.jpg)
Since I been votin’ for obama, my taxes been goin' up,
my boss man stopped offerin' health insurance,
and now my guns bein' taken away.
Damn you, George Bush !
Even if not true it should be. Only a matter of time and continued unemployment, cut back in various entitlements that can no longer be funded without busting the budget and it will come to pass.
Education , knowledge, an improved ability to reason, a more understandable message from conservatives and better black leadership is all it will take for black voters to cut the umbilical chord. (See 1 and 1a below.)
One day it may happen that even Arabs and Muslims will come to their senses as well. (See 1b below.)
---
More Obama appeasement? Do not count it out it is part of his DNA. (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
I often repeat postings when I believe they present a unique insight etc. Thus, I am urging you to read this op ed if you did not. I find his perspective quite fascinating. (See 3 below.)
---
Hagel just can't seem to show intelligent judgement so why not make him Sec. of Defense. (See 4 below.)
---
Hagel just can't seem to show intelligent judgement so why not make him Sec. of Defense. (See 4 below.)
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Blacks Are Fed Up with Obama; It’s about Time!
An increasing number of blacks appear to finally be getting angry with Obama. It’s just too bad it took four years and voting for Obama a second time for blacks to realize the president doesn’t care about their interests. Immigration and the president’s determination to get legislation passed granting amnesty to an estimated 11-20 million illegal aliens seems to be the straw that broke black liberals’ backs.
Recently some Black Americans have been calling into black talk radio shows like “Keeping it Real with Al Sharpton, complaining immigration is not an important issue to them. This is despite Al Sharpton’s plea to a caller that amnesty isn’t just a Latino issue. But according to a 2009 Migration Institute report, blacks only accounted for 9% of US immigrants.
With black unemployment at 13.8% almost twice the national rate of 7.9%, granting amnesty to more than 11 million illegal immigrant threatens to make jobs even more scare for blacks. As black radio host Earl Ingram noted his “listenership is anti-immigration” because they are angry illegals are here taking jobs from them because they are willing to work for less than minimum wage. A Pew Hispanic poll found during the height of the economic downturn 2009-2011 Hispanic employment grew by 6.5% while black employment grew by a minuscule 1%.
After giving Obama over 95% of their vote twice, blacks want to know when the first black president will focus on issues impacting blacks like: rising poverty, unemployment and incarceration rates, growing education gap and economic decline the breakdown of the black family?
When I tweeted about this lack of love blacks are feeling for their blind support of Obama a second time around, a black person replied: “Obama has always made it clear that he is the POTUS not the President of Black America.”
Indeed Obama is “president of all Americans” but Obama has made gay marriage a priority and less than 5% of the population is gay. He’s also made illegal immigration a priority because 71% of Hispanics voted for him but only make up 14% of the population. These two groups don’t look like the face of “All Americans.” But Obama won’t even give blacks a crumb. He has yet to name one black person to fill a cabinet position in his second term.
It may be too late for blacks to influence Obama because he doesn’t have an election hanging over his head. But blacks should take a hard look at the gang of “Blacktivists” like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and organizations like NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus purporting to fight for what’s good for blacks and ask them what have they done for blacks?
Blacks also need to question the Congressional Black Caucus about its agenda. In its press release outlining its plan for the 113th Congress, the CBC states “For more than four decades, the Congressional Black Caucus policy agenda has promoted and advocated for legislation that supports social and economic progress . . . for African Americans.”
If this is true, why is it blacks have been on an economic and family decline since 1971 when the caucus was formed? Today more black babies are born out of wedlock, 73%, than to married homes compared to 30% of white babies. And the above mentioned statistics show government policies pushed by the Democrat CBC haven’t helped improve the plight of the black man.
Why is immigration reform a key item in the CBC’s agenda? “Advancing legislation and policies that lead to comprehensive immigration reform” will do nothing to improve the economic situation for blacks. Allowing a flood of illegals into the country will only exacerbate the unemployment situation for blacks.
Blacks also need to demand their “black groups” and so called “black spokespersons” reject comparisons to criminals crossing into our country to the civil rights movement or slavery. Blacks were brought to America in 1619 against their will, treated like property, worked like animals and violated sexually. The least America could do in 1964 was to grant blacks equal rights to whites. Illegal immigrants chose to voluntarily break laws to enter, work and remain in the US illegally. America owes them an enforcement of our laws along with the employers who illegally employ them.
