A Bagel for Hagel

December 22, 2012
(Care for a “hagel” and lox? Um, no thanks!)

Paleo Conservative rump served medium rare. Tastes like chicken. #Hagel can support Hezbollah and terrorists, but they won’t let him be a homophobe. Obama’s Anti Zionist for Defense is about to be eaten by the vultures at the NYTimes. Aw too bad! (SheikYerMami)Brzezinski Backs Hagel, Accuses Critics of Loyalty to Foreign Interests. The usual suspects. Or, if you prefer: birds of a feather. Brzezinski told the MSNBC anchor team, which includes his (unhinged)  daughter Mika, that Hagel’s “critics, they would like to plunge the U.S. into some new wars, promptly, and not always for U.S. national interest.”  (Who? The Jews, of course!) Who’d have thought? WaPo comes out against  Hagel: Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary Scaramouche: Obama Set to Appoint “Ferociously Anti-Israel” Senator as His Next Sec’y of Defense; Ironically, His Name Rhymes With “Bagel” Why would Obama tap Senator Chuck Hagel for the job? Mincing no words, Caroline Glick ‘splains it like this: “Obama wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisors and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them.” Meanwhile, pseudo-Zionist outfit J Street high fives the selection, prompting this wry quip over at The Corner: If there were any questions remaining regarding his fitness for Secretary of Defense, JStreet’s endorsement should be the final strike against him.


Zbigniew Brzezinski wants Obama to hire a Republican to punish Israel

December 4, 2012

Zbigniew Brzezinski: One move he can make immediately that will strengthen his position: appoint a secretary of state with deep bipartisan support. In today’s polarized political climate, Obama would gain important leverage if he were to consider a Republican with a moderate foreign-policy outlook (READS AS ASS FUCK THE JEWS HERE). Of course, it follows that if he chooses a Democrat, it should be someone who commands significant congressional respect on both sides of the aisle.

(I suspect he’s thinking someone with the world view of Petraeus, Ron Paul or Pat Buchanan… you get the idea. It isn’t coded at all. It could not be more blunt)

Zbigniew Brzezinski: …the so-called Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” — Obama’s success will depend on the degree to which he is seen as truly committed and dead serious. Commitment and credibility go hand in hand. 

(Vision doesn’t matter to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the important thing to Brzezinski is that the secretary of state has complete hatred of Israel.)

Zbigniew Brzezinski: For example, on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the unfortunate fact is that under the last three presidents, U.S. policy has been either sincere but gutless, or simply cynical. The recent Palestinian statehood vote in the United Nations, in which the United States — despite its intense efforts — obtained the support of only eight other states out of a total 188 voting, marks the nadir of the dramatically declined global respect for U.S. capability to cope with an issue that is morally troubling today and, in the long run, explosive. It dramatizes the consequences for the United States of declined bipartisanship in foreign affairs and of the increased influence of lobbies, thus underlining the need for assertive presidential leadership in foreign policy and national security. 

…he could of just said fuck the Jew. it’d be more honest


Took Him Long Enough: Scarborough Finally Scolds CNN’s Crowley for ‘Making Up History’ on Benghazi

November 19, 2012

Moderating Candy Crowley

It took more than a month — and an intervening presidential election — but it appears as though MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough has finally joined the chorus of conservatives criticizing Candy Crowley for covering for President Obama’s false statements on Libya during the presidential debates.
Speaking on Monday’s Morning Joe, Scarborough strongly rebuked the Obama administration’s handling of the post-Benghazi coverage.  [See video below page break.  MP3 audio here.]

Scarborough started off the segment by ridiculing the idea that the White House couldn’t say the attack on our embassy was Al-Qaeda-related:

They’re like, oh, you know, we couldn’t say it was Al-Qaeda because that might expose some of our assets on the ground. Andrea Mitchell, the term Al-Qaeda, like, if there’s a terror attack in the Middle East, and you say Al-Qaeda, that’s going to expose some of our assets on the ground? That does not, as my professor said, Professor Pearson, that does not pass the straight-face test.

