It has been a fun run here at PCT, but this is the last post. Due to other commitments, life, and a new bloggin' job I am officially shutting down Politics and Critical Thinking.
Thanks for following for the past year and a half and if one person has gotten anything out of this then what I set out to do is complete. I have learned as much from commenters as they have hopefully learned here. It has been a wonderful exchange of ideas.
I will continue blogging over at the Western Experience with my partner in crime Jason. If you like what you have read here please come and stop by. Our goal at the Western Experience is to bring conservative bloggin' above the fray of populist rhetoric and dig into the thoughts and theories behind modern day government, politics, economics, foreign policy, and society. I promise you won't be disappointed.
I am not going to delete the site since I have reference material that I like to still use. Please feel free to explore and I hope you find something useful.
For those not familiar with Amity Shlaes, she is a political commentator for Bloomberg News, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of The Forgotten Man. An extremely impressive historical account of the Great Depression.
While I am not in total disagreement, leaving behind the traditional moral aspects of conservatism leaves us with nothing more than the political jello that is Libertarianism. And, if I wanted to be a full-time Libertine than I would have an (L) on my voter registration card, not an (I) or (R).
However, from a strategically political point of view, Shlaes does have a point. Social cons have been one of the greatest assets as well as greatest scourges to the Republicans. From Nixon's Southern strategy to George Bush's back-to-back victories, the GOP reaped major spoils from the Religious Right's involvement, activism, and most of all, money. Now though, the moral edifying is catching up with the Grand Old Party and not just in ones or twos, but maybe threes.
This leaves conservatives and Republicans with one of two choices; take the more fiscal and Federalist road as Shales suggests or start producing a crop of candidates whom can talk the talk as well as walk the walk of social conservatism.
Hypocrisy can be one of the greatest undoings of a person or a movement, especially when the bar is set way too high for leaders to deliver on. Likewise, most liberals and progressives have already factored in the component of human hypocirsy and ineptitude into their political equation, as a matter of face they relish in it.
Now it is up to conservatives to decide if they have have the fortitude necessary to get off of the high road and back to the narrow or find some new message packaging that is more effective for obtaining votes.
Well, the Moscow summit is over and the judgments from the experts are in.
From the beginning, Obama was seen by many as to be mounting a "charm offensive" against Medvedev and Putin. However as F. Stephen Larrabee, the Corporate Chair in European Security at the RAND Corporation, reminds us, to the Rus, it's all about "national interests," not personal friendships.
Strafor has a nice but lengthy breakdown on the fundamental issues of the summit (i.e Nuclear Arms Reduction, Poland, Iran, Eastern Europe, and US usage of Russo airspace for operations within Afghanistan), what was accomplished, and potential leveraging items each country might be able to use in the future.
George Friedman, Stratfor's CEO and author, seems to summarize Obama's accomplishments in Russia quite well, "Ultimately, little progress was made in finding ways to bridge the two countries’ divergent interests."
However, in defense of the President and with the exception of Reagan, this was pretty much the diplomatic norm in dealings with the former Soviets.
I don't care whether you are a Palin supporter or hater, this video is like a train wreck, you can't help but watch. Just between you and I,it's freakin' hilarious.
While my prime penchant is politics, my first and foremost love of its sub-categories is anything economic. This is because it is what truly greases the tracks of government and is the fuel for its engine. Nevertheless, my second love, under the vast umbrella of anything politic, is foreign policy. With that being said, here is an interesting letter written to the President from The Foreign Policy Initiative.
This is brought to you by way of an old bloggin' buddy to whom I have not linked in a VERY long time. The jingoistic, colorful, sexily written, and un-apologetically hawkish GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
July 1, 2009
The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States The White House Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
You have stated your intention to forge a positive relationship between the United States and Russia. We write on the eve of your summit meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev to express our belief that such a relationship requires a commitment by both countries to democracy and human rights and to urge you to reiterate that these values, which you have called universal, are inextricably linked to humane behavior at home and responsible behavior abroad. Furthermore, we ask you to meet with human rights, civil society, labor and opposition political party leaders while you are in Moscow.
Since Vladimir Putin became President in 2000, Russia has been on a downward spiral away from the democratic and economic reforms made in the 1990’s after the collapse of communism. Human rights activists, opposition political party leaders, lawyers and journalists are targets of brutal, even deadly attacks. Freedoms of speech and the media are increasingly limited by the state and the Kremlin has asserted growing authority over the economy, especially the energy sector.
We urge you to challenge Russian leaders about the lack of political and economic freedom in Russia. In your Cairo speech you stated that the freedom of speech, the ability to choose one's own government and way of life, the rule of law and transparency “are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” Moreover you noted the connection between democracy and security, asserting that “governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure." This principle gained even more salience as Russia's invasion of Georgia last year revealed the lengths to which it will go to assert a sphere of influence in the region.
For decades, the United States was a beacon of hope to those behind the Iron Curtain who longed for their freedom. As you stated in Prague, after the Iron Curtain was lifted “freedom spread like flowing water. Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st.”
As you go forward, we hope that you will maintain a clear-eyed assessment of Russia’s intentions and keep the above principles in mind in order to ensure that the effort to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations does not come at the expense of the Russian people or Russia's neighbors.
What I find absolutely astounding in this intriguing letter is the list of people who have signed it. I have long talked about the lack of differences that modern day progressives and neo-conservatives share on matters of foreign policy. I coincidentally found a smattering of evidence to back this up.