If black liberals are really angry at the lack of attention Obama is giving them, perhaps they should use this as a lesson. Instead of voting for candidates based on race or party, perhaps black Americans should try giving candidates a thorough vetting before going to the polls and hold politicians accountable to records in exchange for votes. Maybe then blacks would start getting something in return other than the status quo.
I stopped celebrating Black History Month many years ago.
What is there to celebrate? I am writing about this issue because of the misguided emphasis too many African-Americans are placing on the murder of Hadiya Pendleton. She was the 15-year-old sophomore shot to death a week after performing with her school band at the president's inaugural. She was allegedly killed by an 18-year-old black gang member in a public park not far from President Barack Obama's South Side Chicago home.
Black people, politicians in particular, avoid discussing the problems at the heart of Hadiya Pendleton's death, the heavy toll of black-on-black violence and the moral decay that keeps us trapped.
I expect politicians to avoid the hard issues, but I worry when black residents play this cynical game. Damon Stewart, Hadiya Pendleton's godfather, did so when he spoke at the girl's funeral. "She is a representative not just of the people in Chicago," he said. "She is a representative of people across this nation who have lost their lives."
Stewart did not mention the real problem that begs to be addressed: Hadiya is representative of the high number of blacks killed and brutalized by other blacks each year in the United States.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly 7,000 blacks are killed annually, 94 percent by other blacks. Along with being victims of black-on-black murders, African-Americans most often are the victims of violent personal crimes such as robbery and assault.
What is there to celebrate during February?
I came of age during Jim Crow. We were taught that history is a means to understand the present and a guide to securing a wholesome future. We studied our history and celebrated it every day. We were taught to admire and respect the courage and accomplishments of those who survived — with dignity — America's institutionalized racism, its violence and the poverty it created.
We were taught that those who came before us were our heroes, our role models. And we celebrated them. Our teachers placed the images and sayings of famous civil rights activists, educators, business owners, celebrities and others on our classroom walls.
I memorized the words of W.E.B. Du Bois behind my homeroom teacher's desk: "We cannot stand still; we cannot permit ourselves simply to be victims."
Du Bois' saying and those of other influential blacks were more than mere words. Based on real experiences, they served as a blueprint for life. They gave us a deep sense of personal responsibility, self-respect and a commitment to serve others.
They taught us empathy, the ability to care, to share in another person's feelings and emotions and thoughts.
We learned to be a community. We cared about our neighbors, their property and the safety of their children. This was social capital. We knew that our power came from cooperation and trust that benefited the greater good.
Vandalizing a neighbor's home was to vandalize our own home. Assaulting a neighbor was to assault oneself. Killing a neighbor was to kill a part of the community. A neighbor who let trash pile up in his yard trashed the value of his neighbors' yards. Calling the police was not viewed as snitching but as being responsible and caring. We knew that crime destabilized our community and threatened everyone.
Empathy and social capital are absent from too many of today's black communities nationwide. In places like Chicago's South Side — where violent teenage gangs have replaced the traditional family — empathy is seen as a weakness and social capital is seen as that warm-and-fuzzy stuff that whites and black traitors practice.
Many African-Americans blame urban poverty for this crisis. But poverty does not explain away the lack of a moral compass, the source of the violence and general neglect that have turned our communities into dystopias.
What is there to celebrate during Black History Month?
1b)Two Years In: The Arab Spring Could Use Some Talmud
By Noah Beck
The Talmud is a pillar of Jewish law, containing dialectical opinions from thousands of rabbis debating law, philosophy, history, theology, and myriad other topics. By displaying argumentation by many minds, a page of Talmud enshrines dissent.
Unfortunately, the Talmudic spirit is almost entirely absent from the Middle East. Except for Israel, the region has suffered for decades from autocratic regimes that rule by force -- repressing freedom of the press, political rights, and dissent. The marketplace of ideas is desolate: the 2002 Arab Human Development Report claimed that only about 330 books are annually translated into Arabic. Estimates for 2010 improved but are still under 3,000 books annually for about 400 million people. The figures for books written in Arabic were not much better. According to Kitab -- a joint venture between the Abu Dhabi Authority for Culture and Heritage and the Frankfurt Book Fair -- an estimated 5,910 books were written in Arabic and published across the Arab world in 2008 (more recent statistics could not be found). Israel, with under eight million people, in 2011 translated about 700 books into Hebrew and produced another 5,600 homegrown books.