Scarborough followed this up by strongly criticizing the CNN reporter and presidential debate moderator for falsely claiming President Obama immediately classified the attack on Libyan Embassy as terrorism:

Andrea, what I don’t understand is that Susan Rice said this five days in. The president — remember, the president at the debate saying, you know, and Candy Crowley for some reason basically making up history on the run, said, well, the president did say this was a terrorist attack the day after, which he really didn’t say that at all. So there’s an inconsistency even there. In the debate, the president said, we said this the day after that it was an act of terror. No, no, he didn’t. And five days later, Susan Rice is reading a supposedly Intel that says it wasn’t a terror attack. I mean, there are — there’s confusion.

Colleague Andrea Mitchell used much softer language to excuse Susan Rice, instead placing the blame on the intelligence community:

I think the problem here is what this has exposed is the bureaucracy of the intelligence community. The fact that the intelligence community waters down what can be said in a declassified setting and that Susan Rice, I mean the criticism is that she took what they handed her and didn’t challenge it, which her defenders, Dianne Feinstein on Meet The Press and others say is really really unfair. 

Mitchell’s blame is misguided, as it was the White House, NOT the CIA which edited the post-Benghazi talking points memo which Susan Rice relied on when she went around blaming a YouTube video for the attack in Benghazi.
For once Scarborough didn’t go along with the usual MSNBC agenda of covering up or excusing White House failures.
It would have been nice to see more of this before the election, but better late than never, we suppose.

See relevant transcript below.

