Saturday, July 19, 2008

ITS A GREAT DAY FOR THE IRISH ! Whoop, Whoop, hurray! Are You listening America?

While your at it...Think SPP/NAU and ask President Bush and the U.S. Congress,
"Why don't Americans have a say in what happens to our Country?"

This is a great victory for the Irish and the cause of freedom, and don't you forget it!
The politic elite are destroying our country in favor of ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT...
"...a New World Order!" And don't think for a second that the current candidates for the
Presidency of the United States are not a part of the politic elite; with the biggest threat
to our sovereignty coming from B. Husein Obama...he rots the soul of the nation!

EU referendum: Ireland rejects Lisbon Treaty

Irish voters have thrown the EU into disarray by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, the government conceded.

Ireland rejects EU treaty
Reuters
The EU treaty has been rejected by voters in Ireland

Three hours before the count was expected to be completed, Dermot Ahern, the country’s justice minister, predicted: “It looks like this will be a 'no' vote.”

Mr Ahern added: “At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”

The decision places massive doubt over the future of the pact designed to bring more European integration.

advertisement

All 27 European member states have to ratify the treaty for it to go come into force next year. So far it has been approved by 18 members including Britain, but Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.

The leaders of the 26 other member states watched with dismay as Ireland voted “no”, a decision that will inevitably lead to much infighting and bickering across Europe.

Despite benefiting from £32 billion in European Grants in recent years, a low turn-out (45 per cent) of the Irish electorate discarded the Treaty, designed to streamline the EU.

The outcome was triumph for a highly-effective No Campaign masterminded by the Libertas group led by the multimillionaire Declan Ganley.

Libertas argued that the Treaty would undermine Ireland’s influence in Europe, would open the door to interference in taxation and enshrine EU law above Irish law.

For Brian Cowen, the newly-installed Irish Prime Minister, the result was a disaster. All the main political parties, aside from Sinn Fein, had supported the Treaty and made strenuous efforts to win the referendum.

Mr Cowen now has to face the embarrassment of explaining to his fellow European leaders why he failed to persuade his nation to adopt the Treaty.

I KID YOU NOT !


Source: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/June-2007/The-Speech/index.php?cp=3&si=2

But...but, but, but. But its OK for B. Husein Obama to copy Franklin D. Roosevelt's line from FDR's speech The Forgotten Man..."...build from the bottom up and not from the top down..."

The Forgotten Man, April 7, 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Radio Address, Albany, N. Y April 7, 1932

But...but, but, but. FDR would never have used the 'F' word with Husein Obama. Why? Because FDR also copied the line! What's wrong with these Democrats? Can they not think for themselves?

YOU MAKE THE CALL

1

Saturday, February 16, 2008



The Mabus Chronicles




Down thru the ages people have warned other people about the dangers of soothsayers, fortune tellers, witches and religions. But man needs something to believe in.

Michelle Malkin blogs that Michelle Obama wants you to vote for Barack Obama because she thinks what America needs is a healer-in-chief.

FIRED UP AND FALLING DOWN: String of Crowd Fainting Incidents Hits Obama Rallies...

One of Michelle Malkin's commenters, Lindsay, posts: "One thing I find as disturbing as his vagueness on issues is the mission statement of his church: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm" and "Swooners for Obama: http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=91"

As I have written before, DON'T count the Clintons out! And then there's always John McCain...

Earlier this week I posted about a fellow I observed on the street carrying a sign that read "Obama is Mabus." Certain people are quite serious about this. I'd read (here: Nostradamus and Mabus) about the possible "Bush to Mabus" connection, but that was back in 2004, when some thought Bush=Mabus (Is Bush Mabus?). There were others who believed Saddam was Mabus (Nostradamus and the Mabus Comet). Check out Nostradamus Mabus Project. Also: Mabus - Nostradamus' Third Anti-Christ. Here's more on that, culled from a variety of sources.

Obama - III AntiChrist - Obama is the 3rd AntiChrist. If you write obama+bush, you end up with obamabush. Do you spot "mabus" in the middle? Bingo. Quote: Mabus then will soon die, there will come Of people and beasts a horrible rout: Then suddenly one will see vengeance, Hundred, hand, thirst, hunger when the comet will ...


AntiChrist = Obama!!!! - Obama is the Anti-Christ. This is the evidence: 1.- He will come as a man of Peace (Obama promises peace in Iraq, defeat for the US) 2.- He will come mounted on a white Female horse(Obama mother is white who had 6 African husbands) 3.- He will come to deceive( Obama says he's a Christian but in fact he was born a Muslim, practices the Islamic religion, prays Friday’s facing Mecca) 4.- He ...

At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, John Kerry gave Obama the “keynote address.” This article shows Obama using the f-bomb while accusing Kerry’s speechwriters of forcing him to drop a line from his speech so they could steal it for Kerry’s speech.

Is Barack Obama the antichrist? - Yahoo! Answers
Nostradamus prophesized the name of the antichrist is "Mabus." This can relate to why Obama is the antichrist. If you write obama+bush, you end up with ...- Cached - Similar pages More results from answers.yahoo.com »

But there is ANOTHER Mabus, Ray Mabus, former governor of Mississippi and an endorser of Obama!

See Also: Nostradamus FAQs





The following from: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message510670/pg1

Obama's advisor is Ray Mabus...Nostradamus connection???








Ray Mabus was an ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Clinton years. I think it is very possible that Ray Mabus could be Obama's running mate and Vice President. Suddenly Obama is killed and Mabus stands up to be President and Antichrist as Nostradamus predicted.

BTW: I don't take much heed to Nostradamus due to the way he received his predictions, but this is very interesting.