The Arab Spring was supposed to usher in an era of greater freedom. Instead, autocratic and corrupt secular rule has been supplanted with Islamist regimes no more liberal than the ones they replaced. If Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi's greatest diplomatic achievement during his first seven months in office was to host an Iranian president for the first time since Islamists revolutionized Iran into a brutal theocracy in 1979, Egyptians should be worried.
Just as troubling, dissension is met with ruthless violence. The most glaring example is Syria, where 60,000 have died in under two years. In Egypt, soccer riots killed about 80 people in 2012, and the judicial response last month was to kill more people (21 death sentences), which sparked more riots, killing dozens more. In Tunisia, opposition leader Chokri Belaid was assassinated last week, and violence between police and mourners erupted at his funeral. A few weeks earlier, the Tunisian army deployed to fight demonstrators demanding to know why, two years after their revolution, their lives had not improved. Tunisians (like Egyptians) are learning that Islamists know little about today's global economy. In Libya, the toppling of Moammar Gaddafi's cruel dictatorship has been followed mostly by chaos, with armed Islamists violently challenging the central government.
The region sorely lacks a Talmudic appreciation of debate, questioning, persuasion, negotiation, and other non-violent means of exploring and resolving conflicts. But the tradition of intellectually challenging authority goes back to Abraham, the first Jew (and, as the father of Ishmael, a patriarch to Muslims as well): Abraham dared to negotiate with God over the number of righteous needed to spare Sodom.
The "Talmudic spirit" helped Israel to develop into the only true democracy in the Middle East: 17 political parties, including a meaningful government opposition; over 20 diverse, independent newspapers; outspoken human rights groups; legal protection of minorities; an independent judiciary; and free and fair elections that have peacefully transferred power over 30 times in 65 years of statehood. Israeli democracy applies the rule of law even to the most powerful: violence against women is punished, even when perpetrated by the president (Katsav), and corruption is exposed and prosecuted, even if by the prime minister (Olmert). Of course, Israel is far from perfect, as evidenced by Yitzhak Rabin's assassination and persistent political, social, and economic problems; but it's still a paragon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Lord Acton's insightful observation (power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely) is as true today as it was in 1887, and therein lies the genius of democracy and divided government with a balance of powers. Democracy minimizes not just corruption, but also inept governance. A monopoly on power rarely includes a monopoly on wisdom; au contraire: autocracies breed incompetence, because their policies aren't regularly subjected to rigorous scrutiny.
Institutionalized freedom doesn't only promote good government and human dignity; free thought and debate are also powerful engines for innovation, which brings huge economic rewards, as Israel, a country without oil, has proven. Known as the "Startup Nation," tiny Israel has ten Nobel prizes and, in 2011, over 60 companies listed on the NASDAQ (more than any country after the USA and China), despite having to devote disproportionate resources to national defense because of the innumerable security threats targeting its citizens since 1948. Israel's culture of questioning and free thinking has also helped it to develop arguably the best air force in the world, whose most senior pilot can be critiqued by the most junior airman; nobody is above error.
Another Talmudic principle for the Arab Spring is the sanctity of life. As the Sanhedrin 37a notes, "to save one life is tantamount to saving a whole world." Section 5:32 of Surat Al-Mā'idah in the Quran echoes the same concept. But that seems to have been ignored in much of the Middle East, where people can be killed over an offensive cartoon. In the Arab world (and Europe), there have been countless hateful cartoons demonizing Jews and Israel, yet nobody ever dies as a result.
Indeed, Arab regimes have incessantly scapegoated Israel to distract their subjects from domestic discontent. For decades, Israel has been so vilified that the idea of emulating anything about it is unthinkable. But maybe -- as the Arab world introspects, seeking a better future -- the taboo against anything Israeli can be a post-revolution opportunity to question and debate indoctrinated "wisdom."
Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, a geopolitical thriller about the Iranian nuclear threat and current Middle East developments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)US plan for UN to endorse Khamenei’s fatwa? Shock in Jerusalem
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared Iran was a “nuclear state” during his Cairo visit two weeks ago. Saturday, Feb. 16, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei shed more light by saying, “Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons but no power could stop Tehran’s access to an atomic bomb if it intended to build it. “
Iran’s leaders are quite frank about the state of their nuclear program: the components of a nuclear weapon have been procured - defying Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu red lines - but Tehran has not yet crossed the threshold to assemble it - although this could be done modularly.
