’s explosive “Time to Rethink Immigration,” which quickly became the most debated conservative magazine article of the year. The piece forced the immigration debate into the open within the conservative movement, where it fused with the populist revolt breaking out in California over Proposition 187, an anti-illegal-alien measure. For the next five years, the magazine put what it called “The National Question” in the spotlight, publishing cover stories by Brimelow, Fred Iklé, O’Sullivan, and eventually (as I was won over to the magazine’s position) one by me.

The neoconservatives, to my complete surprise, were not pleased.

In the summer of 1995, Neal Kozodoy gave me a copy of a letter. Written by Irwin Steltzer to the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, it was making its way around the upper echelons of the neocon magazines and think tanks. Steltzer is a Bronx-born economist and Weekly Standard editor who lives part-time in London. While a gifted economic essayist, his most important function is surely as the ideological gendarme for Rupert Murdoch’s American media properties.

Steltzer wrote to Kristol (and the wider world) that he was canceling his subscription to National Review because of its “increasingly offensive positions on such topics as immigration.” He went on then to complain about a piece by Richard Neuhaus on anti-Semitism, which, Steltzer charged, was itself anti-Semitic. He added, apropos of a quote of Kristol’s that appeared in Neuhaus’s article, that he was “always suspicious” of Father Neuhaus’s excerpting, “particularly in an article which contains cunningly placed little adjectives and descriptions.” He concluded with a more general comment about John O’Sullivan’s National Review: “Add to this NR’s applause for the immigration statutes of the 1920’s, designed to keep eastern European Jews out, and you have a not-very-subtle form of anti-Semitism, dressed up as an attack on liberalism.”

Bill Buckley stood by his editor initially, but not for long. Within two years, O’Sullivan was eased out, replaced by the youthful Rich Lowry, who immediately upon assuming his new post fired Peter Brimelow.

In the very early years of the neocon-paleocon skirmish, Russell Kirk, the somewhat fogeyish father of postwar American intellectual conservatism, gave a speech about the neocons at the Heritage Foundation. He generally praised them but added some words of caution. Quoting from a friend’s letter, Kirk said, “It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant from a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation the conservative is a fascist.” I, of course, had heard of neocon campaigns against other conservatives, but the targets were not men I knew or agreed with. But I did know O’Sullivan and Neuhaus, and the Russell Kirk remark that had once seemed overheated became a good deal less so. …”

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/apr/21/00007/

Idealism and Its Discontents
Thinking on the neoconservative slur.

Victor Davis Hanson

“…Third, Iraq is not the sole touchstone of neoconservative thought. Many traditional conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who favor balanced budgets, an end to illegal immigration, and more sober judgment on entitlements, came to the conclusion after September 11 that the many lives of Saddam Hussein had run out. Indeed, one of the ironies of this war is the spectacle of many who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein in the late 1990s now turning on the war, while many who would have never supported such preemption before 9/11 insist on giving the administration full support in the midst of the present fighting.

Fourth, traditional conservatives especially distrust neoconservatives because, well, they are not entirely conservative and confuse the public about the virtues of the hallowed native reluctance to spend blood and treasure abroad for dubiously idealistic purposes. In contrast, progressives dislike them because their promotion of democracy can complicate liberalism, as if it were a fine and noble thing to insist on elections in the former Third World, even if need be through force. And every ideology saves its greatest venom for the perceived apostate: Thus Zell Miller infuriates liberals in the way John McCain or Chuck Hagel does conservatives.

Fifth, the battlefield adjudicates perceptions. Before the Iraqi invasion, neoconservatives took a beating in the acrimonious lead-up to the war about which scenarios were proffered about millions of refugees and thousands of American dead. Yet after the three-week victory, even television hosts were boasting, “We are all neoconservatives now.” Then the messy post-bellum Iraqi reconstruction brought back disdain, while successful elections and a consensual government could well win admiration. For most, ideology or belief matters not nearly as much as impressions of being judged as smart, successful, and “cutting-edge” — a constantly changing and amorphous image that in Washington is predicated on the 24-hour news cycle.