Mabus could be the 3rd Antichrist as Nostradamus spoke of...very interesting




Nostradamus' MABUS predictions are wicked interesting-foreshadow, of
an Obama entrance, and of his early demise, which is no doubt partly
incited by Barack and his fans, all punks.

Popular media stupidly asserts 'MABUS' can be an anagram, of
Anglicized Arabic, of Usama bin Laden's first name.

Ma Bush, or Barbara Bush may be the bad womb in question, here. The
Prescott-Bush tricks are about as old as bumfarted Egypt, after all.
Why do they get to illegally continue, if they didn't let all sorts of
freaks beat the borders, until all the campuses and cities are
tainted, with their illegal interests and agendas?

Or, ObaMA-BUSh is where the Bushmeat arrives, since Obama is a doofus
of destiny, who blew off cursive ballot entries, disqualifying three
candidates for his Illinois State Senate seat, but look how he
schmoozes with Senators, who have been violating the commerce clauses
by conspiracy, like all US Senators, violating the commerce clauses in
a way aggravated by neglect, since ratification!

The US Senate will not represent D.C. or any large state, well enough
for the commerce clauses, state and US. Neglect of this is deeply
aggravated, over time, by royal favors, standing armies, and bills of
attainder to violate all major articles and USCA
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,13,14 and RICO.

Only an idiot would fail to notice how UBL was blown off by the US and
Saudis, when he tried to convince anybody he should assassinate Reagan-
incited Saddam, who attacked Iran, like the US wanted, but Reagan gave
SatIntel to the Iranians, betraying Saddam and inciting him to attack
the British-appointed Saudis, through Kuwait.

The US shot up the Mid East but particularly Iraq with depleted
uranium, which with petro-pollution gives Iraq the world's highest
rate, of SERIOUS BIRTH DEFECTS, but nobody killed Saddam, until he was
a material witness against US international thuggery, for the
undermined ICC to review.

HA! That'll be the day, when Obama dies, and maybe Bush, with him,
since they are both letting the world be made into BUSHMEAT,
illegally. Obama just waltzed with AIPAC and signed FISA, with an
exemption for the wire companies like AT&T, which steal rock and other
music, and overproduce.

Or Led Zeppelin, WHO, Van Halen, Rolling Stones, and many other frauds
would not have 1971-present guitar riffs, to make into hits, WITH
ORGAN PARTS, WHERE GUITAR WAS, ORIGINALLY. Won't get fooled again,
until another fraud is cooked up, in a split-second.

Obama is the other creep, with the Bush bakery mob, not UBL, a victim,
chased after, for the spin and churn circus, which kills, kills, and
KILLS.

If MABUS is an anagram, suggested by a long-dead person, Obama has the
lead. He is already foreshadowed in many, MANY TV and movie
productions, episode 43, STAR TREK, called 'MERRICKUS,' by 'Tuvoc' in
Voyager, by Chris Tucker in RUSH HOUR, by Dwayne 'The ROCK' Johnson,
in anything he does, by all sorts of MAD-TV players, including Phil
Lamarr of the original cast and by Kegan Michael Key, Johnny Sanchez,
and a new guy, just added.

Jackie Chan corresponds to NM Gov. BILL RICHARDSON, for Vice
President, as does Bobby Lee, of MAD-TV, and Officer Chipotle, of
Voyager, who looks like WEC Middleweight Champion Carlos Condit and
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta stapled it and had a kid, ask me how, but
notice how during Voyager the Staples Center became the LA hoop hall.

If you bump heads with any mixed martial artists, you may need to
staple the wound, and continue! Obama is liable to be discontinued,
since he is already cheating us, so fabulously, he may not finish an
entire term, while his typical, Republican-affected advisors make him
into a Bushwick Billy Clinton, see also Howard Stern and his producer,
'Monkey-boy' Gary, dwarf 'Bushwick Bill,' etc. Stern is an Obama-
foreshadower, as is Sascha Baron Cohen's BORAT, of Bill O'Reilly's
attitude and dark monkey business.

Obama is a LOT worse than your media admits. Since his nutty toads
disabled my Obama 08 account, three different Flickr accounts, and
several other websites deleted me, over my postings of this
information and similar facts, Obama needs to lose his 'nuts,' as his
delusional supporters must be purged, for cause. THAT is what Jesse
Jack meant.

Obama may not make even one error, if and when he swears in as
President, since he has already defrauded us and the world, and he
evades review.

'MABUS will appear, and soon will die, afterward.' I believe this.
Mike deNostrame wrote it down, in LATIN, not Arabic. So FREE UBL, for
cause. Usama may be the Anti-Christ, but only in a brave, benevolent
way.

Jews are from Ethiopia, Isaiah 20:5, so don't start on me about anti-
Semitism, since the organized criminal media in the US removed Kurds
and Arabs from defined 'SEMITES,' in order to sell the fraud of anti-
Semitism, to be used by mobs at riot, to bother bin Laden and others,
who may also be part Jewish, of a purer lineage to Semitic people than
any other person.

ARABS ARE SEMITES, so why is any objection to the unlawful detainer-
home invasion crime in Palestine called 'Israel,' at any time
represented, as 'ANTI-SEMITISM?' Get Smart, if not Semitic, since you
are born to Semitism, most of you, with small parts of your background
being of genetic Jewish heritage.

But that doesn't mean any of many no-account Russians or Bushwicks get
into Palestine, without increasing the DEATH RATE. Get out of Dodge,
SENATORS and all illegally imported TOADS. You aren't enough to hold
your town, from other factions. AND YOU CONSPIRE TO VIOLATE ALL LAWS
IN OUR STATE OF CALIFORNIA, from your neglect of both commerce
clauses, by conspiracy with the Executive and all tainted persons,
aggravated by your many years of seditious conspiracy and contempt of
process.