This is nothing conspiratorial, just an observation that it is difficult sometimes to tell these two supposedly different political philosophies apart. A few of the signatories of this letter illustrate my point.
As I stated above, this is nothing conspiratorial, just a point of interest that some of the people whom they have co-signed this with are unabashedly hawkish neoconservatives with strong ties to the Bush Administration. Just strange company for these "progressives" and "liberals" to be keeping considering their political stripes.
I couldn't believe it this when I found this article on Talk Left and read the commentary. This is a group of Liberals I understand and actually wouldn't mind having over for a shot or two of some Irish whiskey. Not sure if they would invite me over though.
Now the post didn't impress me as much as the commentary by the readers did. I was, let's say, pleasantly surprised.
Her is a cherry picking of a few that I liked.
Inspector Gadget-You obviously don't have children, or don't give a darn what kind of emotional scars are created with the kind of abuse leveled on them. Sarah and Todd are able to handle what is delivered to them, but they have not obligation to AK or you to allow their children to be emotionally beaten up by an ill-mannered media.
Fabian-to find a single website that didn't have a picture of a politician's wholesome, all American family.
It would be almost as difficult to find a politician's wife who didn't play the expected role.
It's appalling that the public thinks that having a photogenic spouse and children is just as important as sound policies and solid ethics. I find it hard to blame the politicians, except when they use their family as a shield when they get caught. There's a reason that leaving politics to "spend more time with my family" is now a joke.
gyrfalcon-What kinds of "vile crap" did she say? What "politics of personal destruction"?
People went ballistic when she sneered at community organizing and even moreso when she greeted an enthusiastic, flag-waving crowd somewhere as "real Americans," but that's pretty mainstream for ordinary Republicans.
I do not want this woman ever to hold a position that has any power over any aspect of my life whatsoever, but she is not the grotesque caricature she's been made out to be.
There are more, and even some ignorant ones, but that is to be expected. The trolls find their way into every aspect of reasonable discourse so they can disrupt debate. I am sure their type even existed in the caveman days when the debate raged about whether the wheel should be round or square, the trolls probably wanted it square. But at least there are people out there who can still see past politics and rely more on human decency.
A little of my faith in humanity has been restored and strangely enough by people on the Left. Aaah, the irony.
Well the Palin resignation drama gets deeper by the minute.
CBS News is now reporting that the Palin camp will be going on the legal offensive. From CBS News, Palin's attorney Thomas Van Flein issued a statement.
"To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation," Van Flein said in a statement. "This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law."
Well, to some degree but not totally, this puts to rest rumors about Palin being indicted on federal charges for stealing wood and windows to build herself an Alaskan castle. You bethca', wink.
I guess for the Huffies, and most Lefist bloggers, if you have a heartbeat and exist in the universe you are a viable and credible source of information on anything Palin.
These little leftist Muppets are entertaining at times, but, more often than not they are quizzically simpleminded.
After a two week sabbatical of sorts from bloggin' and spending a little needed time getting the Conservative Political Report further set up I figured the Sarah Palin announcement and the 4th of July weekend would make for a perfect time for a return.
Well, lots has happened since we last met, Cap-and-Trade has passed the House, a small Central American country had a military coup that American conservatives actually supported, and Sarah Palin resigned as the Gov. of Alaska. These are interesting days aren't they?
However, as I pointed out somewhere else, Palin never had a chance. She was not vetted by either side due to populist hatred and support. An emotional knee jerk reaction by one side in response to the other and Palin caught in the middle. We may actually never know her true political potential or lack thereof. Gotta love a system that is driven by "identity politics," it gave us the "One!"
Alas, though, due to an onslaught of media driven destruction along with some personal intervention by the Governor herself the fires burned out of control and now we are left with something worse than identity politics. What you have left is a case study on political suicide.
Here is the video of the aftermath. Warning, this ain't make believe and it is a very graphic and brutal reality of what happens in situations like this.
We are not here to triumph by fighting, by strata gem, or by resistance, not to fight with beasts as men. We have fought the beast and have conquered. We have only to conquer now, by suffering. This is the easier victory. ~T.S. Elliot
Government media lashed out Sunday at Mousavi, suggesting that some of his actions were illegal and blaming "terrorists" for Saturday's violence, in which at least 100 people were injured.
Just in case you didn't believe it the first time, from Reuters.
The authorities have branded the protesters as "terrorists" and rioters. Tehran's police commander Azizullah Rajabzadeh warned police would "confront all gatherings and unrest with all its strength," the official IRNA news agency reported.
Time for me to enter the political fray. As I said above, "Why does this sound familiar?"
The Department of Defense has withdrawn a training manual question that linked protesters across the United States to terrorism, but there's evidence coming to light that describing Americans as terror suspects, or "low-level" terror suspects, is routine.
Now I am starting to understand why some people in America feel kindred to the demonstrators in Iran.
On a sidebar, Michael Rubin of the LA Times has a few interesting thoughts on why it will take more than protests to take down the Iranian regime, via the Middle East Forum.
In the late 70's, then Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, was beloved by millions of Iranians for his leadership in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This led to the eventual overthrow and ousting of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Khomeini's power and stature within the theocratic government hierarchy was absolute as Supreme Leader. His anti-Western and American rhetoric was so beguiling that is served as the inspiration for a student takeover of the American embassy which led to a 444 day hostage crisis.