Finally, radical foreign-policy changes always upset the status quo and beg for conspiratorial exegesis. After 1948, the Cold Warriors were felt to have appropriated the Democratic party from the Henry Wallace wing, and they suffered abuse both from the naïve Left who saw them as veritable McCarthyites, and from the isolationist Right who did not want to continue the sacrifices of internationalism endlessly on into the postwar peace. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200501210758.asp

The Neoconservative Cabal

Joshua Muravchik

“…Who makes up this potent faction? Within the administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is usually identified as the key actor, together with Richard Perle, a member and until recently the chairman of the Defense Advisory Board. A handful of other high-level Bush appointees are often named as adherents of the neocon faith, including Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, National Security Council staff member Elliott Abrams, and Vice Presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI, where I work), the Weekly Standard magazine, and William Kristol’s Project for a New American Century–all three rent offices in the same building–are often described as constituting the movement’s Washington command center. And then, of course, there is this magazine, crucible of so much neoconservative thought.

The history of neoconservatism is less sensational than its current usage implies. The term came into currency in the mid-1970’s as an anathema–pronounced, by upholders of leftist orthodoxy, against a group of intellectuals, centered mostly in Commentary and the quarterly Public Interest, who then still thought of themselves as liberals but were at odds with the dominant thinking of the Left. One part of this group consisted of writers about domestic policy–Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, James Q. Wilson, Nathan Glazer–who had developed misgivings about the programs of the New Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The other main contingent focused on foreign policy, and especially on the decline of America’s position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in the wake of the Vietnam war. The names here included, among others, Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Eugene V. Rostow. Although, at first, most of these people resisted the label neoconservative, eventually almost all of them acquiesced in it. …”

“…On September 11, we learned in the most dreadful way that terrorists would not be appeased by our diffidence; quite the contrary. We saw–they themselves told us–that they intended to go on murdering us in ever larger numbers as long as they could. A sharp change of course was required, and the neoconservatives, who had been warning for years that terror must not be appeased, stood vindicated–much as, more grandly, Churchill was vindicated by Hitler’s depredations after Munich.

Not only did the neocons have an analysis of what had gone wrong in American policy, they also stood ready with proposals for what to do now: to wage war on the terror groups and to seek to end or transform governments that supported them, especially those possessing the means to furnish terrorists with the wherewithal to kill even more Americans than on September 11. Neocons also offered a long-term strategy for making the Middle East less of a hotbed of terrorism: implanting democracy in the region and thereby helping to foment a less violent approach to politics.

No neoconservative was elevated in office after September 11, as Churchill had been to prime minister after the collapse of the Munich agreement, but policies espoused by neoconservatives were embraced by the Bush administration. Was this because Bush learned them from the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle? Or did he and his top advisers–none of them known as a neocon–reach similar conclusions on their own? We may have to await the President’s memoirs to learn the answer to that narrow question, but every American has reason to be grateful for the result.

If these policies should fail, for whatever reason–including a recurrence of national faint-heartedness–then neoconservative ideas will no doubt be discredited. But this matters hardly at all compared with what we will have lost. For, if they fail, either we will then be at the mercy of ever more murderous terrorism or we will have to seek alternative methods of coping with it–methods that are likely to involve a much more painful and frightening course of action than the admittedly daunting one that still lies before us.

If, however, the policies succeed, then the world will have been delivered from an awful scourge, and there will be credit enough to go around–some of it, one trusts, even for the lately much demonized neoconservatives. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991206/posts

Notice: U.S. WMD Retaliation Doctrine Has Changed

By Michelle Malkin

“…There’s a very important catch in the Weekly Standard by spy-dude Elbridge Colby, who notes a crucial change in our plans to respond to terrorist use of WMD’s. We’ve long held that states which assist in WMD terror would be held accountable. But February 8, we expanded our potential retribution schedule:

Instead of merely threatening that states that support terror attacks will be held responsible–already a staple of U.S. policy–Hadley goes further, threatening non-state actors who “enabl[e]” terrorists to strike with WMD. This careful choice of words would seem to expand our retaliatory standard to encompass complicity and perhaps even negligence. Not only states, but groups and individuals as well, should now be on notice that they will be held accountable for participation in, support for, complicity in, or even negligence in the face of WMD strikes against the United States or its allies. This strategy makes a great deal of sense; catastrophic terrorism is a threat that both justifies and requires a more exacting standard of behavior.

Individuals? Whoever could they mean?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/10/notice-us-wmd-retaliation-doctrine-has-changed/

Charlie Rose – Georgia/Russia Conflict

Power Play

The nature of nations, like people, never changes. Today’s political realists say economics rather than military might has become the guiding principle of countries, but the conflict in Georgia shows otherwise, argues Robert Kagan.