And if the Islamic Republic has acquired the components and knowledge for surreptitiously building one bomb, it stands to reason that three or five would be no object.
Iranian scientists attended the latest North Korean atomic test. Six days later, the Sunday Times repeated the story, naming Mohsen Fakhrizade-Mahabadi, the senior Iranian scientist of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, as the official present. Our Iranian sources strongly doubt that Mahabadi was there because he is too afraid of kidnapping or assassination to ever leave Iran.
the Iranian-North Korean nuclear partnership arrangement – to which Washington and Jerusalem prefer to turn a blind eye –assigns to Iran the development of small nuclear warheads for delivery by missiles and to North Korea the development of ballistic missiles able to land a warhead at any point on the planet.
The two governments work smoothly in tandem, regularly pooling the data obtained from advances in their respective programs.
One such advance was Iran’s successful launch of a monkey into orbit at an altitude of 120 kilometers on Jan. 28 and its apparent return it to earth. Washington tried hard to throw cold water on the Iranian feat, but Tehran countered by citing Western sources as confirming the launch.
A gap still remains in their accounts: Washington does not question the launch of a space capsule - only the monkey aboard.
However, the North Korean test of a “miniature nuclear device," combined with Iran’s ability to launch a capsule with a monkey payload into orbit, add up to their having achieved a nuclear warhead capacity through shared technology.
After registering these menacing strides, officials in Jerusalem were dismayed to learn that instead of planning to cut them short, US President Barack’s Obama’s circle in Washington was studying a bizarre plan for the opposite objective.
It surfaced in an article published Tuesday, Feb. 12, by Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a veteran American diplomat who is influential in the framing of Obama’s Iranian policy.
This what he wrote: “In years past, he (Khamenei) issued a fatwa condemning nuclear weapons. Washington could take advantage of this fact by drafting a UN Security Council resolution endorsing the fatwa. This could be a small step toward boosting Khamenei’s international profile while simultaneously pressuring Iran to follow its own religious decree.”
Instead of dismantling these rogue nuclear programs, Pickering was proposing to legitimize Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb capacity that only stopped one step short of assembling a bomb.
For the Shiite republic, UN endorsement as a nuclear power would be an epic triumph with ramifications for many years to come on its standing and the shape of the Middle East and Persian Gulf.
For the Shiite republic, UN endorsement as a nuclear power would be an epic triumph with ramifications for many years to come on its standing and the shape of the Middle East and Persian Gulf.
It would also endow Khamenei’s fatwa with false religious value – and not just for Sunni Muslims. Khamenei has neither the authority nor the erudition for issuing a binding Shiite fatwa either. Yet Pickering proposes extending the supreme leader a religious honor denied him by the leading Shiite clerics of Qom.
This fatwa has always been dismissed until now as a piece of propaganda designed to disguise the military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program and support Tehran’s claim that it was purely for peaceful use and research.
The stratagem floating around the White house for buttering up Khamenei and granting his edict international legitimacy just weeks before President Obama’s March 20 visit to Jerusalem is causing consternation among his Israeli hosts. It is a worrying pointer to the direction in which his Iran policy is heading.
