Archive for the ‘Dhimmitude’ Category

The Republicans should ignore the Progressive based conventional wisdom

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

Good Morning Blogmocracy Netizens! I hope every one slept well and you are ready for a new day. The humidity is gone here in the Tampa area and it’s a nice 60’s degree morning.

The Progressive establishment in Washington and the media pundits are claiming that the GOP is moving too far to the Right. The establishment Crypto-Progressive Republicans like Kathleen Parker, David Frum and David Brooks are also in agreement with this analysis. These pundits should be ignored as they are not Conservative/Libertarian. They are influenced by Progressive thinking. These are submissive Republicans who like being abused by Democrats. They suffer from Stockholm Syndrome and should be ignored or mocked.

Today is Election Day. In Washington’s corridors of power, politicians and pundits are pacing like expectant fathers. Fair or not, today is being cast as a referendum on the Obama administration’s first year in office and a window to the crucial midterm elections next year.If Republicans do well particularly in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial contests moderate Democrats might go wobbly in their support for President Obama’s agenda.

Democrats might like health care reform, but they like getting re-elected even more.

A Democratic loss in New Jersey, one of the country’s most reliably Democratic states and where Obama won by roughly 15 points in 2008, would be an unspinnable debacle for the Democrats. That’s why Obama has, like Johnny Sack from The Sopranos, all but moved to New Jersey to oversee his interests there. Even if the unpopular incumbent, Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, manages to squeak by with a victory, the message for Democrats might not be all that heartening.

Read the rest.

Jonah Goldberg’s analysis is spot on. He of all people understands the evil nature of Progressivism. His book Liberal Fascism rips the happy smiling face off the Progressive movement. He is a pundit we should listen to and I admit his book lead me to research Progressives.

Republicans can’t win as Progressive-lite, they have been doing this since 1996 with mixed results. Now the Progressives have total domination of America and it must be broken. The GOP needs to offer a rightwing vision of freedom that contrasts with the Left’s totalitarian vision of control. The GOP needs to ignore the Beltway Conservatives, they are collaborators and and should be shunned. They are part of the Progressive Machine and are our enemies as well.

Progressive Immigration Policies enabling Islamic Penetration of the West

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Europe, Canada and to a small degree America is being over run with Islamic immigrants. Unlike Immigrants from other parts of the World, like India, Latin America or Asia, they have no intention of integration. Instead they created No Go Zones for Non Muslims in European cities. This was done on purpose by Progressive Politicians in Europe to create a Multi-Cultural society. In reality all this has done is to enable Islam to gain a foothold and influence politics.

A FEW weeks ago in London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told me that 75 per cent of the terrorist plots aimed at Britain originated in the federally administered tribal areas of Pakistan. Some 800,000 Pakistanis live in Britain.

The vast majority, it goes without saying, are law-abiding citizens. But there is a link between uncontrolled Muslim immigration and terrorism.
It is extremely difficult to talk honestly about Muslim immigration. All generalisations about it are subject to countless exceptions. Muslims are very different from each other. Most are reasonably successful.

But a much bigger minority end up with social, political, extremist or other problems resulting from a lack of integration than is the case with any other cohort of immigrants in Western societies. A lack of honest discussion about this results in bad policy.

Read the rest.

The Progressives call anyone who discusses this fact as a an Islamophobe. However it is a truth that Islam is a Transnationalist Ideology that does not recognize Nation States. Islam imposes it’s Arabic based culture wherever it goes. Islam is not compatible with Western Societies which is why Muslim Immigrants are causing problems. The sooner this is acknowledged, the sooner it can be dealt with. Progressives welcome Islamic Immigration as they view them as allies against Christians and Jews. That is the real reason for the Leftist-Islamic alliance.

Have You Ever Wondered Why Britain Allowed So Many Islamic Immigrants In? Well, The Truth Is Out…It Was Planned, It Was All About Multiculturalism

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Blogmocracy In Action

Guest Blogger: Ornery Elephant

As it says in this article at Family Security Matters, the “cat is out of the bag” and the news is disturbing at the very least. The word is out that the humongeous and hideous number of islamic immigrations into Great Britain over the past decade and a half was all planned by the government….it was executed on purpose IN ORDER TO MAKE BRITAIN MORE MULTICULTURAL! I kid you not.