MSNBC
Morning Joe
November 19, 2012
6:11 a.m. EDT
 MIKA BRZEZINSKI: You mentioned Benghazi. Let’s go to the developments now in the ongoing controversy over the administration’s response to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Members of Congress are now vowing to find out why the CIA’s conclusion that terrorism was to blame for the attack was removed from U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points. In the days following the deadly assault, Ambassador Rice said the administration believed the attack was a reaction to an anti-Islamic video. But, an associated press report says former CIA Director David Petraeus testified on Friday that he believed all along that the attack on the consulate was a terrorist strike.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So let’s — before we set up these clips, let’s make sure we set this up right. So we’ve been hearing, Mark Halperin, that Susan Rice said what she said because she was just reading straight Intel basically from the CIA. We find out after David Petraeus’ testimony, this just isn’t true. That immediately David Petraeus and Intel officials knew this was an Al-Qaeda attack. Right?
MARK HALPERIN: It’s still kind of confusing.
SCARBOROUGH: By the way, I’m basing that on The New York Times reports and everything I read through the weekend.
HALPERIN: Yeah, the totality of the reporting, there was another line coming out of that closed hearing which was they didn’t want to say everything they knew in public because they didn’t want the terrorists to know that the U.S. government was on to them.
SCARBOROUGH: Well I heard that. But, I mean, seriously, Al-Qaeda. They’re like, oh, you know, we couldn’t say it was Al-Qaeda because that might expose some of our assets on the ground. Andrea Mitchell, the term Al-Qaeda, like, if there’s a terror attack in the Middle East, and you say Al-Qaeda, that’s going to expose some of our assets on the ground? That does not, as my professor said, Professor Pearson, that does not pass the straight face test.
ANDREA MITCHELL: Or the smell test. I think the problem here is what this has exposed is the bureaucracy of the intelligence community. The fact that the intelligence community waters down what can be said in a declassified setting and that Susan Rice, I mean the criticism is that she took what they handed her and didn’t challenge it, which her defenders, Dianne Feinstein on Meet The Press and others say is really really unfair.  You’re pilaring this woman.  She says it is, Feinstein’s words, character assassination, to suggest that she would read anything other than the unclassified version of this. A lot of people are asking where was Hillary Clinton that weekend?  She knew better than to go out into the middle of this.  She doesn’t do the Sunday talk shows.  So they gave Susan Rice this assignment. She went on all five shows.  And it was supposed to be an important venue for her. And by going with these declassified talking points, she has now taken the hit. This reminds me very much, Joe, Mika, and everybody, of what happened in the month leading up to the Iraq war when the declassified version was different in thrust than what was known about WMD and what the Senators should have been reading. And the intelligence community has to be asked why do you tell the American public something that is different in meaning? It should be perhaps leave out details, leave outsources and methods?
SCARBOROUGH: Again, though, the details here were Al-Qaeda.
MITCHELL: Exactly.
SCARBOROUGH: Just so people at home don’t think that this is just Lindsey Graham and John McCain going at it, Maureen Dowd was especially tough yesterday on Susan Rice because Susan Rice read the Intel briefings, she knew what the truth was and she chose to read something.  If the script was handed to her, Maureen Dowd’s point Steve Ratner was if the scripts was inaccurate, misleading, she shouldn’t have read it.
STEVE RATNER: Okay but look. I think we have to go through this logically. What we know — I think what we know is that the CIA produced a set of talking points that included Al-Qaeda, included more specific references to what happened. Somewhere during an interagency process, and I’ve been through a bunch of these interagency processes, these drafts get handed around. People mark them up. They mark them up for all different kinds of reasons. Somewhere along that way those words were changed.
SCARBOROUGH: Al-Qaeda was taken out.  Now the suggestion, of course, is by republicans, that –
RATNER: That it was political.  That’s one suggestion. 
SCARBOROUGH: In the middle of the campaign. And, again, the president’s punch line for a lot of speeches, GM’s alive, Osama Bin Laden’s dead.  Al-Qaeda’s on the run. 
RATNER: That’s one suggestion.  But it seems to me,
SCARBOROUGH: It’s a pretty strong suggestion.
RATNER: But before you get to the question of what Susan Rice should or shouldn’t have said, I think we need to know the answer of who changed their talking points and why.  And then I think we’ll know a lot more about what went on.
HALPERIN: I agree with that but this is not just a one off where ambassador rice went on the Sunday shows and said this.  Jay Carney was asked for a week about this and gaffe substantively the same answer.
SCARBOROUGH: And again, Andrea, what I don’t understand is that Susan Rice said this five days in. The president — remember, the president at the debate saying, you know, and Candy Crowley for some reason basically making up history on the run, said, well, the president did say this was a terrorist attack the day after, which he really didn’t say that at all. So there’s an inconsistency even there. In the debate, the president said, we said this the day after that it was an act of terror. No, no, he didn’t. And five days later, Susan Rice is reading a supposedly Intel that says it wasn’t a terror attack. I mean, there are — there’s confusion.
BRZEZINSKI: Why is this important, Andrea?
SCARBOROUGH: First of all, and why can’t they get their stories straight a month and a half later?
MITCHELL: Well, one reason is it’s important for us to know about the intelligence failure leading up to and coming out of Benghazi, according to the both Republicans and Democrats, there really wasn’t an intelligence failure, they knew what was happening.  Then why didn’t the State Department ask for more security and, more broadly, how should we handle regions like this where we want to have diplomatic and intelligence missions and we’re asking people to serve where they cannot properly be protected.  So there are big issues.  There’s also a proxy war going on here because Susan Rice had a very sharp tone during the 2008 campaign against some people like John McCain. And there is a disagreement there that is now being exaggerated all out of proportion, some people say, because they just are seeing this as a trophy where they can get a prominent nominee, potential nominee, for one of the top cabinet positions, there’s Treasury, there’s State, Defense.
SCARBOROUGH: That’s one side of it. The other side of it would be — and I hate to say this — but I wonder if that would be the media narrative if George W. Bush, we’re accuse of doing, what, I don’t know, politicizing –
BRZEZINSKI: It’s not a narrative. It’s just a point that Andrea made.
SCARBOROUGH: I’m not talking about Andrea. I’m hearing this a lot though coming out of the White House and I’m hearing it also that, again, there is — there is no doubt it is personal. I agree with Andrea completely, it is personal between John McCain and Susan Rice. I agree with that completely. What is surprising is it’s been a month and a half maybe, two months, and this — this looks to some, including Maureen Dowd, like it was a politicizing of Intel, the death of an American ambassador and we can brush it aside if we want to.
BRZEZINSKI: There’s the other side to it where you see Republicans going after someone they want to bring in?
RATNER: We shouldn’t glide too quickly over Andrea’s other important point, which is the security failure, that we had the Intel, knew what was going on in Benghazi and yet we did not protect our people there adequately.
BRZEZINSKI: Exactly.
JON HEILEMANN: To me that’s always — that’s the most troubling aspect of the entire thing. And it’s the thing that Senator Feinstein was clearest about on Meet The Press yesterday, was the notion that there had been months of concerns raised by people on the ground that the consulate itself was not well protected enough and that people crying out for more security and that those decisions were not made to protect those people as they should have been. To me that actually is almost the more substantially troubling thing about the entire episode.