In those days these very same students were often seen as the faces of Islamic tyranny and fanaticism. To say they were hated in the United States is making light of the true feelings most Americans had towards them because of the embassy takeover.
A Brief History Lesson:
Kohmeni possessed vast education in Islamic law, ethics, and spiritual philosophy. In his early years he was trained under the supervision of Ayatollah Abdul Karim Haeri-ye Yazdi, first in Arak, a town near Khomein his birthplace, and later in Qom.
Kohmeni was a staunch fundamentalist who had come to believe to the constitutional nature of the Iranian government was forcing a move towards a non-secular country, rather than an a traditional Muslim state. Although he believed that clerics should become politically active it was not until 1962 did he enter the fray. He led an effort against the Shah's regime which inspired the June 5th, 1963 religiopolitical rebellion, known as the Movement of 15 Khordad. The rebellion was bloodily suppressed by the Shah and after this Kohmeni was exiled. He was hosted by several countries until finally settling in France for the better of fifteen years.
On January 16, 1979 Kohmeni then returned to Iran after the Shah went on "vacation," a trip from which he never returned. Upon his return Kohmeni instituted a revolutionary government which gained populist support and on March 30th and 31st, 1979 a referendum was passed to replace the Iranian monarchy with an Islamic Republic. Subsequently, the referendum passed with 98% support.
On October 22nd, 1979 the United States admitted the Shah to the country. This resulted in Khomeini instructing Iranian students on November 1 to "expand with all their might their attacks against the United States" in order to force the extradition of the Shah back to Iran. This decree was the inspiration which led to the hostile student takeover of the American embassy which lasted for 444 days.
After an unsuccessful military rescue, code named Operation Eagle Claw, which resulted in the deaths of United States military personnel and one Iranian civilian the Algiers Accords were signed. One of the major highlights of the accord is Point one, in which the United States pledges to "no longer interfere" in Iranian domestic issues.
These hostile acts and the continual denouncement of the United States led to a deep hatred for the students and Kohmeni among the citizenry of America.
Present Day:
Flash forward to a little over thirty years to present day. Much has changed in perception towards the present day Iranian student protesters and the political dynamic of the now Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Khamenei, it seems, is close to exhausting his political capital. From the New York Times.
I’d say the momentum is with them for now. At moments on Saturday, Khamenei’s authority, which is that of the Islamic Republic itself, seemed fragile. The revolutionary authorities have always mocked the cancer-ridden Shah’s ceding before an uprising, and vowed never to bend in the same way. Their firepower remains formidable, but they are facing a swelling test.
For the students there is growing support for their quest to change their regime. Tweets of support from Americans and others to Iranian protesters abound across the Internet. Coverage of the events unfolding in Iran by populist bloggers, on both sides of the political aisle, has been surprisingly positive. Although American politics still enters the fray from time to time.
Either way, the phenomenon of support for the protesters is an interesting one. Considering that just thirty short years ago the American and Iranian people had little in common except a languishing hatred for one another. Now it seems we have found common ground on the precept of choice in governance. The result is sympathy and support, from overseas and a million cultures away, for those men and women fighting in Iran to effect some positive progress in their lives.
Alleged former KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov is interviewed in 1985 by G. Edward Griffin, a member of the highly conservative and conspiratorial John Birch Society, and gives his thoughts on the radicalization of the United States through Soviet manipulation and subversion.
Before I run this video series, for the sake of the integrity of this post, there are a few points of interest I would like to make. Many months ago I received a copy of this particular video series from a friend who is not what you would call a paranoid conspiracy theorist. He, like me, found the observations of the interviewee absolutely astonishing and quite eerie. We discussed, at great length, the topic of possible Soviet subversion and infiltration within the United States and I was extremely tempted to post it.
Although, due to the fervor and paranoia being generated at the time over President Obama's impending inauguration I figured the point of the series would be lost. Either attracting conspiracy theorists to this site or a host of Progressive/Liberal detractors enamored in calling out a another "right wing conspiratorial theorist." It seemed to be a waste of time, so I sat on the videos. With this in mind, here are my caveats.
First, I can neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of Bezmenov's claims that he was a former KGB agent or that any of his claims on his background are true. However here is a little information on him via Wikipedia. Also this a link to an article/book/essay which he penned in 1984 called, "A Love Letter to America."
Secondly, the John Birch Society, who did the interview, was once upon a time a bastion of American conservative thought. At some point, however, their paranoia got the better of them. They had even gone as far to announce that Eisenhower was a "communist dupe." This claim resulted in a loss of their credibility and many prominent mainstream conservatives, such as Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater and more, to distance themselves from the Society.
Thirdly, whether you believe what you are about to hear and see is totally left to the reader. I found most Bezmenov's observations to be fascinating and intriguing when you cross compare them with what is happening in American culture and society today. Whether they are true or not is left for history to decide. Video 1: Bezmenhov gives a background on his family and himself.
Video 2: Bezmenhov talks about the realities of the communist/socialist system, support of the that system, ironically, by capitalism, (In present terms, Chinese and US relations, NorKor and US relations, etc.)and how he defected.