Read this and if you are in Britain, weep. If you are in America, read this and get ready to fight this new plague upon our land.

The Uncovered Conspiracy to Transform Britain

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very makeup of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised “firm control over immigration” and in 2005 it promised a “crackdown on abuse.” In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.

But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until “at least February last year,” when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.

This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.

Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain’s population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the ‘80s.

Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s “driving political purpose,” wrote Neather, was “to make the UK truly multicultural.”

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental makeup and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another “multicultural” identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be “a manoeuvre too far.”

Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candor is he thinks it’s something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the “foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners” without whom London could hardly function.

What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.

[...]

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.

A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 percent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

In Neather’s hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn’t understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.

They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour’s core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.

They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.

It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.

No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week’s Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.

Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.

This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would “seriously consider” voting for the BNP.

That nearly one quarter of British people might vote for a neo-Nazi party with views inimical to democracy, human rights and common decency is truly appalling.

The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country’s landscape has been transformed out of all recognition – and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn’t happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.

Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candor of Andrew Neather’s eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen – and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.

[...]

Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP — by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.

(Cross Posted at Holger Awakens)

We are winning! Senators/Congressmen are dropping out of J Street’s Annual “Gala” like flies!

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Blogmocracy in Action

Guest Blogger:Delectable

This post is meant to inspire you all to further action. On Friday, I posted a call to action for Blogmocracy readers, to email their senators/congressmen, telling them to drop out of the J Street Annual Gala. Please read that post right here. It contains critical information about J Street!

I wanted to let you all know that this advocacy has been working and WE ARE WINNING!

Just check out what the Weekly Standard has to say:

The names of Reps. John Salazar (CO-03) and Ed Towns (NY-10) have been scrubbed from the list of congressmen serving on the host committee for J Street’s inaugural conference. That brings to ten the number of congressmen, Republicans and Democrats, senators and representatives, who have bailed on J Street after learning that, contrary to their promotional materials, they are not a pro-Israel group. Apparently even the Friday afternoon roll out of Jim Jones as the conference’s keynote speaker — an announcement that J Street surely would have preferred to make on Monday but which they were compelled to move up lest their entire roster of Congressional supporters defect en masse — wasn’t enough to stanch the bleeding. The tally of defections so far:

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE)
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
Rep. John Salazar (D-CO)
Rep. Ed Towns (D-NY)

Among the members who remain on that list there are a few who aren’t likely to hang around much longer. Senator Mark Udall is too savvy to be caught up in this mess. Will Senator Mark Pryor really go to the mat for an anti-Israel, pro-Hamas organization? And what about Republican Reps. Charles Boustany, Brian Bilbray, and Howard Coble? Are there large anti-Israel constituencies in those districts of which I was previously unaware?

I doubt those three are even aware their names are on this list, but after watching J Street speaker Josh Healey’s rousing performance of “Queer Intifada” in which he declares that “Guantanamo is Auschwitz” and “Anne Frank is Matthew Shepard,” I’m pretty confident they will ask to have their names removed.

Healey also wrote a poem about how “We’re the ones writing numbers on the wrists of babies born in the ghetto called Gaza.” A few weeks ago in his speech to the UN, Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu drew some very obvious parallels between the Iranian regime and Nazi Germany. The anti-Israel left went nuts (see Andrew Sullivan here, Juan Cole here, and Philip Weiss here, for example), but here is a J Street confederate who compares Israel and the United States to Nazi Germany every time he picks up a pen. Even by the left’s own standards this kind of thing is beyond the pale. What member of Congress can attach his name to an event where the speakers will accuse the United States of running a concentration camp at Guantanamo?

Our advocacy is WORKING! Please continue to write to your senators/congressmen and keep up the pressure on J Street!

Already J Street is complaining of the scary “neocons” who are running them out of town! Poor, poor progressive babies!

The updated list of senators/congressmen attending J Street is right here. Please check if your senator/congressman is on the list!

We cannot let this progressive organization succeed in re-defining the English language!

The Upcoming J Street Gala, and what to do about it

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Blogmocracy in Action

Guest Blogger: Delectable

This is a call to action on ALL Blogmocracy netizens, to email their Congressmen and Senators to IMMEDIATELY drop out of the J Street Gala, to take place October 25-28 2009.