Obama’s latest crisis: Iran – POLITICO.com LOLZ BULLSHIT

February 5, 2012

(politico) A few months ago, President Barack Obama looked like he could claim 2012 bragging rights as a deft foreign policy leader.

Iran threatens to change all that.
The possibility of an Israeli military strike aimed at Iran’s nuclear program could turn into the most complex foreign policy challenge of Obama’s presidency, overshadowing a string of national security successes: the winding down of the Iraq War, the killing of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden and the pursuit of an aggressive armed drone campaign that killed terrorism promoter Anwar al-Awlaki.

So I guess the Arab Spring was a success according to Politico. I feel threatened knowing these people control our president’s policy with such obvious spin. Obama goes to Cairo at the start of his presidency and makes a landmark speech about how America loves Islam and now the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafists are controlling Egypt and the rest of North Africa and that is Obama’s success? I know none of you are shocked in the least. We’ve grown accustomed to the lies. oh it gets worse…

“If we have a foreign policy of our own and we have a friend we are generously financing and even more generously arming, that friend has to take our interest and our views into account and not confront us with accomplished facts,” said Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. “If the U.S. government is not capable of conducting such a discussion, it has really defaulted as far as its management of foreign policy. These are large stakes. Large stakes among friends should be discussed frankly and not with some deference to political calculation.”

yeah… Brzezinski still gets respect at Politico. It’s like a bad joke. Respect of Brzezinski and Obama is more important then an existential threat. I had teachers who used to lecture me like this when I got beat up in highschool. There was a word for them… oh yeah… liberals. You pay the price for the collective.


No Signs of Intelligence

February 12, 2011

That America’s Marxist Muslim in chief surrounded himself with utterly clueless moonbats and Islamic advisors, some (if not all) directly connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, is no accident:

“…he is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization.” Read More »

“a very heterogeneous group, largely secular”   Read More »

Friday Afternoon Roundup – No Signs of Intelligence

After the CIA director began reporting intelligence he obtained from his TV set and the Director of Intelligence claimed the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular organization, it’s obvious that there isn’t a trace of intelligence in the Obama Administration.
Peanut Khadr is delighted, sends his congratulations to Egyptians

Egypt receives the curse of Jimmy Carter…

ATLANTA (AP) — Former President Jimmy Carter is congratulating the people of Egypt on taking the first steps toward a new era of democratic legitimacy. (ZIP)

To recap Obama’s foreign policy triumphs, he snubbed England, tried and failed to intimidate the little country of Honduras, picked a fight with Israel over some houses in Jerusalem, tried to budge China on its currency and got nowhere, got played by Russia on the START treaty and now helped overthrow a pro-American government in order to replace it with an anti-American government. It seemed impossible that anyone in the White House could ever top Carter– but Barack Hussein Obama has done it in only 2 years. What he will do in his remaining time doesn’t bear thinking about.

Even if the American people manage to drive him out of the White House in 2012, he will leave behind an ugly mess to clean up. American prestige is at its lowest point in history. Our allies don’t trust us. Our enemies are slapping us around. The United States was fortunate to have a Reagan to replace Carter, a strong leader who restored and burnished the nation’s standing. The situation wouldn’t have been salvaged nearly as well if Howard Baker or George H.W. Bush had won instead. A Republican who ran for the presidency in 2008 only had to carry on, but in 2012 he will have clean up duty. And there’s no telling how much he will have to clean up. We will need a strong leader who can think on his or her feet, and has the courage to make a clean break with the last 4 years.