Video 3: According to Bezmenhov, the most dangerous in the communist triangle of power, which included the Kremlin, the Russian military, and the KGB, was the bureaucratic wing of the communist party better known as the Kremlin. (Can you say exorbitant bureaucratic government expansion such as national health care, Keynesian based stimulus packages, nationalization of financial institutions and corporations, sin taxes on soft drinks, FDA setting the ground rules for tobacco production, judicial activism, etc.?) Also, he spends time talking about volunteer service within the Soviet Union. (The conspiracy theory about an Obama national police force drawn from service volunteers is exactly what it is, a conspiracy theory. However, there is a noticeable parallel to be drawn between Soviet use of service to the State and what the national call to service could be manipulated into. The worry many have is it will become a potential tool for social engineering.)
Video 4: How the former Soviet Union's KGB used its press agency, Novosti, to influence, in Bezmenhov's own words, "Progressive" intellectuals, journalists and thinkers to carry their propaganda message back to their native countries to establish a foothold within local populations. (Think back to the campaign and how the egocentric self important members of the media and academia were more than happy to carry the water for the Obama camp. Just so they could say they were some of the first on board the Hope-and-Change Express.)
Video 5: In this segment and ironically, Bezmenov calls the media "useful idiots," a term which is now being re-popularized, among certain circles, when describing the press nowadays. He also goes in depth about the ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy of foreign press and politicians. Subsequently, he touches on how this was used by KGB propagandists to spread their message to these people's native countries upon their return. (ABC's upcoming propaganda/infomercial push for Obama's health care plan by broadcasting from the White House and not allowing a dissenting opinion.)
There are four more videos in this series which I will post in another article. They tend to get more into the meat of the matter about what "seems" to be happening here in the United States, presently. Whether you agree or disagree there is no denying this stuff is very fascinating.
Diverting attention from the Thomas "Ensign" Crown Affair will be difficult, but, I figured if we wanted to get all riled up over something political let's level the playing field and slam a Democratic Senator too.
Here is the "SENATOR" staying real classy with a high ranking member of the United States Army, Brig. General Michael Walsh.
Yup, it's all about the stature of the position Babs, ain't it?
Bloggers are all lined up and ready to froth at the mouth, once again, over another soap opera. I am beginning to wonder if we are going to see a resurgence in the popularity of day time dramas with the interest this junk generates.
The story of the day!!! Larry Hampton is the hubby of Cynthia Hampton, the woman whom had an affair with Senator John Ensign (R-NV), and the man who allegedly sent a letter to Megyn Kelly of Fox News asking for her help in exposing the extramarital activities.
Thursday, June 11, 2009 Fox News- Corporate Office 1211 Avenue of the America’s (sic) New York, New York 10036
Megyn Kelly,
More than any time in my life I understand why people take matters into their own hands. I am disheartened! I have sought wise counsel, tried to do the right thing and continue to run into road blocks (sic) in dealing with a very terrible circumstance and injustice that lives in my life. I am hoping you and Fox News can help.
My name is Doug Hampton. I am a former employee of US (sic) Senator John Ensign. I worked for Senator Ensign in his official government office on Capitol Hill from November 2006 to April 2008. My responsibilities were the oversight of his personnel in Washington as well as the state of Nevada. Duties included budgets, policy and public speaking on behalf of the Senator and his initiatives.
Here is my story. In December of 2007 in the midst of some very difficult personal issues that deeply impacted my family and marriage, Senator Ensign pursued and engaged in a relationship with my wife. Our families were lifelong friends, our children attend school together to this day, and our homes are in neighborhoods across from each other. My wife was the Senator’s campaign treasurer.
There is a tremendous amount (sic) of details and critical facts associated with this story and their relationship that will not be addressed in this letter but are very important and need to be further explored if you choose to meet with me. The purpose of this letter is to establish the framework for discussion and provide enough information to warrant a meeting with you and Fox News. This is the only letter of its kind and no other news stations have been contacted with this information. I have great respect and affection for Fox News and many of your collages (sic). I’m sending this to you because you have a legal back ground (sic) and this story has several legal elements.
I don't know if people just need a break from engaging all of the problems facing our country, and quite frankly the world, or we're just stuck in the nosy neighbor syndrome. This post and its ridiculously high-minded (sic) but poorly written commentary (sic) has been presented for our innate need to partake in the misery of others and the stupidity of the many
Have a nice day and thank you for flying with us! :)
The Iranian "Green Revolution," as it is being called, certainly has some very complex and often confusing facets to it. But I don't think anyone would have ever expected it to confuse the political ambient here in the States.
Yesterday, Robert Kagan, a neo-conservative foreign policy expert, in his monthly op-ed column for the Washington Post, wrote about the difficulties opposition protests are creating for President Obama and his strategy on dealing with Iran.
Kagan's thoughts on the situation are simple, a return to normalcy within Iran's political structure is key for the Obama plan of directly engaging the Ahmadinejad regime. My own personal feelings aside, Kagan's analysis is not that unbelievable, even though I think this is going to go in quite a different direction than anyone could have guessed.
However what I found rather pathetic was the attempted rebuttal by the Left. I was immensely surprised by the pitiful criticism offered by Johnathan Chait of the New Republic. And of course the other cast of infant talking pointers who never fail to disappoint with their absurd and ridiculous squawking. It seems witless observations are all these folks are worth these days.
On the top of the list is Matthew Yglesias of Think Regress who seems to be very enamored of his "colleague," Matt Duss's appraisal.