What do I have to say about it....


Friday, July 18, 2008

THIS MAN IS DANGEROUS...




ELECTION 2008
Obama's 'Big Brother' vanishes from speech
'Civilian security force' missing from 'call to service' transcript


Posted: July 16, 2008
9:37 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Sen. Barack Obama

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's stunning assertion in a recent speech that the U.S. needs a "civilian national security force" that would be as powerful, strong and well-funded as the half-trillion dollar Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force is not included in published transcripts of his prepared remarks.

In the July 2 speech in Colorado Springs, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set."

Campaign officials have declined to return any of a series of WND telephone calls over several days requesting comment. Nor have they posted a transcript of the speech on their website.

The lines are not included in a transcript of the prepared remarks published by the Denver Post and Wall Street Journal.

According to the transcript, Obama was to have said:

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

But a YouTube video of the speech, at about the 16-minute mark, shows Obama added the following lines:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." *

Note from Storm'n Norm'n

*Wow! Does this bring back memories!


Membership was mandatory!
Continue...

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue, and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions about it.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

He added that he wants the help of "every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election."

Since Farah reported the statement, it's been the subject of intense discussions on the Internet.

In a post on FreeRepublic.com, Sean Robins explains why he believes it's likely one of Obama's handlers counseled him to remove the two lines from the speech and then the senator decided to put them back in.

"Most of the time, when Obama flubs a line and attempts to recover, you can easily spot it," Robins writes, but in this case, the lines are "delivered clearly, concisely, and succinctly, without any hint that they emanate from a flub."

Robins speculates the lines were prepared and rehearsed ahead of time, the handler or handlers counseled him to take them out, and "in the moment of the speech, he decided, 'they're back in.'"

Robins says that while this is speculation, it points to the need to "pay closer attention to Obama's speeches, for what is off the cuff, for what his trainers and handlers might not want him to say, but which he will continue to say anyway. We know he's really good on a fixed script. And we know that he's really bad on his own."

The Blue Collar Muse blog commented, "In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion. Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging 'national security' issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid. … The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such 'youth' organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?"

On the forum page for Blue Collar Muse, one reader said, "I thought we already had the FBI, DEA, BATFE, U.S. Marshals, TSA, postal inspectors, park rangers, Secret Service, state bureaus of investigation, state police, local police, sheriffs and constables, among others, that already did that."

Added another: "The other, more likely, possibility here is that Obama has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. That would explain why he hasn't elaborated on the idea."

Obama's Colorado Springs speech was about a "call to service."

"I am running for president, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines."

And he told the audience he would "ask for your service."

"We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges. … As president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer."

He also talked about additional work for veterans, and a new "Energy Corps" for the two million "young Americans who are out of school and out of work."




“By their fruit shall ye know them.”


"Islam is a vestige of a barbaric past. Islam must be confronted, shown for what it is and stopped from overtaking the world. "
Telling the Truth is Islam Bashing?

Thursday, 17 July 2008

By Amil Imani

I am bombarded by hate and threats by the Allah-fearing fanatics, simply because I speak the truth about Islam. If telling the truth about Islam is Islam bashing, then mea culpa.

Question: Does Islam get a pass because it is a religion? Who says Islam is a religion? Millions do? What is the evidence? The words of masses of brainwashed carriers of the Islamic virus, transmitted to them by their parents, are worthless as evidence.
What counts is the irrefutable fact that this creed, claimed to be the one and only religion of Allah, has been and continues to be a source of great suffering for non-Muslims as well as the ignorant masses of Muslims themselves.


I will share with you just a few of thousands of horrific things that Muslims do to people of other religions or those without any religion at all. In model Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, for instance, women don’t dare complain about their Allah-decreed chattel status. If they protest in the least, they are beaten by their husbands. And if they dare to demonstrate in public for equal family rights with men, they get severe beatings by the police and hauled to jails for additional indignities and violence.

One may wonder then why is it that millions of Muslim women meekly submit to their subservient rank and worship and thank Allah for it. These women are virtually imprinted by their parents and the clergy from birth to adopt the gender inequality as well as the entire pathological Islamic ethos.

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.” Quran 4.34

Even Egypt, the crown jewel of Arab-Islamic world is practicing a form of slow genocide against its own Baha’i citizens by depriving them of just about all rights of citizenship.
Baha’is are still denied the indispensable identity card, simply because the powerful clergy want to eliminate the peaceful minority. Among other things, Egypt denies education to Baha’i children, taking a page from the “Mein Kampf” of the fascist Islamic Republic of Iran.

The record of atrocities performed by the proponents of the “religion of peace” clearly condemns it as an unmitigated cult of the worst kind. The savage Muslims forced their creed of hate and violence at the point of the sword on my people. They did and continue to do everything they could to wipe out any
vestige of our magnificent Iranian culture and heritage. Now, they are ruling my native land with an iron fist, demeaning everything that we have treasured in our egalitarian-humanistic exemplary culture. They are forcing our women into prostitution by depriving them of means of livelihood, compelling hundreds of thousands of Iran’s best and brightest to leave for other lands, spearheading a vicious campaign of terrorism far and near, and muffling any voice that does not sing their praises.

The Bible says “By their fruit shall ye know them.” I said this before and I’ll say it for as long as this vicious cult keeps up with its abominable deeds: Islam is violence. Islam is intolerant of non-Muslims. Islam is a vestige of a barbaric past. Islam must be confronted, shown for what it is and stopped from overtaking the world. Here are just a few examples of what these people of Allah had done recently.