Obama finally got his Carter moment, and went him one better. This turned out to be that 3 AM phone call, but it would have been far better if he had slept through it. The country and the world would be better off if he just spent the rest of his term playing golf or playing with his model train set. But that isn’t happening. And we will all have to live with the consequences.
Egypt’s future after Mubarak’s exit will be either as a military dictatorship or an Islamic state. That’s the sum total of the achievements of the Soros sponsored revolution. Either way life will get harder and uglier. Economic reforms will go out the window and a civil war is not out of the question.
There are two paths here. Either Suleiman and the military will maintain control of Egypt with a few sidebar reforms. These reforms will increase the power of the Muslim Brotherhood, without giving them a direct line to take over. The other will occur if the military gives in to Obama’s pressure tactics and either allows ElBaradei to form a transition government or opens up the system all the way. The ElBaradei route will mean a repetition of the Aoun-Hezbollah alliance in Lebanon. A completely open system will repeat the ugly events of Iran in 1979. And then it’s time for the US embassy to start torching papers.
So in the “best case scenario”, Egypt will reverse Mubarak’s economic reforms and will have a less open system. In the worst case scenario, it will have an Islamic state. That is the great flag waving achievement here. And this is what Obama will go on claiming credit for, until the heads start rolling, and then he’ll figure out a way to blame Bush for it. But the real credit goes to his Nazi collaborator puppetmaster, György Soros.
With the 2012 election, Soros saw that he couldn’t count on Obama. He had already been expressing impatience with Obama. It may be a while till we know how much money and resources were poured into this effort to overthrow pro-American governments in the Middle East. And the neo-conservatives who allowed themselves to be used to cheer on his campaign have a lot to answer for.
Ironically, Soros’ campaign outwardly seemed to share some common elements with the Bush era neo-conservative campaign to bring down evil regimes. These tactics were denounced as unilateral and imperialistic by the same media enthusiastically cheering and participating in the Egyptian coup. But the Bush era campaign had targeted anti-American states with a history of supporting terrorism. And there was the difference.
Obama’s refusal to pressure Iran during the protests there, varied sharply with the intensity of the pressure he applied to Egypt. The same difference was there. Iran is anti-American. Egypt was pro-American under Mubarak. And Obama, like his boss, kicks his allies and gives our enemies the benefit of the doubt.
At CPAC, Rick Santorum said that he thinks, Obama doesn’t believe in evil. I think he’s wrong. Evil is all that Obama believes in.
The alliance between Western leftists and regional Islamists is threatening to dramatically change the Middle East. Soros and his ilk are carrying on the work of the Soviet Union. The new “people’s revolutions” toppling regimes no longer come from Moscow, instead they come from 1060 Fifth Avenue and 175 Rue de la Loi. The Soviet Union has fallen, but there are successors carrying on its work, from the Red Baroness Ashton to Soros.
Carter’s man, Zbigniew Brzezinski pushed the Green Belt strategy against the USSR. The Obama Administration appears to have picked it up, but it is no longer directed against the Soviet Union. It exists for its own sake. Islam not as a weapon, but Islamism for the sake of Islamism. Because it is held to be a good by men who don’t know what good is. Who believe reflexively in evil.
The least that any responsible administration should do is make it clear that no Egyptian government that incorporates or allies with the Muslim Brotherhood will receive any aid. But the Obama Administration actually supports a political role for the Muslim Brotherhood.
But what of Egypt’s Christians, ask Lisa Graas? If any group in Egypt should have been encouraged to participate in the political process, it should have been Egypt’s disenfranchised Christians. The media has hardly mentioned them among all this. When it has, it insisted that the overthrow of Mubarak would be good for them.

“I think Mubarak’s resignation is a good thing for Coptic Christians, and other Egyptians. If he had not done so, there would likely have been riots and violence and a descent into chaos,” said Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom in Washington, D.C., to The Christian Post.

No mention is made of the rights of Egypt’s Christians. Instead it’s suggested that they should be happy that the protesters and their violence didn’t further endanger them.
single cautionary note comes from the Washington Post’s Michelle Boorstein

“The current situation for the Copts stinks, but [longtime Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak is the best of the worst for us,” said the Rev. Paul Girguis of St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church in Fairfax County, which has about 3,000 members. “If Muslim extremists take over, the focus will be extreme persecution against Copts. Some people even predict genocide.”