Meanwhile, my colleague Matt Duss was on MSNBC yesterday offering a much more reasonable take on Obama’s restrained response:
DUSS: I think the lesson to be learned is the United States’ ability to intervene and change these outcomes is rather limited. As Americans, we like to believe that our ability to move, to promote democracy and to move events in the world at our will is a lot bigger than it actually is. … Right now President Obama’s treatment of the demonstrations going on in Iran is pretty near perfect. He has taken the United States to the extent possible out of this equation, he, the United States, and our role in the Middle East is not — he’s not going to give that to the hard liners as an excuse for an even greater crackdown.
I don't dispute the that Americans tend to overstate our ability to intervene and change outcomes. However, in their attempt to blindly worship the President they have overlooked one small and very significant fact, a usual trait amongst the "intellectual progressives." Here is a photo from Kagan's article.
Notice this little lady's proclamation is in anglais not Iranian, asaremanyotherprotesters. It really isn't that hard to figure out that Iranian reformist protesters are sending a message to the West, more specifically the United States, about what they feel is happening to them. If this isn't the case then what are they trying to prove to us, ACORN rigged their election too?
Now please don't mistake this for me trying to make a case for sending in troops or raise the stakes against the Iranian government, but, it does seem to indicate some attempt at outreach to people in America. Nevertheless, the Obama administration is concerned over Ahmadinejad and the crazed Mullah's using any pro-reformist language from his administration as a talking point to prove American interference in domestic Iranian affairs. So, he has remained somewhat quiet on the subject.
Oh darn, Obama didn't have to wait very long for Mahmoud to start spreading that propaganda, now did he?
Another "genius" who misses the point is Taylor Marsh, whose brain has been soaking too long in the boggy topography which shares her surname.
Whatever the Iranian people are doing right now, however heartening it is, it is not a revolution in the sense of a democratic republic.The distinction of what we’d prefer for them, well, that is irrelevant and not for us to decide.
No, it isn't for us to decide, it is not for us to intervene, it is not ours. Does that mean we turn a blind eye and not support the ideals of a people who want to move in a different direction? A people who are obviously reaching out to us for some unknown reason? Does it not demand investigation into why they are doing this or why Mousavi is obviously sanctioning his supporters to proceed with messages in English? Besides, Mahmoud has already jumped the shark with an opening salvo against Obama by invoking American interventionism. I guess these two dolts like to haphazardly dismiss or ignore certain facts to make themselves appear more informed than they are to their brainwashed readership.
Now there is also this little find. courtesy of Foreign Policy Magazine. Just say it is straight from the Persian horse's mouth. This is an excerpt from FP's interview with Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Mousavi's external spokesman.
Foreign Policy: You were involved in the 1979 Iranian Revolution as a young man, and your films have touched on it extensively. What parallels do you see between then and today's situation?
Mohsen Makhmalbaf: There are some similarities and some differences. In both situations, people were in the streets. In the [earlier] revolution, there were young people in the streets who were not as modern as the people are today. And they were in the streets following the lead of a leader, a mullah -- in those times Ayatollah Khomeini. Now, the young people in the streets are more modern: They use SMS; they use the Internet. And they are not being actually led by anyone, but they are connected to each other.
These young people who are in the streets are looking for peace and democracy. The previous revolution was a revolution of traditionalism against modernism; but now this is a revolution of modernism against traditionalism. The previous revolution had a frown; this one has a smile on its face. The previous revolution was red; this one is green. We can say that this is a 21st-century revolution, but the other was a 20th-century revolution. That revolution was led by the people who were educated by the epoch of the shah, and this generation was brought up by the mullahs inside the Islamic Revolution. We have many young people, and maturity is killing the fathers. In each generation, we kill our fathers. And our fathers [today] are the mullahs.
This is not about Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, or the Supreme Leader, it as about what the people in Iran want. This is about enough people, on their own accord and not bused in by the government, demonstrating against what they feel is a repressive and tyrannical regime. A regime which will not allow a country, who two thirds of its population in under 30, to mature on its own.
Please let me reiterate that I am not advocating military intervention or hostile sanctions against Iran. Just the Obama administration letting the people of Iran know we get it and are with them and their personal quest for against freedom to grow on their own. Not stick our heads in the sand like frightened little children who are fearful of ever making a decision.
Another many of a kind useless story that just wastes bandwidth and gives opposing sides talking points and "I told yah so's."Without further adieu, The John Ensign Affair.
UPDATE, 5:55 p.m.: Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) has acknowledged an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer in a statement released by his office. "I deeply regret and am very sorry for my actions," said Ensign. He is expected to announce the affair at a press conference at 6:30 pm tonight. The affair, which was with a woman who worked for both Ensign's re-election campaign and his Battle Born leadership political action committee, began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008. Ensign's wife, Darlene, said that the couple's "marriage has become stronger" and added: "I love my husband."
Yawn...oh I am sorry, I was falling asleep.
Anyways in timeless and predictable fashion bottom feeding Proglodytes took some time off form more serious issues like Health Care or Iran falling into the grips of a civil war to fire some shots across the bow of a GOP 2012 hopeful.
Now in reading their drivel I came across an interesting quote which for some reason sent my Libdar off, I smult propaganda. Call it an innate ability to detect a twisting of facts or a generation of bullshit from half-truths.