A guy stops a car in the city of Shiraz in Iran and asks the driver to give him some gasoline, pretending that his car has run out of fuel. The total stranger siphons gas from his own car and gives it to him. Suddenly some other guys show up from their hiding places, tie the man to a tree, douse him with the gasoline he had generously given to a total stranger, set him on fire and speed away in the sham “out-of- gasoline” car. Why? The target of the torching was a non-Muslim, a Baha’i. The “sin” of not being a Muslim made him a deserving party for being burned alive. These thugs of Allah, the savage torchers, call themselves the Unknown Soldiers of the Lord of the Age, (Imam Zaman), the Shiite’s much revered and expected savior.

To make matters worse, all manner of “good Muslims” walked by and didn’t do a lick to help the man. Miraculously the man was able to put the fire out and call the police on his cell phone. It took the police over 30 minutes to respond and take the man to the station for questioning. Now that’s the Islam that is on the march. It has penetrated deeply and spread widely in Europe. It is changing Europe to its ways and holds every promise of doing the same to the United States.

Many Europeans are fleeing their ancestral homeland ahead of the Islamic fire which is engulfing their countries. These are the affluent and the ones with foresight. Others are either oblivious to the threat, aim to accommodate it as the holy grail of multiculturalism, or will end up one day seeing themselves in the fight of their life. For Islam does not believe in multiculturalism. Islam is a mono-culturist: the barbarian culture of Islam. As Islam gains more power, it will inevitably impose itself and its ways on all others. And there will be those who will eventually wake up from their stupor, they will either completely capitulate or fight the Muslims back in bloody bock-by-block, street-by-street battles.

Truth is not always welcome and can often be greatly disturbing. But truth is the best weapon against evil and falsehood. When I point out the
horrific teachings of the Quran, I don’t make them up. I cite surahs from their holy book, surahs that exhort the Muslims to carry out all kinds of evil deeds against non-Muslims. This book of Allah is a license to kill. When I point out that Muhammad set terrible examples for his followers by his own deeds, I cite from their own sources to document my assertion.

Is there anyone in this messed-up world who doesn’t read, see, or hear about the daily Islamic atrocities performed by these savages, with every act justified on the basis of Allah’s holy book?

Qur’an 8:12 "I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle."

Qur’an 33:26 "Allah made the Jews leave their homes by terrorizing them so that you killed some and made many captive. And He made you inherit their lands, their homes, and their wealth. He gave you a country you had not traversed before."

Why is it that these self-righteous Islamist villains don’t bother to prove me wrong? Why don’t they document what I say as being false? Instead, I am showered by all kinds of unspeakable profanity. Some of the more civil of the Muslims don’t stoop as low as their foul co-religionists. These latter types let out a hue and cry that they and their religion are smeared and victimized by people like me. They consider my criticisms of Islam as Islam bashing. They accuse me as a divisive- racist who enjoys Islam bashing. For good measure, they also label me Zionist, in the pay of Israel and Israeli lobbies. Who is bashing whom? Please prove any one of my charges to be false or fabricated and I’ll happily repent. If, on the other hand, you fail to do so, you owe it to humanity to abandon your allegiance to the scourge of Islam.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

This just in...July 17, 2008

Russian Charged With Trying to Smuggle Potential WMD Material Into Iran
Note from Storm'n Norm'n:
This is what they're telling us. What are they not saying?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
MOSCOW — The founder of a Russian company involved in trade with Iran has been charged with trying to smuggle a metal that can be used for weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems to the Islamic republic, prosecutors said Thursday.
The metal in question is tantalum, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office said. It can be used in the production of chemical processing equipment, nuclear reactors and missile parts, and is subject to export restrictions under Russian law.
Tantalum powder, a super-grade chemical, can also be used in the manufacture of mobile phones, personal computers, motor vehicles and electronics goods.
Prosecutors in southern Russia's Astrakhan region, across the Caspian Sea from Iran, have sent their case against Anar Godzhayev to court, the Prosecutor General's Office said in a statement. That means Godzhayev, a citizen of Uzbekistan, could face trial soon.
He and his lawyers were not immediately available to comment. Godzhayev is being held in Astrakhan.
Prosecutors claim Godzhayev lied about the contents of an outgoing shipment in customs documents after a business partner, in July 2007, asked him to send more than a ton of materials containing tantalum to Iran. He was detained after customs officials checked the shipment in a container on a boat due to leave for Iran.
Russia supports Iran's right to nuclear energy and is building the nation's first nuclear power plant.
While Russian leaders have said there is no evidence proving claims by the U.S. and other Western countries that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, Moscow is involved in international efforts to persuade Iran to ease those fears by abandoning uranium enrichment.
Russia has also questioned U.S. assessments of the potential threat from Iranian missiles.
But amid tense ties, Russia and the United States say they are cooperating well in efforts to thwart the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Godzhayev could be sentenced to seven years in prison if convicted.

Next Item...

You may be reading this but the people who should are not...so that means it's up to you to spread the word.

Nothing calumnious about this... just more evidence Obama follows the Saul Alinsky rule of law. Say what you got to say as long as the ends justifies thes means...FOR POWER AND CONTROL!
July 15, 2008
OBAMA TO CATHOLICS: NO VOUCHERS

When he was a state senator in Illinois in June 2002, Barack Obama was explicitly asked by Chicago media personality Jeff Berkowitz whether he supports school vouchers. “I would support anything that is going to be better for the children of Illinois,” he said. He emphatically added that “I am not closed minded on the issue.”

In February 2008, Obama spoke to reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about the issue. Still keeping an open mind, he said, “If there was any argument for vouchers, it was ‘Let’s see if the experiment works.’ And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what’s best for kids.”