Arguably the genocide has already begun. The Christians of the Middle East are an interruption in the narrative of Muslims who want to wipe out all traces of other peoples and religions from the region.
Pervasive vandalism and destruction of ancient artifacts from previous civilizations, whether it is Muslim looting and destruction of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Taliban’s bombing of the Buddhas of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia which actually has a fatwa forbidding the preservation of historical sites… punishable by death.
Egypt’s Copts, like Israel’s Jews or Turkey’s Armenians, are holdouts against a tide of Muslim genocidal violence with the aim of ethnically cleansing regions under their control.
The Iranianization of the Egyptian revolution has been well under way. Stories like this should be painfully familiar from 1979

In the process many have formed some unusual bonds that reflect the non-ideological character of the Egyptian youth revolt, which encompasses liberals, socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
”I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me,” says Sally Moore, 32, a psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots. ”They always have a hidden agenda, we know, and you never know when power comes how they will behave. But they are very good with organising, they are calling for a civil state just like everyone else, so let them have a political party just like everyone else – they will not win more than 10 per cent, I think.”
Many in the circle met during their university days. Islam Lotfi, a lawyer who is a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Youth, says his group used to enlist others from the tiny leftist parties to stand with them in calling for civil liberties, to make their cause seem more universal. Many are now allies in the revolt, including Zyad al-Elaimy, 30, a lawyer who was then the leader of a communist group.

Quotes like this are altogether familiar from Iran. But you don’t need to worry about Dr. Sally Moore being forced to don a burqa. Moore came from London, when things get hairy, she’ll go back together. For now she reps the Popular Campaign in Support of ElBaradei, which is part of the Youth of the Egyptian Revolution, along the Muslim Brotherhood Youth.
The Muslim Brotherhood is explicitly using the Iranian model (see Atlas Shrugs) for Kamal Helbawi’s statement to Iran’s news agency.

Iran revolution example to follow, says Egyptian scholar London, Feb 10, IRNA – The Islamic revolution in Iran over three decades ago has set an example for others to follow, according to a prominent Egyptian scholar.
“It has had an impact not only on Egypt but all over the Muslim world,” Kamal Helbawi said on the eve of the 32nd anniversary of the 1979 revolution in Iran.

Kamal al-Halbavi, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, expressed gratitude to Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei for his support of the revolution. Al-Halvavi said he hoped that Egypt would have a “a good government, like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave.”

Helbawi was the Muslim Brotherhood’s “spokesman to the West”. So much for the ’split’ between Sunnis and Shiites.
And if Egypt falls to the Brotherhood, then the timeline to the Caliphate is shortened. Already ominous developments are beginning. And the news is only getting worse

The two-ship Iranian task force, consisting of two British-built vessels, Vosper Mark V-class frigate Alvand and supply ship Kharg, left Iran on 26 January, according to Iranian news sources. The next day, a senior naval officer announced that the task force, deployed as the 12th Naval Group, “would enter the Red Sea and the Mediterranean waters.” The prospect of a Mediterranean deployment is as unprecedented as the Saudi port visit. There is no guarantee it will actually happen, but the timing is interesting.
While the Mubarak regime was in power, there was little possibility of Egypt permitting an Iranian naval task force to transit the Suez Canal. I’m not convinced any Egyptian authority will agree to such a transit before the country’s political future is sorted out – I certainly don’t think the Iranians know their warships are approaching a Canal that will be opened to them by a specific, expected change in political conditions. But what I do perceive is a bold move by Iran.

Iran is throwing its weight around and daring anyone to stop them. The Mullahs and Ahmadinejad are confident that no one will. We’re quickly approaching an endgame.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday that a new Middle East is being created which would be free of the United States and Israel, as he backed the Arab uprisings but warned Egyptians to be watchful of America’s “friendly face.”
Massive crowds of Iranians, waving flags and chanting “Death to Mubarak!” and “Death to America!” descended on Tehran’s Azadi Square (Freedom Square) to listen to the hardliner who lashed out at the West and Israel in a speech marking the 32nd anniversary of the Islamic revolution.
“We will soon see a new Middle East materialising without America and the Zionist regime and there will be no room for world arrogance (the West) in it,” Ahmadinejad told the cheering crowds who gathered despite the cold and cloudy weather.

And yes there’s talk of an apocalypse a-coming

In his fiery style, Ahmadinejad, showed his messianic beliefs on Friday, saying the world was witnessing a revolution managed by Imam Mehdi, the 12 Shiite imam who disappeared as a five-year-old in the 10th century and who Shiites believe would return on the judgement day.
“The final move has begun. We are in the middle of a world revolution managed by this dear (12th Imam). A great awakening is unfolding. One can witness the hand of Imam in managing it,” said Ahmadinejad, wearing his trademark jacket.