Before I move on with the sidebar of the highly "interesting" and "life-ending" Ensign affair, let me air out one caveat. Is Ensign a scum bag for cheating on his wife? Hell yeah, no more of a scum bag than FDR, JFK, RFK, Bill Clinton (Although he might have a reasonable excuse and its name is Hillary.), Vitter, or Edwards. Nevertheless, he has one thing in common with all of these men, regardless of political affiliation, they are imperfectable and stupid. A category I could easily fall into as well as any other "man" in the world.
Now onto the freak show. It was this quote which I found on the progressive blog, Think Progress, which caught my eye.
“I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it’s because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through,” Ensign said Thursday, becoming the first member of the Nevada delegation to call for Clinton to quit. “He has no credibility left.”
That seemed awfully bold and quite stupid of Ensign to remark this blatantly about Billy Bob's affair. My very first thought was that the comment was incomplete or out of context. Wouldn't you know, it was a specific reference to Clinton's lying, not his affair. Here is the whole text of what Ensign was quoted as saying.
WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Ensign, R-Nev., thinks President Clinton should resign rather than face possible impeachment.
"I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it's because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through," Ensign said Thursday, becoming the first member of the Nevada delegation to call for Clinton to quit. "He has no credibility left."
At a Jan. 23 meeting between Clinton and Cabinet officers the president denied allegations of a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Cabinet members rallied behind the president after the meeting, telling the media they did not believe the allegations. Since then the president has admitted to an "inappropriate relationship" with the young woman.
"Think about it. He sent taxpayer-paid staff out to lie for him, and that is a misuse of office," Ensign said.
The House plans to vote today on how to release the report it received this week from independent counsel Kenneth Starr concerning the president's behavior. Ensign and Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said they favor a limited disclosure that will protect innocent people whose names might be included in the report's appendices.
This might seem small to most and even an isolated instance but Think Progress has done this minimalist propaganda bullshit before. In fact, before they offer up Ensign's quote they provide a link to a another 1998 article which highlights a debate between Harry Reid and Ensign. Implying to the reader that this is the source and context of what he said. However, in the article that this statement is "insinuated" to be drawn from it doesn't even appear.
So where did they get it and why didn't they post the original source? It isn't that hard, I found it in about 30 seconds.
Now, you might ask, "Mike, you idiot, why are things this insignificant, important?" Small out context comments like this can be used to manipulate public opinion on a myriad of topics. I am 100% sure that both sides of the aisle use this same technique to influence constituents and like good sheeple, they bite .
The only reason I bring this up is to point out to people who want to be truly informed, don't always take what you read at face value. Always be skeptical and investigate if you have the time. If this kind of garbage is happening on a small level, imagine the crap that is being fed to you on matters of even greater importance. God forbid we concentrate on something that is a little more criminal on the political scene, like a pol taking bribes.
Finally, as the Libbie O'Tards like to say, "It's a teaching moment." :)
The Obama administration has called for a pep rally in the East Room of the White House for nationalized health care on June 24th. A tailgate rally will be held simultaneously in the White House Blue Room which, will be hosted by ABC's Charlie Gibson. Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS-statist propaganda-from the Blue Room.
Sounds pretty fun doesn't it? Too bad it's reality. From The Drudge Report.
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Love that no opposition thing. Here is the opposition asking ABC News why their voice's will not be heard.
From the Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay to ABC.
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.
Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully, Ken McKay Republican National Committee Chief of Staff
I am a HUGE fan of comedic irony and it doesn't get anymore ironic than our very own Supreme Leader tearing a page from recent events in Iran. Want to talk about some government sponsored propaganda?
Pro-government demonstrators celebrated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election at a rally organised by the country's Islamic regime, which earlier offered to recount some disputed ballots.
And they have a no opposition policy also.
The government has barred foreign media from covering rallies in Tehran - even the state-organised demonstration, where government officials urged the crowd not to let the election divide the nation.
Funny how tyrannical minds and propagandists from different cultures think alike.
Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
-Edmund Burke
As the situation in Iran fluxes, yet again, many theories abound over the web about ballot discrepancies and internal power struggles. Here is an aggregation of opinions and some numbers on Iran's election results provided by miscellaneous websites and media sources.
The Boston Globe provides a good breakdown, in short form, of the past few days events and about 40 pictures from a rally which took place in Tehran today.
Five Thirty Eight has a fantastic analysis of the Iranian provincial voting totals being reported from inside the country.
The UK Telegraph is reporting that rumors are surfacing that the totals being reported by Iran's Interior Ministry were tampered with and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually placed third and Mir-Hossein Mousavi won.
The Politico shares a differing opinion based on polling data from a Western firm which interviewed Iranian voters prior to the election.
What Americans need to keep in mind is that Mousavi may be the legitimate President of Iran, or maybe not, however he was still a candidate appointed to run by the "conservative" Mullahs. In our terms, he still has the potential to be a dictator, just maybe a little softer of a despot than Mahmoud. This should not make him any more palatable, though.
As the title of this post states, "Hopefully the conservatives that dominate Iran's political structure falter." They sure aren't the type of conservatives I have come to respect or understand.
I am receiving news about objections to the declared results of the latest elections, from all over the country. I am certain that these reactions are not for my personal sake, but it’s due to concern about a new way of political life that is being forced on our country.
The actions that we have witnessed in these few days have been unprecedented in the Islamic Republic.
If the people are following these present developments with a sense of worry, it’s because of their deep worry for the great achievements of their revolution being in danger.