However, last Saturday Obama told the American Federation of Teachers that he was opposed to vouchers. When his campaign was asked about his new position, it released a statement saying, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.”

Commenting today is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:
“Guess Obama couldn’t resist pandering to the teachers union. It’s so easy to tell the media that keeping an open mind on school vouchers is the best way to go. But when cash counts—and the American Federation of Teachers has plenty of it—who cares about principle? Fact is, no amount of empirical evidence was ever going to change his mind.

“Obama now joins a long list of African American elites who wouldn’t dare send their kids to an urban public school, but who works hard at every turn to deny poor black parents the same options he and his wife are so lucky to have. We hope that Catholics, as well as African Americans, get the message.”

In other news...

The Police State Nation of Massachusetts is now imposing laws against nature. Massachusetts is by far the most un-Constitutional government of the State, by the State, and for the State than any among the the fifty that hold a star on the banner of freedom. It is run by Socialists and hypocritical so-called Christians…the worst among them are the Catholics who go to Church on Sunday and forget what they Prayed for on Monday. - Norman E. Hooben - "A proud Catholic proud of my Faith. A proud Catholic NOT so proud of my Church!" - July 16th 2008

A 1913 Law Dies to Better Serve Gay Marriages
Published: July 16, 2008

BOSTON — Massachusetts may have been the first state to legalize same-sex marriage for its residents, but when California last month invited out-of-state gay and lesbian couples to get married, the potential economic benefits did not go unnoticed here. Now Massachusetts wants to extend the same invitation.

Lisa Poole/Associated Press

The Massachusetts Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law.
On Tuesday, the State Senate voted to repeal a 1913 law that prevents Massachusetts from marrying out-of-state couples if their marriages would not be legal in their home states. The repeal, which passed with no objections on a voice vote, is expected to pass the House later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat and a supporter of same-sex marriage whose 18-year-old daughter recently disclosed publicly that she is a lesbian, has said he will sign the repeal.
The repeal of the out-of-state marriage ban would come more than four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow gay men and lesbians to marry, and same-sex marriage advocates said the timing was carefully calculated to catch the prevailing political — and economic — winds.

State officials said they expected a multimillion-dollar benefit in weddings and tourism, especially from people who live in New York. A just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate.

“We now have this added pressure, given what’s happened in California, that we really think that it is a good thing that we be prepared to receive the economic benefit,” State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, a Democrat who sponsored the repeal bill, said Tuesday after the vote.

Ms. Wilkerson added, “For me it wasn’t the most important basis of the argument, but it certainly is a perk.”

Legislators and same-sex marriage advocates said their primary motivation for the repeal was to allow all same-sex couples an opportunity to marry and to revoke a law that many saw as discriminatory. The law, believed to have been designed to uphold other states’ bans on interracial marriage, was invoked in 2004 by Gov. Mitt Romney, a same-sex marriage opponent who said he did not want to make Massachusetts “the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.”
Kofi Jones, spokeswoman for Secretary Dan O’Connell of Housing and Economic Development, said: “The administration believes repealing this discriminatory and antiquated law is simply the right thing to do. The study does show, though, that this action could also bring some added economic benefits to the commonwealth, which would be welcomed.”

Ted Jarrett, owner of the Old Mill on the Falls Bed and Breakfast in Hatfield, Mass., which plays host to many same-sex weddings, said: “Obviously it would help us from a business standpoint. I kind of feel like there will be people coming in.”

Politically, the California decision and a decision by Gov. David A. Paterson of New York to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, gave supporters of same-sex marriage here the fuel they needed to press for repeal without fear that it would become a lightning rod in the presidential election, advocates said.

“We were collectively thinking about planning to wait until after the November elections because we were concerned that the far right, the Karl Rove types of people, would once again try to use this issue as a wedge issue in the campaign,” said Marc Solomon, campaign director for MassEquality. “Once the California decision happened and out-of-state couples could go to California, there was no reason not to move forthwith.”

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said that many lawmakers felt the California ruling made support for lifting the ban far less controversial, and that the economic argument did not hurt.

“Like other states, it’s tough fiscal times,” Ms. Isaacson said, “and everyone recognizes that this will be an economic boon for Massachusetts because every gay person who comes here to marry, most won’t come alone.”

She continued, “They will bring their families and their friends and all those people will stay at the hotels, eat at the restaurants, shop at the stores and hire caterers and florists and musicians.”

The study predicts that most of the couples — about 21,000 — will come from New York, nearly half of the 48,761 same-sex couples in that state.

Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay rights group in New York, said that he could not speculate on the numbers and that “there are a certain percentage of people like myself” who will “wait till New York issues marriage licenses.”

But, he predicted “a lot of Jet Blue cancellations from LaGuardia to Laguna and some Amtrak purchases from New York to Boston,” adding, “Tanglewood, the Red Lion Inn, how do you say no?”

Mr. Van Capelle and other advocates said they expected the Massachusetts decision to galvanize efforts to persuade other states, particularly those near Massachusetts, to legalize same-sex marriage.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said that in a few states “there may be some impact.” But, he said, citing the 26 states with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage: “I wouldn’t say the other side is gaining momentum. I would say that the other side has just come up for air with the California ruling after a long period of regression.”

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the repeal “will open up a Pandora’s box of lawsuits to challenge the marriage requirements in other states.”

Mr. Mineau added, “And one thing for sure, it will affirm the need for a federal marriage amendment.”

And now for happier news... Watch this!


Continuing on...with the FACTS !

This IS NOT Jay Leno !