By ROBERT KAGAN

“…Where are the realists? When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it ought to have been their moment. Here was Vladimir Putin, a cold-eyed realist if ever there was one, taking advantage of a favorable opportunity to shift the European balance of power in his favor — a 21st century Frederick the Great or Bismarck, launching a small but decisive war on a weaker neighbor while a surprised and dumbfounded world looked on helplessly. Here was a man and a nation pursuing “interest defined as power,” to use the famous phrase of Hans Morgenthau, acting in obedience to what Mr. Morgenthau called the “objective law” of international power politics. Yet where are Mr. Morgenthau’s disciples to remind us that Russia’s latest military action is neither extraordinary nor unexpected nor aberrant but entirely normal and natural, that it is but a harbinger of what is yet to come because the behavior of nations, like human nature, is unchanging?

Today’s “realists,” who we’re told are locked in some titanic struggle with “neoconservatives” on issues ranging from Iraq, Iran and the Middle East to China and North Korea, would be almost unrecognizable to their forebears. Rather than talk about power, they talk about the United Nations, world opinion and international law. They propose vast new international conferences, a la Woodrow Wilson, to solve intractable, decades-old problems. They argue that the United States should negotiate with adversaries not because America is strong but because it is weak. Power is no answer to the vast majority of the challenges we face, they insist, and, indeed, is counterproductive because it undermines the possibility of international consensus. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005366593885103.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Neoconservative Persuasion

Irving Kristol

“…Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the “have-nots” and the “haves” engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy–because it seems to be in the nature of human nature–that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on “the road to serfdom.” Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives–though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government’s attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following “theses” (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141481/posts

The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species

by Kirk, Russell

“…Selfish and Uninstructed. I offer you two specimens of the rejection of the Neoconservatives that I encounter nowadays in many quarters. My first extract is from a letter recently received from a very distinguished historian in Pennsylvania. “I have burned my bridges with most (not all) of the Konservatives, and especially with the neo- conservatives, who are selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson,” he writes to me. “A feeling for the land, for its conservation, and for the strong modesty of a traditional patriotism (as distinct from nationalism) none of them has.”

My second instance of the spreading distaste for Neoconservatives comes from a well-known literary scholar. “I would not be at all surprised to see the Neo-Cons jump ship if Dukakis is elected; they would be perfectly capable of making an accommodation with the socialist wing of the Democratic Party,” he tells me …… It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant to a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation that the conservative is a fascist…. I believe that the chief enemy of American conservatism has not been the Marxists, nor even the socialist liberals in the Democratic Party, but the Neo-Conservatives, who have sabotaged the movement from within and exploited it for their own selfish purposes.”

Simple Old Label. Now the strictures of the gentlemen I have quoted cannot well apply to some of the better known people called Neoconservatives; for there are among that group high-minded men and women of principle. Our difficulty here is very like that I encountered when I lectured, a few months ago, on the Libertarians: the appellation Neoconservative, like the appellation Libertarian, is so widely employed, and so variously, as to seem to include people of radically opposed views. What is a Neoconservative, really? Is he, as Harrington and Steinfels saw him, a liberal who opportunistically has turned his coat? Is he primarily a seeker after power and the main chance? Or is he a man who has new ideas about the defense of the Permanent Things? For my part, I wish that certain so-called Neoconservatives whose views and lives I approve, like certain libertarians for whom I have a fellow feeling, would content themselves, as do I, with the simple old label Conservative.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL178.cfm

A Concord of Visions

How the neoconservative right adopted the worst errors of the left

None of this is to say that all good flows from the politics of the constrained vision and all ills from the unconstrained view. For my taste—and that of most libertarians, I suspect—Sowell’s constrained vision in its purer forms is probably a shade too constrained, too ready to assume that old customs continue to serve their traditional functions under changed circumstances. But it is the worst features of the unconstrained vision—its hubris, its pretense to omnicompetence—that have taken hold of the right. And if there is wisdom in each of the two perspectives, it should be worrying that, for all the other differences between the major parties, between progressives and conservatives, in this one fundamental way the political landscape increasingly offers only half the picture—different refractions of the same unconstrained vision. With the waning of the constrained perspective’s tempering influence, we’re left with a political vision that’s dangerously double.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117049.html

No moderate, no realist, McCain the neocon

Ron Paul revolution against empire and draft

Pat Buchanan vs Neo-Cons

Pat Buchanan on John McCain’s warmongering nature

Pat Buchanan:”McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi”