Those who with the assistance of many violations have declared unbelievable results for the presidential elections, are now trying to establish those results and start a new period of our country’s history.
I have repeatedly, during the course of these elections, have spoken of dangers of escaping from the law and have emphasized that this method might result in tyranny and dictatorship, and today our nation is standing at a point that finds this prospect tangible.
We, as those who are loyal to the Islamic Republic and its constitutional laws, consider the Holy Jurisdiction one of the fundamentals of this regime and follow the political movements within legal frameworks.
I hope the progress of the new events would show the mistake in this impression and, at the same time, we warn that in this country no one who likes the Islamic Republic would accept this method, and this is what demands the bloods of hundreds of thousands of our martyrs to be responsible against it.
Dear people, today, in a letter that I presented to The Guardian Council, I have asked for the annulment of the results of the latest elections and I know this to be the only resolution for gaining the public confidence and the support of the people for the government.
My repeated suggestion as your servant is that you continue your civil and legal opposition all around the country, in a calm manner and observing anti-conflict fundamentals.
We have asked the responsible people to issue a permit for a mass rally in all the cities in Iran so that the people will have an opportunity to show their opposition towards the results of these elections and the way it was conducted.
The authorities’ agreement could be the best resolution for restraining the present tensions.
Let’s not abandon the green color which is a symbol of spirituality, freedom and religious mentality and moderateness and the Allah O Akbar slogan that tells us of revolutionary roots.
This is the color and slogan that is still unifying our nation and will be the best measure to connect our hearts and needs.
Sadly, an extensive effort has is being used to cut off our means of communication with each other, and it is not noticed that that the blocking of these lines would change the nature of the organized and goal-driven reactions to, God-forbidding, change into blind actions.
I am certain that your creativity would result in new and effective ways of communication so that we could use our actions in a beneficial way for the country and the revolution.
As someone who likes the police, I recommend them avoid harsh reactions towards people’s self-motivated actions and not let the people’s trust to this worthy organ be damaged.
These people have come to the scene to demand both their, and your, rights and they are your brothers and sisters. The power of the police and military forces of our country has always lied in their unity with the people and it will be the same in the future.
Now I don't profess to know Iranian "code" words or any other "code" words that many on the other political side of the aisle claim that are used today. Nevertheless, if this isn't a call to a revolution I don't know what is, albeit and hopefully, peaceful.
The last couple of paragraphs seem to be a plea to the military and law enforcement to either join in this attempted coup or stay out of the way.
There are a few other curious items, including a very interesting idea from the Washington Note that I glossed over. I didn't purport any importance on it due to the lack of evidence supporting the author's observations. Here is what he posted, via an Iranian contact.
He conveyed to me things that were mostly obvious -- Iran is now a tinderbox. The right is tenaciously consolidating its control over the state and refuses to yield. There is a split among the mullahs and significant dismay with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. A gaping hole has been ripped open in Iranian society, exposing the contradictions of the regime and everyone now sees that the democracy that they believed that they had in Iranian form is a "charade."
But the scariest point he made to me that I had not heard anywhere else is that this "coup by the right wing" has created pressures that cannot be solved or patted down by the normal institutional arrangements Iran has constructed. The Guardian Council and other power nodes of government can't deal with the current crisis and can't deal with the fact that a civil war has now broken out among Iran's revolutionaries.
For a link to Mr. Clemons' original article please go to, Iran: A Tinderbox?
It looks as if his contact's claims might be based in reality and not just unnecessary hyperventilating. And looking deeper into the contact's claims that this is not just a revolution but the beginnings of a full blown civil war within the religious hierarchy of the Iranian government seem to be coming true.
The next item is from the Council on Foreign Relations in an interview they just did with Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at SIPA's Middle East Institute, and an adjunct professor of international affairs at SIPA.
Q: Only time will tell what the implications are within Iran. I suspect that many of the clerics who are not enamored of Ahmadinejad are very upset at this development, don't you?
A: We really haven't heard from the senior clergy thus far. There are reports that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani [a former president] who is a powerful figure in his own right, and somebody who was supporting Moussavi, and who was on the attack against Ahmadinejad when the elections took place, has gone to Qum to talk to the senior clerics. If so, this would be an attempt to accumulate support from that quarter. There are many senior clerics that have never been that happy, first of all, with the whole idea of an Islamic Republic but also about Ahmadinejad in particular. He was snubbed by them after he became president. They don't like his sort of pop spiritualism. They don't like the idea that he sets an extra place for the Mahdi [under Shiite tradition, the Twelfth Imam, a messiah figure] at the table to return. And if Rafsanjani is doing what the reports say, it would be understandable as a way of mobilizing support in an area that really matters to the Supreme Leader [Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei and also to Ahmadinejad.
Professor Sick's observation is somewhat backed up by others. From the Foreign Policy Blog, Trita Parsi's observations.
Clearly, the anti-Ahmadinejad camp has been taken by surprise and is scrambling for a plan. Increasingly, given their failure to get Khamenei to intervene, their only option seems to be to directly challenge -- or threaten to challenge -- the supreme leader.
Here's where the powerful chairman of the Assembly of Experts, Mousavi supporter Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, comes in. Only this assembly has the formal authority to call for Khamenei's dismissal, and it is now widely assumed that Rafsanjani is quietly assessing whether he has the votes to do so or not.