For all you who circulate an e-mail contributing the following story to Jay Leno, please get your facts together first. Jay Leno is not the best that America can be; he is an unappreciative brat, ungrateful to the country that allowed him to get where he's at...and that's a no-brainer.
Cross-posted from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53028






Made in the USA: Spoiled brats


Posted: November 20, 2006
1:00 am Eastern
By Craig R. Smith © 2008

The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right? The same magazine that employs Michael (Qurans in the toilets at Gitmo) Isikoff. Here I promised myself this week I would be nice and I start off in this way. Oh what a mean man I am.
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I starting thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home, you may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of having a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes; an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells. Just ask why they are going to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife but if he did … insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
I close with one of my favorite quotes from B.C. Forbes in 1953:
''What have Americans to be thankful for? More than any other people on the earth, we enjoy complete religious freedom, political freedom, social freedom. Our liberties are sacredly safeguarded by the Constitution of the United States, 'the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.' Yes, we Americans of today have been bequeathed a noble heritage. Let us pray that we may hand it down unsullied to our children and theirs.''
I suggest this Thanksgiving we sit back and count our blessings for all we have. If we don't, what we have will be taken away. Then we will have to explain to future generations why we squandered such blessing and abundance. If we are not careful this generation will be known as the ''greediest and most ungrateful generation.'' A far cry from the proud Americans of the ''greatest generation'' who left us an untarnished legacy.
___
And this just in...

Amid soaring gas prices, President Bush rightly announced on Monday that he would lift a long-standing executive order banning offshore oil drilling in an effort to increase domestic production.
And, he essentially dared Congress to do the same!
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded by telling President Bush, and the American people for that matter, to DROP DEAD!

Here's what President Bush said:

"When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition... The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress. Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court... For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump." [Emphasis Mine]

But according to media reports, Reid came right out and said he would BLOCK any amendments to lift the ban on offshore drilling. Rather, Reid is vowing to ram through legislation that could ADD 30 PERCENT TO THE COST OF CRUDE OIL!

According to CQ Politics:
"House and Senate Democratic leaders plan to bring energy legislation to the floor this week, using procedural tactics designed to block Republicans from offering amendments that would lift the drilling ban." [Emphasis Mine]
"In the Senate, Democrats hope to take up as early as Wednesday a still-un-drafted bill that would tighten regulation of speculation in energy futures, which some lawmakers contend adds as much as 30 percent to the price of crude oil.
[Emphasis Mine]

"Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said he would block any effort to propose amendments to the bill that did not deal directly with the speculation issue."

You read that right!

Harry Reid is essentially saying that he will BLOCK any legislation to drill for oil unless conservatives agree to pass legislation that would potentially DRIVE UP the price of gas at the pump.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

This Story Turns Up Other Surprises

The article below published by the Washington Post is very interesting in that no credit is given to the current administration or to President Bush. Why is that?

The post is always critical of anything that goes amuck and places all the blame on George W. Bush. It's obvious that this program (fingerprinting) has some positive results and poor George is forgotten altogether. The Post and the New York times were once adamant that The President was responsible for all the torture that never took place, now how about giving the ole man an atta-boy for a job well done...don't hold your breath.

Storm'n Norm'n

Post-9/11 Dragnet Turns Up Surprises

Biometrics Link Foreign Detainees To Arrests in U.S.

FBI agent Paul Shannon led a team sent to Afghanistan in 2001 to fingerprint and interview foreign fighters for a database of known or suspected terrorists. Here, he takes Saddam Hussein's prints after his capture in 2003.
FBI agent Paul Shannon led a team sent to Afghanistan in 2001 to fingerprint and interview foreign fighters for a database of known or suspected terrorists. Here, he takes Saddam Hussein's prints after his capture in 2003.

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 6, 2008; Page A01

In the six-and-a-half years that the U.S. government has been fingerprinting insurgents, detainees and ordinary people in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Horn of Africa, hundreds have turned out to share an unexpected background, FBI and military officials said. They have criminal arrest records in the United States.

There was the suspected militant fleeing Somalia who had been arrested on a drug charge in New Jersey. And the man stopped at a checkpoint in Tikrit who claimed to be a dirt farmer but had 11 felony charges in the United States, including assault with a deadly weapon.

The records suggest that potential enemies abroad know a great deal about the United States because many of them have lived here, officials said. The matches also reflect the power of sharing data across agencies and even countries, data that links an identity to a distinguishing human characteristic such as a fingerprint.

"I found the number stunning," said Frances Fragos Townsend, a security consultant and former assistant to the president for homeland security. "It suggested to me that this was going to give us far greater insight into the relationships between individuals fighting against U.S. forces in the theater and potential U.S. cells or support networks here in the United States."

The fingerprinting of detainees overseas began as ad-hoc FBI and U.S. military efforts shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It has since grown into a government-wide push to build the world's largest database of known or suspected terrorist fingerprints. The effort is being boosted by a presidential directive signed June 5, which gave the U.S. attorney general and other cabinet officials 90 days to come up with a plan to expand the use of biometrics by, among other things, recommending categories of people to be screened beyond "known or suspected" terrorists.

Fingerprints are being beamed in via satellite from places as far-flung as the jungles of Zamboanga in the southern Philippines; Bogota, Colombia; Iraq; and Afghanistan. Other allies, such as Sweden, have contributed prints. The database can be queried by U.S. government agencies and by other countries through Interpol, the international police agency.

ad_icon

Civil libertarians have raised concerns about whether people on the watch lists have been appropriately determined to be terrorists, a process that senior government officials acknowledge is an art, not a science.

Large-scale identity systems "can raise serious privacy concerns, if not singly, then jointly and severally," said a 2007 study by the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Biometrics. The ability "to cross reference and draw new, previously unimagined, inferences," is a boon for the government and the bane of privacy advocates, it said.

An FBI Mission

The effort, officials say, is bearing fruit.