2a)
Doing a Reagan on North Korea
By Oh Young-jin
Have we waged the wrong war against North Korea? Then, can our new President Park Geun-hye redirect our strategy and finish that feral beast once and for all? These are complicated questions but the ghost of one “complicated simple” man may beg to answer from his grave: Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States who is credited with giving the Soviet Union a final push toward the brink of collapse during his 1981-1989 reign. We have done virtually everything possible to deal with North Korea, which has brought itself closer to becoming a nuclear state with its recent third underground test. For 10 years under Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, we employed the “sunshine policy” of engaging the North in the hope of leading it to an “in-stage,” assisted death. It didn’t. President Lee Myung-bak has applied a rule of reciprocity in dealing with the North. But this has obviously not worked. We may as well feel we have run out of options but Reagan would say otherwise. His winning strategy was well captured by three landmark events. On March 8, 1983, he first called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” marking the start of the largest peacetime military buildup in U.S. history and prodding the archrival into a competition that it was bound to lose. At that time, the Soviets were under a post-Brezhnev series of weak leaders such as Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko and Mikhail Gorbachev. The U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP) per capita was more than double that of the Soviets, although one may assume with a degree of certainty that the latter may have inflated their figures. On March 23, Reagan announced his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also called Star Wars, which was aimed at nullifying at once Moscow’s numerical superiority in the number of nuclear warheads. This effort to free the U.S. from the old nuclear deterrent concept of MAD or mutually assured destruction failed in delivering what it promised but, ironically, did succeed on a bigger purpose by luring the Soviets into an arms race it couldn’t win. Reagan completed his three-part act in 1987 when he declared during a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, “Tear down this wall.” It was Reagan’s advanced double eulogy for communism as the wall fell in 1989 and the USSR disintegrated in 1991. So we still have a trump card to play against the North. Let’s do a Reagan on it by playing along with the North in a game that it calls its own but statistics show it can never win. According to official data, our population is twice as large as that of the North; our GDP 40 times the North’s and GNP per capita close to 20 times larger. Park has partially answered herself when she recently reminded the North that the Soviets, its former sponsor, collapsed not because it had no nuclear weapons. All it needs may be a little push. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Welfare State and Manhood
By William J. Meisler
There is no question that the recent decision of the Obama administration to admit women to military combat units represents the crowning achievement of the feminist agenda. By elevating women to the same level as men throughout our defense forces, a fully coed military, just like a college dormitory, has become the law of the land. To exultant feminists, the glass ceiling in the military has at last been removed.
But to the statists or to big-government ideologues and their supporters, the motivation behind the admission of women into combat is the reverse of the feminist's motivation, because the statist knows that for the social welfare state to succeed, it is a question not of women being elevated, but of men being degraded. To the statist, the fundamental purpose of employing women in military combat is to destroy the unique virtues that define manhood
Andreios, the ancient Greek word for "the courageous man," and the Latin word virtus, meaning "courage," both have their roots in the word "man" in their respective languages, indicating that the conception of courage to the ancients was intimately related to a certain type of virtue or behavior which they considered the defining or essential aspect of being a man. Our terms "manliness," "manly virtue," and "manly courage" somewhat approximate the ancient terms. The origin of those ancient words for courage is fitting, since throughout history, courage has always been considered both the epitome of manly behavior or virtue and the essence of a man who has the maturity, autonomy, and self-confidence to face the world based upon his own individual excellence.
Our Constitution was written by and for men who lived lives based upon these traditional views of virtue and manliness. That is why, in order for the entitlement state to succeed, the Constitution must be ignored, violated, and deconstructed repeatedly. Our present constitutional chaos is very reminiscent of the last hundred years of the Roman Republic, which finally ended in the dictatorship of Julius Caesar and the subsequent establishment of the de facto Roman imperial system by Augustus based upon republican institutions which remained in effect, but only de iure. This is very much like what we see in our own times, in which our Constitution remains in effect de iure, while, de facto, much of our government functions in an extra-constitutional fashion. Under such chaotic conditions, a population that has lost its virtue can be easily fooled into believing that they are still a free people, while their liberty and self-reliance are being stolen from them in the name of security and entitlements -- or, as the Roman satirist Juvenal called the latter, "bread and circuses."
This extends into citizens' lives far more deeply than they will readily admit. For example, FDIC insurance is clearly unconstitutional, yet how many Americans these days would support the discontinuation of FDIC insurance on the grounds that it is a threat to the integrity of the Constitution? But a virtuous man would support the removal of the FDIC program to save the Constitution, because that man understands that a necessary part of virtue is the freedom to fail -- the very antithesis of the welfare state. For without the freedom to fail, there is no element of risk, which is fundamental to the development of the courage, virtue, and self-reliance -- all of which underlie what makes a man a man in the sense understood by our founding fathers and many earlier cultures.
Manly virtue historically was not considered a common or even desirable trait in women, whose own female virtues were valued for different social purposes. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the welfare state is more popular among women than men, because many women, when they cannot find the security or support which in the past they received from individual men (such as a husband), will turn to the government for that security and support. Leftists have contrived and supported this state of affairs to the maximum in our increasingly fragmented society.