The combination of Obama’s domestic unpopularity and his international weakness means that Iran knows that they have to rack up as many gains as they can, before he can be potentially replaced by an American leader. The closer we get to the election, the worse it will get. And there are too many enemies positioning themselves to take advantage of an Obama-ridden country.
But there’s no need to worry. Everything will work out. Incidentally, over the last four years, Pakistan has doubled the size of its nuclear arsenal. Just one of those things that happened to happen.

Nuclear proliferation analysts from the Federation of American Scientists and the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) assess that since 2006, Pakistan has increased the size of its nuclear arsenal from 30-60 atomic bombs to approximately 110. That makes Pakistan the world’s fifth largest nuclear power ahead of Britain and France.
As for delivery systems, according to The Washington Post, Pakistan has developed nuclear-capable land- and air-launched cruise missiles. Its Shaheen II missile, with a range of 2,400 kilometers, is about to go into operational deployment.

Yes, the sponsors of the Taliban now have over a 100 nuclear missiles. Pakistan has more nuclear weapons than its former colonial masters in London do. How many will it have 10 years from now, while we keep on cutting our own arsenal? While we place Europe’s missile shield in Turkey, another Islamist state.
Pakistan’s missiles can’t reach London yet. Depending on where they launch from. But they will be able to. And then New York and Washington D.C. If they dispense with the warheads, they have enough to destroy every city in the US with a population above 200,000.
Again nothing to worry about. Just be very afraid of.
You know how afraid our governments are of Muslims, when all they can do is stage the occasional small scale of mass murder. How afraid are they going to be when they can kill 50 million people in a single day?
And how long do you think freedom of speech and religion will last when that day comes that the Muslim world forces the free world to choose?
Think about it, while there’s time. And think about how much US money given as payback for Pakistan’s on and off efforts against Al Qaeda was diverted to build those weapons.
Endgame.
Moving on back to America, Senator Kyl’s retirement is unfortunate. There is talk of Giffords running for the seat, but I think that’s still wishful thinking. Not only does Giffords have a long road ahead of her, rehab is a long journey after a traumatic injury. And the speculation doesn’t originate from her.
It’s not inconceivable that Democratic operatives could get her into the race, but that would also lose her much of the sympathy they want to cash in on. Being shot in the head is not a qualification for the Senate. Of course there are plenty of counterexamples.
‘Senator’ Evita Carnahan is a great example of a public willing to vote for a completely unqualified wife of a governor because her husband had died in a plane crash. (Even more insanely her dead husband actually won the election, which should have led to his corpse being propped up in the Senate.) Then there’s Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy who was elected to congress because her husband was among a group of passengers shot by Colin Ferguson. McCarthy is a single issue congresswoman who long ago fell out of step with national trends against gun control and doesn’t exactly represent her district which isn’t exactly faced with a major gun violence problem, but there she sits. And she can’t be moved. Because she successfully commodified her husband’s shooting death into a permanent widow’s sinecure in public office.
In the roundup, a trajectory of the pleasure principle and the weapons of mass distraction from Cliffs of Insanity (via Western Rifle Shooters)

We are texting and walking through the mall. We are so absorbed in ourselves, our toys, our tech, our own little world that we neglect even the most fundamental of tasks. It never occurs to us that something may be ahead of us. That the smooth, level walking surface may change. Or that anything might change. When we reach that first indicator of trouble, we’ll try to step over it-even though it’s totally wrong. Our brain is so absorbed that we literally cannot even walk right. And so, we’re headed for disaster on the big screen while unseen viewers will laugh at our misfortune and stupidity.
Execpt that in reality, we’re walking not into a tame pool of water a foot deep , but over The Cliffs of Insanity. There’ll be no “hot coffee” lawsuits after this fall.

No, the people who will run things then won’t be putting up with those.
IsraelGirl considers the prospects in Gaza after the events in Egypt in Is there hope for the people in Gaza?