A full listing of Congressmen/Senators planning to attend the Gala is right here. Please take the time and email your Congressman/Senator, asking them to drop out of J Street, should they appear on this list.

Now, you might be asking why this action should be done. Below explains what J Street is all about, and why it is imperative that this action be taken.

J Street is a new organization that seeks to “engage” those Jews who know nothing about Israel, haven never been there and likely will never go there, in the Middle East process. Its goal is to present Jews who care little to nothing about Israel as “experts” in the Middle East, who are empowered to tell Israel what to do. It bills itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” but the term “peace” is an Orwellianized desecration of the English language, in the hands of J Street.

Don’t believe me? Just check out what Jeremy Ben-Ami, the director of J Street, had to say in the Jerusalem Post, after Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren rejected an invite to speak at the J Street annual “Gala.”

You seem well aware, both as an American by birth and as a student of American Jewish communal dynamics, that the connection to Israel for a large number of Jewish Americans has become strained over time.

We’re all looking at the same research and data. A majority of Jewish Americans have never been to Israel. Large – and increasing – numbers don’t take part in the traditional communal organizations. Levels of attendance at synagogues among the non-Orthodox remain low.

There is a generational dimension to these trends as well, one you undoubtedly noticed as a respected academic in the classroom. Young, liberal Jews have even less connection to Israel than their parents and grandparents, and they talk more openly about the challenges and difficulties facing Israel and about its responses.

THERE IS good news, however. The excitement that J Street has generated and its rapid early growth indicates that there is a thirst in the progressive Jewish community – and among young liberal Jews – to find a way to relate to, to talk about and, yes, to advocate for Israel that is consistent with progressive Jewish values. We are only one facet of a new and growing movement in American Jewry that is attracting hundreds of thousands of progressive Jews into study, communal service and non-traditional observance.

Jeremy Ben-Ami is thus admitting the following: (a) he is a progressive, and his organization is progressive; (b) his organization goes after other progressives who don’t give a fig about Israel, but nonetheless feel empowered, through his organization, to speak about Israel.

But there’s more!

What exactly does J Street stand for? Does it in fact “advocate for Israel”? Or is it a water carrier for Obama and the progressive movement?

Let’s examine the evidence:

  • (a) During Operation Cast Lead, J Street became famous as the only major “pro-Israel” organization to publicly oppose Cast Lead and seek a “ceasefire” prior to Israel finishing the job. Even the far-left Meretz Party of Israel, as well as “Peace Now” were supportive of Cast Lead. Recall that Cast Lead occurred after eight years of rockets aimed at Southern Israel, and was in defense of a civilian population, aimed specifically at disempowering Hamas. Source.
  • (b) J Street raises money for political candidates who include Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison and Congresswoman Donna Edwards, who have a famous antipathy towards Israel. Source.
  • (c) J Street publishes made up polls to advocate on behalf of its twisted policies. Source.
  • (d) J Street is the only major “pro Israel” organization to publicly push Obama to NOT increase sanctions on Iran. Source.
  • (e) J Street supported Obama when he pushed Israel for an anti-Semitic “settlement freeze,” that stood directly against the Roadmap that Bush published, and Israel relied upon when it evacuated 8,000 settlers from Gaza. Source.
  • (f) J Street is endorsed by Stephen Walt, of famed Walt and Mersheimer fame, who wrote the anti-Semitic screed, “The Israel Lobby and Foreign Policy.” His screed claimed a cabal of Jews control U.S. foreign policy, and this caused the war in Iraq. Source.

We thus far have established a grounding in how and why J Street is a progressive, anti-Israel organization, masquerading as a “pro-Israel” organization, at war with the English language, and only pretending to be “pro-Israel” in order to distort what it means to be pro-Israel. But some people may still claim they want more evidence. So I present you with the smoking gun, so to speak, that proves J Street is openly aligned with Jihad. (and yes, I mean that literally)

J Street invited Salam al-Marayati from the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and Trita Parsi from National Iranian American Council (NIAC) to come speak. See the full list of progressives and Islamists who will be speaking right here.