Anne Norton Defines Neocons

Israel, Iran and the New Neocons

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 1 of 2

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 2 of 2

1. The Neocons – Ideology and Fantasy (Part 1 of 14)

2. The Neocons – Rumsfeld’s Imaginary War (2/14)

3. The Neocons – Birth of Islamic Extremists

4. The Neocons – Recruiting Christians / Concept of Terror

5. The Neocons – CIA’s $1Billion Backs Future Terrorists

6. The Neocons – Ignored Warning of Terrorists

7. Then Neocons – Destruction of the Republican Party

8. The Neocons – Clinton’s Blowjob / Extremist Rampage

9. The Neocons – “There’s No Al-Qaeda Organization”

10. The Neocons – “We’re Gonna Find Those Evil Doers”

11. The Neocons – Hunt for Osama / The Disney Terrorists

12. The Neocons – Godzilla was a Terrorist Mentor

13. The Neocons – Dirty Bomb / Precautionary Principle

14. The Neocons – Fear is the Only Agenda

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was a German-born Jewish-American political philosopher who specialized in the study of classical political philosophy. He spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of neoconservatism in the United States. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol (born January 22, 1920, Brooklyn, New York City, New York) is considered the founder of American neoconservatism. He is married to conservative author and emerita professor Gertrude Himmelfarb and is the father of William Kristol.

Kristol was born into an orthodox Jewish family. However, he maintains that belief had nothing to do with his family’s observance.[1] He earned his B.A. in History from the City College of New York in 1940, where he was an active Trotskyist. Before graduating, he met Gertrude Himmelfarb at a Trotskyist meeting, and they married on January 18, 1942.[2] He wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940.[3] From 1941 to 1944, he served as staff sergeant in the armored infantry in Europe in World War II. After the war, he was stationed in Marseilles for a year.[4]

He was the managing editor of Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952, co-founder of the British-based Encounter and its editor from 1953 to 1958 when he handed over the reins to his friend and City College classmate Melvin J. Lasky[5], editor of the Reporter from 1959 to 1960, executive vice-president of Basic Books from 1961 to 1969, and professor of social thought at the New York University Graduate School of Business from 1969 to 1988. Since 1988, he has been John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has used these positions and publications to animate the neo-conservative movement, arguing for low taxes, a well-funded and internationally active military, conservative social policy, and a minimalist interpretation of First Amendment rights. For example, he once stated that “I don’t think the advocacy of homosexuality really falls under the First Amendment any more than the advocacy or publication of pornography does.”[6]

Kristol is the founder of the politics and culture journal The Public Interest and the foreign affairs journal The National Interest. He was co-editor of The Public Interest (first with Daniel Bell, then with Nathan Glazer) from its founding in 1965 until 2002 and publisher of The National Interest from its founding in 1985 until 2001.

He is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 1988, a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1972, a member of the Wall Street Journal Board of Contributors since 1972, and president of National Affairs, Inc.

Kristol suggests of himself, “Ever since I can remember, I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I’m going to end up a neo-that’s all, neo dash nothing.”[7]

In July 2002, President George W. Bush awarded Kristol the Presidential Medal of Freedom. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

Russell Kirk

Russell Kirk

“Russell Kirk (19 October 1918 – 29 April 1994) was an American political theorist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post-World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. …”

“…The Conservative Mind

The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana[3], the published version of Kirk’s doctoral dissertation, contributed materially to the 20th century Burke revival. It also drew attention to:

  • Conservative statesmen such as John Adams, George Canning, John C. Calhoun, Joseph de Maistre, Benjamin Disraeli, and Arthur Balfour;
  • The conservative implications of writings by well-known authors such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Walter Scott, James Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne, James Russell Lowell, George Gissing, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot;
  • British and American authors such as Fisher Ames, John Randolph of Roanoke, Orestes Brownson, John Henry Newman, Walter Bagehot, Henry James Sumner Maine, William Edward Hartpole Lecky, Edwin Lawrence Godkin, William Hurrell Mallock, Leslie Stephen, Albert Venn Dicey, Paul Elmer More, and Irving Babbitt.

The Portable Conservative Reader (1982), which Kirk edited, contains sample writings by most of the above.

Not everyone agreed with Kirk’s reading of the conservative heritage and tradition. For example, Harry Jaffa (a student of Leo Strauss) wrote: “Kirk was a poor Burke scholar. Burke’s attack on metaphysical reasoning related only to modern philosophy’s attempt to eliminate skeptical doubt from its premises and hence from its conclusions.”[4]

Russello (2004) argues that Kirk adapted what 19th century American Catholic thinker Orestes Brownson called “territorial democracy” to articulate a version of federalism that was based on premises that differ in part from those of the Founders and other conservatives. Kirk further believed that territorial democracy could reconcile the tension between treating the states as mere provinces of the central government, and as autonomous political units independent of Washington. Finally, territorial democracy allowed Kirk to set out a theory of individual rights grounded in the particular historical circumstances of the United States, while rejecting a universal conception of such rights.