Now the Arab world is a flame with riots and protests demanding political reforms. Is there hope for freedom and democracy in Gaza? Just like Hitler won a democratic election in Nazi Germany, Hamas came to power in Gaza in a democratic fashion. Sadly democracy and freedom stopped there.
People in Gaza have had enough. Gaza’s youth are venting anger on Facebook calling for an end of Hamas’ brutal regime. Hamas security forces are breaking up solidarity rallies arresting protesters. Hamas police and internal security forces have been arresting and summoning for investigation Fatah members and Facebook activists in the Gaza Strip, to prevent them from holding a demonstration against Hamas in Gaza on February 11. Many voices in Fatah, long time rivals of Hamas, are calling on the people in Gaza to stand up and revolt against the “dictatorship that restricts their freedoms.”
People’s experience of poverty, unemployment and lack of freedom is identical all over the Arab world. But due to Israel’s constant aid, the people in Gaza are often living in better conditions than in neighboring Arab countries. Check out the pictures below – these images of daily life in Gaza prove there is no hunger in Gaza. But people are beginning to realize that freedom is worth fighting for. All of us in Giyus.org are sending a message of hope and strength to people in Gaza – you deserve to be free of Hamas’ brutal regime.

We’ll see.
Lemon Lime Moon accuses the Virginia Military Institute of going soft on Islam

The flag of Sardina is interesting as it bears the severed head of a Moor on it. When the Moors tried to invade Sardinia, they beheaded them. The heads were stuck on pikes around the island as a warning to the Mohammedans not to try it again. They didn’t.

Finally at INN, Dr Mordechai Nisan asks if Obama will go down at the Godfather of the Islamic Revolution

But a paradigm which fits Obama’s record suggests that the tempo and turmoil of regional events fit his agenda, and may be a result of his policies. As a son of a Muslim father, Obama is on course to promote Islamization at home and abroad. In the Middle East, where popular religious forces threaten authoritarian regimes, Obama has placed America on the side of Islam. His is a historical role in furthering the expansion of radical Shari’a Islam from his Oval Office in Washington. Hamas, while defined as a terrorist organization, received U.S. aid for the Gaza Strip under its rule.
Obama’s agenda is succeeding brilliantly with the very list of events considered his failures in foreign policy in facthighlighting his successes. Islamic takeovers in Lebanon and perhaps Egypt, maybe in Tunisia and Yemen, then Jordan, fulfill his vision in full glow. Thus, Egypt as a base of American strategy in the Middle East may be replaced by Egypt as a foundation for the spread of radical Islam in the world. When Obama bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia in April 2009, he was not showing respect for the monarchy but deference to the Guardian of the Holy Cities of Islam. Maybe over a few generations Washington will be added, along with Rome, to the list of Islamic sacred sites.

What do you think?


ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI on the WIKILEAKS

November 30, 2010
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
with BIN LADIN in 1981

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI:  “It’s not a question of worry. It’s, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed. And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments. For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship…. Seeding — seeding it is very easy. I have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.” –

via pbs.org

Brzezinski sounds threatened by the truth… doesn’t he? 
 Wikileaks have been very good for Israel’s reputation.

  Zbigniew Brzezinski is attempting to spin a conspiracy around the Wikileaks on our tax payed American media.  George Soros money spent to spin away from the truth.   


Zbigniew Brzezinski Helped Create The Taliban, Now He Wants to Do It Again

April 11, 2010

a Russian pushing mass death on his own country. war is hell, but Brzezinski is a cold blooded reptile… and stupid like a reptile too.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser for Jimmy Carter, is one of the key advocates urging President Obama to impose a solution in the Israeli conflict with the Palestinian Arabs. Brzezinski’s advice should be looked at with great skepticism as he is the man who created the policies that brought us the War on Terror by  luring the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and creating both the Taliban and al Qaeda.
US aid to the mujahideen Islamic insurgency started, six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with the intention of making it more likely for the USSR to attack Afghanistan to support its puppet government. Brzezinski admitted as much in a 1998 interview:

According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap…. The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War.”

Brzezinski got his wish, and once the Soviets invaded he sprung into action.

 We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.

Unfortunately the unexpected result of his policy was the creation of the Taliban its alliance with al Qaeda.

Read the rest via yidwithlid.blogspot.com