That is not to say that women cannot display virtues more characteristic of men. Roman historians frequently praised the celebrated matrons who helped build Rome. Esther had the courage to face the Great King of Persia in order to save her people. Many female settlers on the American frontier exhibited what could be called manly virtue. A modern example of a woman displaying manly virtue is Lady Thatcher. But as a rule, societies developed and thrived based upon men and women each displaying the virtues typical of their respective genders in a complimentary fashion. When men no longer play their part, either because they choose not to or because women no longer require them to, women readily turn to the social welfare state, which is more than happy to oblige them.
The purpose and result of the welfare state is to remove both the element of risk in life and the reward that comes to those willing to take that risk. For the welfare state to accomplish its purpose, everyone must be brought down to a level of single sameness as much as possible, submerging the individual to the group, and no one must be allowed to strive to achieve more for himself than is beneficial to the whole group. In the welfare state, there is no place for individual nobility, heroism, courage, or virtue. Since risk, reward, courage, and virtue are essential to manliness, it follows that the presence of such virtue in the male population is a major impediment to the establishment of the welfare state.
Since manliness is the primary obstacle to the establishment of the welfare state, the obvious solution for the statist is to disparage manliness and make men more like women, which is exactly what our educational system and popular culture, both in the hands of the left, have been busy doing: shaming traditional male behavior in young boys, drugging the boys who are allegedly hyperactive, promoting gun control, and encouraging men to show their "feminine side" -- while at the same time insisting that women can do anything men can do and encouraging women to mimic male patterns of behavior, including promiscuity, to the point that now women are to be deployed in combat. Even dodgeball and bullying are threats to the socialist enterprise; both must be suppressed. Better, the progressives think, to encourage state-sponsored false self-esteem or "it takes a village"-type thinking. What better way to discourage individual virtue?
The welfare state is nothing less than an assault on manly virtue. It is no accident that in the welfare-dependent family, the position of father is obsolete. Government entitlement programs simply apply that concept more broadly throughout society.
Several years ago, I read a story about a young couple who were told by the wife's obstetrician that the wife needed to be hospitalized to insure the health of the mother and the baby. Because the insurance company would not pay for the hospitalization, the woman was not hospitalized. The result was that the woman nearly lost her life and did lose the baby. The husband was indignant and sued the insurance company.
Whatever the merits of his claims against the insurance company, the truth is that it was the husband, not the insurance company, who was ultimately responsible for his wife's safety and care. He was a healthy young man; he should have found some way to pay for the hospitalization by whatever means, even if it meant working a second job at night or whatever. That is what a virtuous man would have done. What good is suing the insurance company ex post facto? Even if you get a settlement, the baby is still dead. And what if his wife had died?
This story illustrates the consequences of men relinquishing their virtue to a third party -- in this particular instance to an insurance company, but in a broader sense the same considerations apply to the welfare state.
The statist must deconstruct manhood in order to be able to establish the social welfare state. It is the centerpiece of the whole enterprise. There is no better way to deny the special qualities of manliness than by claiming that there are no differences between the sexes, which conveniently also fits the agenda of the statist's fellow-traveler, the feminist. Once manly virtue has been fully relinquished and suppressed, the statist can then mold and manipulate a docile, servile population in whatever way he wishes.
And then America truly will no longer be, as our national anthem states, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
)
A pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas candidate for the Iak at Rutgers University in 2007, according to another professor on campus.
A pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas candidate for the Iranian presidency, a man linked to Iranian-controlled front groups, brought former Republican Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to speak at Rutgers University in 2007, according to another professor on campus
.
Hooshang Amirahmadi, who led Rutgers’ Center for Middle Eastern Studies when Hagel came to campus, is the founder and president of the American-Iranian Council. He arranged for Hagel’s speech on March 2, 2007, the faculty source told The Daily Caller. (RELATED OPINION — Chuck Hagel: the darling of Tehran)
.
Hooshang Amirahmadi, who led Rutgers’ Center for Middle Eastern Studies when Hagel came to campus, is the founder and president of the American-Iranian Council. He arranged for Hagel’s speech on March 2, 2007, the faculty source told The Daily Caller. (RELATED OPINION — Chuck Hagel: the darling of Tehran)
Iran’s Guardian Council cleared Amirahmadi to run for the presidency in 2013. Approval of the regime is required before candidates’ names can appear on the ballot. To be approved, candidates must be Shia, male, and committed to the Islamic revolution.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/18/supporter-of-iranian-dictatorship-brought-chuck-hagel-to-rutgers-university-for-2007-speech/#ixzz2LFoR9oZw
No comments:
Post a Comment