Principles

Kirk developed six “canons” of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:

  1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
  2. An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
  3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize “natural” distinctions;
  4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
  5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
  6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are “unimaginable apart from one another.” [5] and that “all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief.” [6] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

Milton Friedman

“…Milton Friedman (born July 31, 1912 – died November 16, 2006) was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. He is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1] A global public followed his restatement of a libertarian political philosophy that insisted on minimizing the role of government in favor of the private sector. As a leader of the Chicago School of economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had a widespread influence in shaping the research agenda of the entire profession. Friedman’s many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos and lectures cover a broad range of topics in microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues. The Economist hailed him as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it”.[2]

Originally a Keynesian supporter of the New Deal and advocate of high taxes, in the 1950s his reinterpretation of the Keynesian consumption function challenged the basic keynesian model. In the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy called monetarism. He theorized there existed a “natural rate of unemployment” and he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and shift their behavior to neutralize the impact of policies. He rejected the Phillips Curve and predicted that Keynesian policies would cause “stagflation” (high unemployment and low growth). He argued that a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and warned against efforts by the treasury or central bank to do otherwise.

Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of all sorts, as well as public schooling. Friedman’s political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, stressed the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. His books and essays were widely read and even circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain.[3][4]

Friedman’s methodological innovations were widely accepted by economists, but his policy prescriptions were highly controversial. Most economists in the 1960s rejected them, but since then they had a growing international influence (especially in the U.S. and Britain), and in the 21st century have gained wide acceptance among many economists. He thus lived to see some of his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream,[5] especially during the 1980s. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the U.S., Brian Mulroney in Canada, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and (after 1989) in Eastern Europe. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Ludwig von Mises

Mises in his library

Mises in his library

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (pronounced [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]) (September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian Economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

Because of his Jewish origin and his opinions, he had to emigrate to Switzerland and then settled in the USA.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is named after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

http://mises.org/

Friedrich Hayek

“Friedrich August von Hayek, CH (May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992) was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defence of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century.[1] One of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, he also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal “for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”[2] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991.[3] He is considered to be one of the major forces of change from the dominant interventionist and Keynesian policies of the first part of the 20th century back to towards classical liberalism after the 1980s. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 2 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 3 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Charlie Rose – Economist Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein

The Power of Choice – Milton Friedman

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 13, 1976

by MILTON FRIEDMAN

The University of Chicago, Illinois, USA

“…One of my great teachers, Wesley C. Mitchell, impressed on me the basic

reason why scholars have every incentive to pursue a value-free science, whatever

their values and however strongly they may wish to spread and promote

them. In order to recommend a course of action to achieve an objective, we

must first know whether that course of action will in fact promote the objective.

Positive scientific knowledge that enables us to predict the consequences of a

possible course of action is clearly a prerequisite for the normative judgment

whether that course of action is desirable. The Road to Hell is paved with

good intentions, precisely because of the neglect of this rather obvious point.

This point is particularly important in economics. Many countries around

the world are today experiencing socially destructive inflation, abnormally

high unemployment, misuse of economic resources, and, in some cases, the

suppression of human freedom not because evil men deliberately sought to

achieve these results, nor because of differences in values among their citizens,

but because of erroneous judgments about the consequences of government

measures: errors that at least in principle are capable of being corrected by

the progress of positive economic science. …”

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-lecture.pdf

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Unconstrained Obama vs. Constrained McCain: A Conflict of Visions

The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American Elites

The American People: Start Drilling and Control The Border. When? Now!

Open Borders — The Unintended Consequences — Mexicans Invade USA, Russians Invade Georgia

Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP)–The Ultimate Iranian Terrorist Weapon

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

Solzhenitsyn On Writers and Lying–May He Rest In Peace

Clear, Hold, Build– Strategy for Victory In Iraq–Now Ready for Prime Time in America– Operation Criminal Alien Removal (CAR)!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Obama and McCain–Socialism and Appeasement!

The Big Lie–935 Lies of The Center for Public Integrity

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Alan Keyes on Immigration

US Immigration Videos

The New American Century–Video

Hijacking Catastrophe–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 9 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...