MPAC is the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm in the USA. NIAC is the Iranian regime’s lobby group in the USA. See this dossier on Salam al-Marayati.

NIAC is the Iranian regime’s propaganda arm in the USA. See this dossier on NIAC and Trita Parsi.

Other notable Jihad propagandists include: Ziad Asali from the American Task Force on Palestine, Robert Malley, Program Director for Middle East and North Africa, International Crisis Group, Oded Na’aman, Breaking the Silence (a blood libel organization), and Eli Pariser, Former Director, MoveOn.org (a George Soros organization).

This would make little sense until one examines J Street’s funding, and sees they are funded by Arabs and Jihadists.

They were told to disinvite the jihadists to their “Gala,” and openly ignored this advice.

J Street is inviting Jihad propagandists to its Annual Gala and is funded by Arabs and Jihadists. It cannot be legitimized through a large cadre of Senators/Congressmen and dignitaries.

Conclusion: J Street is Exhibit A on how the progressive movement is aligned with Islamists. It cannot be allowed to succeed.

What are you waiting for? Write a letter to your Congressman/Senator who is planning on attending the J Street Gala, today!

Update: Stand With Us on J Street – even more links and information on this progressive organization!

AND THIS IS CLASSIC: J Street complains that politicians are dropping out from their “Gala” like flies due to the scary neocons! We are getting to them! Poor babies!

Speaking To Islamist, Obama Advisor Defends Sharia

Friday, October 9th, 2009

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg
















Islam has a term for what this Obama adviser is doing; it is called “Taqiyya“. (lying to promote Islam)

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial “Hadd offences”, crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir’s website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

{The Article}

Hmmm. Ok, well let’s look into Sharia in action around the world. (from American Thinker’s Top Ten Reasons Sharia Is Bad…)

10. [Sharia] commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
-In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91…

9. [Sharia] allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
- In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

5. [Sharia] commands that homosexuals must be executed.
-In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . .

‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

I could go on…..

American Progressives support Islamist in Preventing Insulting their religion

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

This has to be one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. Our Progressive Regime supported an Egyptian resolution that condemns attacks on Religions. This in reality is done to set a precedent to prevent people from criticizing Islam. The Islamo-Fascists in Egypt don’t want their fake Pedophile Prophet insulted, so backed by Our Traitor regime the UN passes  resolution condemns this.

GENEVA – The U.N. Human Rights Council approved a U.S.-backed resolution Friday deploring attacks on religions while insisting that freedom of expression remains a basic right.

The inaugural resolution sponsored by the U.S. since it joined the council in June broke a long-running deadlock between Western and Islamic countries in the wake of the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.

The resolution has no effect in law but provides Muslim countries with moral ammunition the next time they feel central tenets of Islam are being ridiculed by Western politicians or media through “negative racial and religious stereotyping.”

American diplomats say the measure — co-sponsored by Egypt — is part of the Obama administration’s effort to reach out to Muslim countries.

Read the rest.

This really is nonsense and we must stand up to this. Christians, Jews and others have their religions bashed all the time yet we don’t demand people to stop bashing us. It is not the case with Islam. They cry whenever people point out Muhammad was a pedophile and a genocidal mad man. Well too bad, I don’t care about this UN resolution and will say what I want.

This is another example of the Progressive-Islamo-Fascist Alliance.

(Hat Tip: Bordm)

IAEA reports Iran Nuclear Capable

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

The international Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) now admits that Iran is nuclear capable. According to the report, they have the means to build one and deliver one. This is a game changer for the Middle East and the world. Israel now has to prepare for the inevitable attack Iran will rain down on her.

ahmadinejad

VIENNA (AP) – Experts at the world’s top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

Read the Rest.

For years Israel has been warning the world about this, however they were ignored. Even worse, Progressive forces in the US and Europe were defending Iran by denying they were planning to go nuclear. Progressive media outlets like MSNBC/NBC News were attacking the Bush administration back in 2005-2007 to prevent a preemptive strike on Iran’s facilities. They did this because their parent company GE was in cahoots with the Ayatollahs and they didn’t want their business interests hurt. Daily and non stop attacks on the part of Olbermman and Mathews was echoed in the rest of the media. Seymour Hersh  also joined in the attacks and exposed Bush’s plans for Iran. This created pressure and prevented Bush from taking out Iran’s Nuclear facilities.