"The bottom line is we're locking people up," said Thomas E. Bush III, FBI assistant director of the Criminal Justice Information Services division. "Stopping people coming into this country. Identifying IED-makers in a way never done before. That's the beauty of this whole data-sharing effort. We're pushing our borders back."

In December 2001, an FBI team was sent on an unusual mission to Afghanistan. The U.S. military had launched a wave of airstrikes aimed at killing or capturing al Qaeda fighters and their Taliban hosts. The FBI team was to fingerprint and interview foreign fighters as if they were being booked at a police station.

The team, led by Paul Shannon, a veteran FBI agent embedded with U.S. special forces, traveled to the combat zone toting briefcases outfitted with printer's ink, hand rollers and paper cards. The agents worked in Kandahar and Kabul. They traversed the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. They hand-carried the fingerprint records from Afghanistan to Clarksburg, W.Va., home to the FBI's criminal biometric database.

As they analyzed the results, they were surprised to learn that one out of every 100 detainees was already in the FBI's database for arrests. Many arrests were for drunken driving, passing bad checks and traffic violations, FBI officials said.

"Frankly I was surprised that we were getting those kind of hits at all," recalled Townsend, who left government in January. They identified "a potential vulnerability" to national security the government had not fully appreciated, she said.

The people being fingerprinted had come from the Middle East, North Africa and Pakistan. They were mostly in their 20s, Shannon recalled. "One of the things we learned is we were dealing with relatively young guys who were very committed and what they would openly tell you is that when they got out they were going back to jihad," he said. "They'd already made this commitment."

One of the first men fingerprinted by the FBI team was a fighter who claimed he was in Afghanistan to learn the ancient art of falconry. But a fingerprint check showed that in August 2001 he had been turned away from Orlando International Airport by an immigration official who thought he might overstay his visa. Mohamed al Kahtani would later be named by the Sept. 11 Commission as someone who allegedly had sought to participate in hijackings. He currently is in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Similarly, in 2004, an FBI team choppered to a remote desert camp on the Iraq-Iran border, home to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), whose aim is to overthrow the Iranian government. The MEK lead an austere lifestyle in which men are segregated from women and material goods are renounced. The U.S. State Department considers the organization to be a terrorist group.

The FBI team fingerprinted 3,800 fighters. More than 40, Shannon said, had previous criminal records in the agency's database.

While the FBI was busy collecting fingerprints, the military was setting up its own biometrics database, adding in iris and facial data as well. By October, the two organizations agreed to collaborate, running queries through both systems. The very first match was on the man who claimed to be a poor dirt farmer. Among his many charges were misdemeanors for theft and public drunkenness in Chicago and Utah, a criminal record that ran from 1993 to 2001, said Herb Richardson, who serves as operations manager for the military's Automated Biometric Identification System under a contract with Ideal Innovations of Arlington

Monday, July 14, 2008

Before reading the following article you should have a basic understanding of some of the terms used in the commentary. I've compiled just a short list but it should be just enough to raise your hackles...if it doesn't we're in serious trouble! (Heck, we're in serious trouble anyway!)


Some definitions you need to know…

KhomeinismA brief explanation

Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini (Persian: , ullāh Mūsawī Khumaynī) (September 24, 1902June 3 1989) was a senior Shi'a Muslim cleric, Islamic philosopher and marja (religious authority), and the political leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution which saw the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran. Following the revolution, Khomeini became the country's Supreme Leaderthe paramount political figure of the new Islamic Republic until his death.

Khomeini was a marja al-taqlid, ("source of imitation") and important spiritual leader to many Shia Muslims who developed the innovative theory of velayat-e faqih, the "guardianship of the jurisconsult (clerical authority)" that provided the theological basis for his rule of Iran. He was named Time's Man of the Year in 1979 and also one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century. Internationally he also had great influence, and has been called "the virtual face of Islam in Western popular culture.

Khomeini believed in Muslim unity and solidarity and the export of Islamic revolution throughout the world. "Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution."

Caliphate


noun

1.

the era of Islam's ascendancy from the death of Mohammed until the 13th century; some Moslems still maintain that the Moslem world must always have a calif as head of the community; "their goal was to reestablish the Caliphate"

2.

the territorial jurisdiction of a caliph

3.

the office of a caliph

Global Jihadi Salafists

An examination of the ideology that has inspired the global jihad and the emergence of its most dangerous incarnation. For more on this go here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/special/sala.html

Salafists, who tend to be alienated from mainstream European society, meet and mingle with jihadists, it fuses into a volatile mixture.”

Cross-posted from: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.599/pub_detail.asp

July 14, 2008

Exclusive: The Jihadist Movements’ Dual Nature and U.S. Policy after U.S. Elections

As part of his summer 2008 visiting scholar lectures at the European Foundation for Democracies, Dr. Walid Phares made a presentation at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales (French Institute for International Relations IFRI) in Brussels, on June 28, 2008.

Dr. Phares was introduced by IFRI's Brussels Director, DrSuzanne Nies, where the event was attended by a number of NGOs,EU officials and researchers. FSM has obtained from its contributor, Dr. Phares, a summary of his remarks.

Jihadist Movements Worldwide

In order to explain better the possible evolution of United States' policy vis-à-vis Jihadist movements following the American presidential election, Dr. Walid Phares dedicated the first part of his speech to analyzing the dual nature of the Jihadist movements worldwide. The term "Jihadist" is another - mostly American- equivalent of Islamism, a term used in Europe and in the Middle East to define radical Islamic Fundamentalists.