It may be that the first steps toward challenging Khamenei have already been taken. After all, Mousavi went over the supreme leader's head with an open letter to the clergy in Qom. Rafsanjani clearly failed to win Khamenei's support in a reported meeting between the two men Friday, but the influential Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, who heads the vote-monitoring committee for Mousavi and fellow candidate Mehdi Karroubi, has officially requested that the Guardian Council cancel the election and schedule a new vote with proper monitoring.
Now here in the States bloggers and pundits are wrapped up in the idea that a revolution of the people is brewing and they are genuinely concerned about the violence they are seeing being perpetrated against the Iranian protesters. However, by these accounts it seems a power struggle is taking place amongst the hierarchy of the Iranian religious governing body and the people on the deck are caught in the middle.
Although not completely related to this, Max Boot, over at Commentary Magazine, gives an interesting neo-con take on how an Ahmadinejad victory could be beneficial for America's future dealings with the Iranian government.
Related Articles: Guess I am not the lone blogger on this one. A.J. Strata of the Strata-Sphere seems to be kicking around the same idea.
When you blink, sometimes, you miss what is happening in the world around you.
I am left to wonder if this picture of an Iranian woman standing in defiance of government forces will have the historical relevance that we remember this one for.
A lot has happened in Iran since the re-election of President Ahmadinejad. Reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is calling for the election results to be annulled and demonstrations by his supporters have been widespread across Iran.
Violence has ensued with shots being fired by Iranian police at Mousavi supporters. From Al Arabyia.
Earlier in the day police fired on supporters of defeated moderate reformist Mousavi who had gathered in the city center, chanting his name and throwing stones at police
The police chief said all gatherings without permits would not be permitted and said the candidates would be held responsible for an violations.
Communications in and out of the country have been blocked by the government of Iran
The BBC said Sunday that the satellites it uses to broadcast in Persian were being jammed from Iran, disrupting its reports on the hotly-disputed presidential election.
The corporation said television and radio services had been affected from 1245 GMT Friday onwards by "heavy electronic jamming" which had become "progressively worse".
Satellite technicians had traced the interference to Iran, it said.
Yesterday Steve Clemons of the Washington Note, via an Iranian "contact," reported that Ahmadinejad is fearful of the Iranian people, Mousavi, and other reformists.
My contact predicted serious violence at the highest levels. He said that Ahmadinejad is now genuinely scared of Iranian society and of Mousavi and Rafsanjani. The level of tension between them has gone beyond civil limits -- and my contact said that Ahmadinejad will try to have them imprisoned and killed.
This can go the way of Tienanmen Square and be reduced to a slaughterhouse or there actually might be some change on the horizon for Iran. If the latter comes to pass the direction of the Middle East is anyone's guess. If it is this former I am sure the country will slowly start to resemble North Korea with a healthy dash of extremist Islamism thrown in there.
Of course, and as usual, the predictable prattle from each side of the political aisle about James von Brunn, the white supremacist shooter at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, and the debate over the controversial DHS report arose. Both sides were instantaneously pointing fingers and grabbing on to political talking points.
Unless you have been under a rock you should know the whole story of James von Brunn by now. If not here is a recap.
Von Brunn is a WW II veteran whom at some point in his life became very disenchanted and jaded with America and eventually turned to hating Jews and blacks. Often blaming them for the woes society was facing.
In 1981 he even went as far as trying to make a "citizen's arrest" of Paul Volcker, the then Fed Chairman. Of course to those grounded in reality what his actions really translated to was an armed attempt at kidnapping. He was tried and found guilty of the charges, serving 6 years in a federal prison.
Von Brunn also ran a website called the www.holywesternempire.org on which he spewed vitriolic propaganda about Jews and Blacks, the typical disgusting and putrid white-supremacist script.
Flash forward to present day; von Brunn then attacks the National Holocaust Museum killing security guard Steven Tyrone Johns and becoming critically wounded himself.
We have a real escalation of domestic terrorism unfolding in the United States. Something Janet Napolitano warned about in her homeland security report, for which Republicans eviscerated her.
and
It’s the latest domestic terrorist incident that should be worrying the FBI, but also Pres. Obama. It’s very dangerous out there.
What this tells us, of course, is that he was "sovereign citizen" -- just like Dr. George Tiller's assassin. If he was attempting a "citizen's arrest" of Alan Greenspan as far back as 1981, that almost certainly means he was an adherent of Posse Comitatus ideology, and very likely Christian Identity as well.
This murderer sounds like a mixed bag, but one whose “anti” tendencies tended to line up more with left wing kooks than right wing kooks. But the mediots have found their white supremacist “buzz words” on von Brunn and the lefties are following suit, and are marching on with the “right wing extremism” theme. It’s a calculated tactic used under the guise of “concern” but of which the real purpose of using is to put conservatives all in one big paint bucket. Forget the broad brush. It’ll be a full-blown dunking.
Now, here is where the story really takes a strange turn.
Since both sides are too caught up in their hyperbole and seem to find it more important to politicize yet another tragedy, I offer up a compromise which will make everyone happy. Due to the fact that von Brunn obviously hates conservatives, as much as he hates liberals, this should classify him as a centrist-winged extremist. Put them in the DHS report and both sides of the aisle will hopefully shut the hell up.
And just when you thought politics couldn't reach new lows. They never stop amazing, do they?
Related Articles: Really only good for a laugh, if you are that twisted and deluded.
Posts