A nuclear armed Iran is a direct result of moral support given the regime by the Transnational Totalitarian Progressive Movement. The Global Left will have blood on their hands for enabling the Islamo-Fascists.

One world leader who sees the Iranian threat clearly is French president Nicolas Sarkozy.

After Paris warned that new sanctions against Teheran remained an option despite the likelihood of negotiations with Iran, French President Nicolas Sarkozy maintained that the Islamic republic was still working on a nuclear weapons program.

“It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear [weapons] program,” Sarkozy told lawmakers from his UMP party on Tuesday, according to Press TV.

Read the rest.

How ironic. The French see this threat but American Progressives don’t care. If Iran or proxies use these weapons, the Left will have blood on their hands from all this. I blame Soros and his Progressive minions for this. They are responsible.

So far Obama a failure and Israel is alone

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Good morning Blogmocracy Citizens! I hope everyone slept well and is ready for good day. As always, I am the bearer of bad new.

In Politico today, they have a review of Obama’s first 9 months in office and conclude that he is failing. In their view, Obama is failing because he has been unable to push his agenda through Congress. In reality he is a failure because his Progressive Ideology is a failed belief system. Progressivism has been tried in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro Cuba and in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. All it resulted was misery for its people.

When he ran for president, George W. Bush promised to be a modest reformer at home and a humble representative of the United States on the world stage. The Al Qaeda-organized-and-funded terrorist attacks of eight years ago changed all that. During his presidency, Bush created massive new government bureaucracies, sent troops into two wars and threatened more as part of America’s war on terror.

Barack Obama’s initial approach to the office of the presidency has been as grandiose as Bush’s was restrained. It’s not hard to recall that he ran as a transformative candidate, promising sweeping, though somewhat fuzzy, “change” during the campaign.

For the first several months of his presidency, Obama has labored to deliver on that pledge. He pushed a controversial stimulus bill through Congress to help rev up the economy, turned Bush’s reluctant bailout of Chrysler and General Motors into a giant government auto buyout and appointed a record number of “czars” to help regulate bureaucracies in both public and formerly private sectors.

Read the rest.

Our Community Organizer in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, is a radical ideologue. He wants to reshape America to fit the Progressive vision of people being controlled by elites. So far he has not been able to implement all of his agenda, because of the resistance of many Americans. However, he will not give up and will continue to try impose his Totalitarianism on us.

America is not the only nation effected by President Barack Hussein Obama. Israel is also feeling the Obama effect. Iran is continuing its Nuclear development and it’s stated aim is to exterminate Israel. Obama is allowing Iran to build its Nukes and really doesn’t care if Israel survives. As a Progressive, his hatred of Israel is part of the Ideology of that movement.

Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?

What’s an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn’t a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1.

At July’s G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No.

Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the “ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations” and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, “respect for the rights of nations,” and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran’s nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion.



Read the rest.

Israel is alone and it must do what is needed to survive. Obama would not lift a finger to help Israel and more than likely would be glad at the result. It is a sad day in our history when an ideologue is abandoning one of our allies because of some world vision.

Obama and the Progressives don’t care about consequences of their actions. They feel superior to the average person and will do anything to impose their world view on us. They must be stopped and we must continue to expose these madmen.

(Hat Tip: Nevergiveup)

Another Øbamanation!

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

A post at Atlas Shrugs on 8 Sep 09 served as another reminder as to why he is distrusted by so many in this nation.

Add another Obama insult to injury on 911, the national day of terrible grief and mourning. First he desecrated the memory of 911 with this: Obama’s 911 proclamation of his mandatory civilian service on 911. He means to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry, and an “interfaith day of service”.

If our current President, who is still searching for a church after nearly eight months in office, honestly believes that this executive order will ever erase events of 9 Sep 01 from our national psyche, he is not only mistaken, but deluded to the point that therapy would have no benefit.

No amount of executive orders or glad handing with those who would destroy us, will ever erase the memory of that day. While the pain may subside, the memory lives on, from ‘the day that changed everything.’

The voices of 9-11 are still being heard. No amount of appeasement can silence them, or drown their voices out, with ‘executive hate speech.’