Academically, the "Jihadist movements" can be explained through a two trees metaphor. The first tree is the Salafist one. We can not write it off to a "violent activist movement"; it is a global movement that has a common ideological vision of the world. This ideology, which emerged in the 1920s, has been metastasizing since the beginning of the cold war. Its long term objective is the establishment of a caliphate mainly through an indoctrination process and the spread of the ideology throughout societies and governments. These Global Salafists - Wahhabis in Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Deobandis in the sub Indian continent - opposed the rise of modern and secular Arab and Muslim states and aimed at transforming them back into what was a Caliphate.

In early 1990s, Dr. Phares observed a clash between two schools within the Global Jihadi Salafists; he coined it the "Khartoum debate." Many Salafist activists -including those Jihadists returning from the War in Afghanistan - claimed that the long term process of indoctrination and penetration of societies was not efficient enough. As a consequence, they chose to engage themselves in "direct Jihad" or warfare against their perceived global enemies. Al Qaeda is the most visible example of a movement that follows this doctrine. This warfare occurs in such lands as Chechnya, Sudan or Algeria, but it is also targeted against the United States and other democracies. The other Islamists continued to follow a long term strategy of indoctrination and the spreading of their ideology.

The second tree is the Khomeinist movement based out of the Iranian Islamic Republic. Even though Khomeinism is significantly different from Salafism, the Iranian regime and its followers in the region seek the establishment of a regional and, ultimately global, Imamate, another form of Caliphate, led by the Shia. The Khomeinists have demonstrated a major difference with the first tree with regard to their organization and strategic discipline. Their movement is centralized and the main strategic decisions are made by the Iranian supreme leaders. The chain of execution is integrated and is carried out by the Pasdaran (Islamic Revolutionary Guards), and through them via Hezbollah in Lebanon and its networks spread throughout the world. The Lebanese Diaspora is an important vehicle to these networks. This Khomeinist (Shia) tree also has significant influence on radical Sunni groups, such as Hamas in Gaza, and other Islamists in Lebanon, thanks to the power of Iranian petrodollars. Whereas the Salafi Jihadi movement relies on the vast and dispersed pools of indoctrinated youth around the world, including those in the madrassas, the Khomeinist movement evolves around the Iranian regime strictly.

Counterterrorism Policy in the United States

One cannot adopt the same counterterrorism strategies to address both trees. Whereas the answer to the second tree is linked to geopolitical equations with Hamas, Iran or Hezbollah - which use terrorism within a balance of power and under a clear hierarchy of structures - the situation is more complex for Salafist movements. With the latter, counter-strategies involve identifying them, localizing them and acting on their funding as well.

From 2001 to 2006, in the war on terror's framework, the Bush administration has been engaged by both trees. That is to say that the American and international coalition have been confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to protect the elected government. At the same time, U.S. and allied forces have been engaged in Iraq to remove the Saddam Hussein regime, set up a democratic government to preserve its stability by fighting al Qaeda in the center and containing the infiltrations by Iran, Hezbollah and Syria in other areas.

In a parallel course to these two military interventions, a soft diplomatic campaign has been put in place: a Strategic Communication policy aiming to sweep the Arab public opinion towards democracy and rejection of extremism.

A major change occurred in 2006 when Democrats gained a majority in the U.S. Congress; it has driven some major evolutions in the American fight against terrorism, with two trends that have emerged. The first one, followed by the Administration, is to pursue the current massive effort in the two conflict areas: Afghanistan and Iraq and attempt to gain influence among local allies on the ground such as the tribes and local politicians. The other trend, which was advanced by elements in some conservative circles opposed to the war and large segments within the Democratic Party, advocates a withdrawal from the battlefields and a dialogue with the radicals in the region such as with the Iranian and Syrian regimes as well as with those non al Qaeda Jihadists and Islamists.

The next presidential election is going to give predominance to one or the other.

The Changing American Presidency's Impact on Counterterrorism Policy

Dr. Walid Phares, in the third part of his speech, developed his views of the possible evolution of American counterterrorism policy based on which candidate ultimately will succeed.

First, he referred to the changing situation that might bring about the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. The evolution would be slow at first, due to the fact that most of the new White House staff would be from among those who worked under the Clinton mandate. He will backed by a Democrat majority in Congress while bureaucracies in the military and diplomacy sectors will remain. The first half of the first mandate would be devoted to new statements about American foreign policy and the American position on terrorism. The second half would allow a first big shot delivered by American diplomats in the Middle East. In Iraq, we would see a gradual pullout and there would be some talks with Iran and Syria. Redeployment would be launched in order to satisfy these two regional powers. According to the speaker, a dramatic change towards more ideological assertions would occur during the second mandate if Obama wins it. The most dramatic changes away from the War on Terror will take place after re-election

Then, Dr. Phares referred to the changing situation that might come with the election of John McCain as President of the United States. We can sum it up with the following: "same general direction, but different approaches". The US forces' presence in Iraq will go on due to the insurgents' activities. Most of the Administration's bureaucracies will remain the same with exceptions. The attitude of John McCain vis à vis the Middle East will depend on the decisions made by various regional forces.

To conclude, we should not underestimate the civil society's evolution within Middle Eastern countries, which is not always reflected by Al Manar or Al Jazeera but also not by chat rooms, websites and forums on Internet. Even if Western media mostly reports violence and anti-Western attitudes, there is a deep evolution of civil societies towards more democracy. This evolution will depend on how authoritarian governments would react. Will they fiercely oppose the movement or will they reform?

IFRI's ‘s Tuesday lunch was concluded with an animated debate between the speaker and the audience on questions regarding NATO strategy in Afghanistan, the Muslim Brotherhood and the South East Muslim identity.

Brought to you by the editors and staff of FamilySecurityMatters.org.


You can find this online at: http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.599/pub_detail.asp

COPYRIGHT 2008 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.