Thursday, August 23, 2012
Iran's supremo orders fresh jihad terror attacks on West
From: Jihad Watch
Iran's Supreme Leader has ordered the country's Revolutionary Guards to intensify its campaign of terror attacks against the West and its allies in retaliation for supporting the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
According to Western intelligence officials, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave the order to the elite Quds Force unit following a recent emergency meeting of Iran's National Security Council in Tehran held to discuss a specially-commissioned report into the implications for Iran of the Assad regime's overthrow.
Damascus is Iran's most important regional ally, and the survival of the Assad regime is regarded as vital to sustaining the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia which controls southern Lebanon.
The report, which was personally commissioned by Mr Khamenei, concluded that Iran's national interests were being threatened by a combination of the U.N. sanctions imposed over Iran's nuclear programme and the West's continuing support for Syrian opposition groups attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.
Intelligence officials say the report concludes that Iran "cannot be passive" to the new threats posed to its national security, and warns that Western support for Syrian opposition groups was placing Iran's "resistance alliance" in jeopardy, and could seriously disrupt Iran's access to Hizbollah in Lebanon.
It advised that the Iranian regime should demonstrate to the West that there were "red lines" over what it would accept in Syria, and that a warning should be sent to "America, the Zionists, Britain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others that they cannot act with impunity in Syria and elsewhere in the region."
Mr Khamenei responded by issuing a directive to Qassem Suleimani, the Quds Force commander, to intensify attacks against the West and its allies around the world.
The Quds Force has recently been implicated in a series of terror attacks against Western targets. Last year U.S. officials implicated the organisation in a failed assassination attempt against the Saudi Arabian ambassador to Washington. It was also implicated in three bomb attacks against Israeli diplomats in February, planning to attack the Eurovision song contest in Azerbaijan while two Iranians were arrested in Kenya last month for possessing explosives....
Another Prominent Liberal Endorses Romney-Ryan
By: Bob Beauprez
/ Townhall.com / Finance
Silverman's support of Romney is particularly notable as he publicly supported Barack Obama in 2008, has spent most of his life as a Democrat, is Jewish, a member of the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, and a self-identified "moderate."
Silverman's endorsement is the lead article currently posted on the home page of our website. Here's a key excerpt:
The Greatest Threat to our Democracy
By: Ben Shapiro / Townhall Daily
The American system of democracy is under threat. It's under threat from an Obama campaign that seeks to polarize Americans along race and class lines. It's under threat from a Democratic Party that seeks to pit those who pay taxes against those who don't.
But most of all, it's under attack from America's public sector unions.
Mallory Factor explains in his new book, "Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind," just how the unions pervert the political system. They demonstrate how our government has become subject to the demands of an ever-more-powerful minority -- and how that level of control breeds national bankruptcy.
In essence, government worker unions run the Democratic Party. Franklin D. Roosevelt long opposed the notion that government workers should be allowed to unionize; he recognized that the ultimate power of unions is the ability to strike, and that government workers striking would be acting against the interests of the dispersed taxpayers. That was unacceptable.
But over time, FDR's clarity of vision fell away. In 1962, JFK, recognizing the increasing power of private unions, realized that government employees who unionized could build the path to permanent Democratic governance. Here's how the scheme would work. The government would insist on bargaining with unions; employees would have to join unions in order to work and receive representation. Unions would be able to exact dues from their members, and they would use those dues to elect their favored politicians. Those politicians would then strike cushy deals for the unions. The winners: politicians, unions and working union members. The losers: taxpayers, who would subsidize both union salaries and Democratic campaigns.
Democrats across the country quickly adopted this strategy. The system of forced dues now rules larges swaths of the United States, destroying the fundamental freedom of labor that should be an American birthright. In certain states, private individuals have been forced into unions -- and more importantly, into paying union dues -- simply for caring for their disabled children.
But the unions have now become the masters of the Democrats rather than vice versa. As Factor writes, "Democrats live in fear of the people that really impact their reelection campaigns -- the union Shadowbosses. ... Open Secrets reported that of the top ten Congressional candidates whom labor spent money to defeat in 2008, all lost their races."
The cost of union domination has been economic stagnation and widespread bankruptcy. As Factor writes, "Over the last ten years, the federal government has subsidized more and more state government spending, covering 34.1 percent of all state spending in 2011, up from 25.7 percent ten years before."
Overall, as Factor points out, "Lightly unionized states do much better than highly unionized states." The average real personal income growth from 2000 to 2010 in the seven most unionized states averaged 7.8 percent; in the seven least unionized states, that average was a whopping 24.9 percent. Government workers' unions impoverish Americans.
There's only one solution to taking back our country. It starts by taking control of our tax dollars by booting out of office those who are in bed with the public employee unions. Only when the corrupt cycle between the Democratic Party and their public-employee union shadowbosses is broken can American democracy be restored in full.
What If The Media Actually Told The Truth?
by Wayne Allyn Root / Personal Liberty DigestHello. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. Today’s video commentary http://personalliberty.com/2012/08/23/what-if-the-media-actually-told-the-truth/?eiid= is about a strange concept:
What if the media actually decided to tell the truth?
Have you seen the latest Newsweek magazine cover out this week? Ultra-left Newsweek’s cover story features a photo of Obama and the headline: “Hit the Road Barack, Why We Need a New President.” My, how the mighty have fallen! Is it possible the mainstream media are finally starting to grasp what I predicted three months ago: that Obama will lose in a landslide? Has the first domino fallen? As the media realize that Obama will not only lose, but lose big, I predict this will be the first of many negative headlines for Obama. After all, no one likes to bet on a lame horse.
Why the change of heart? The latest Gallop Poll has Romney up by 2 points. That’s before the GOP Convention. Rasmussen (my most trusted pollster) has had Romney up by 3 to 4 points most days for a solid month. Rasmussen also has Romney winning Indiana, North Carolina, Florida and dead even in Wisconsin (all States Obama won in 2008). Obama is in deep trouble and that’s before America gets to see Paul Ryan debate Joe Biden and realizes that Biden is a worn-out union hack with no knowledge of facts whatsoever.
What if the media actually try playing fair and balanced and telling the truth? Here is what they’d report:
If the media told the truth, instead of harping on Romney’s “female gap” they’d report on Obama’s “male gap,” “white gap,” “senior gap,” “Christian gap” and “military veteran gap.” Obama is sinking fast with all these important voting groups. Romney is winning by landslide margins with them all. Obama loses the male vote by as much, or more, than he wins among females. Funny how the media never mention that!
If the media told the truth, they’d challenge Obama’s lies that his bailout of GM and Chrysler is a model of success. In reality, it is a model of disaster: a $25 billion loss for the American taxpayer. If the media told the truth, they’d report that the much of the $25 billion went to pay off auto unions that contributed heavily to Obama, while stealing bondholders’ entire investment.
They’d also report that while Obama used taxpayer money to make whole every pension for every union member of GM and Chrysler, he let the pensions of non-union autoworkers go bankrupt. If the media think this is success, I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
If the media told the truth, they’d report that Obama is the first President in modern history to never pass a budget. How many Americans have heard that Obama’s most recent budget was voted down 99-0 in the U.S. Senate? Obama’s budget was so ridiculous that every single Democrat voted against it. I guess the media just forgot about that.
If the media told the truth, they’d call Vice President Joe Biden a racist and “gutter politician” for telling a primarily black audience the GOP plan is “to put y’all back in chains.” Cutting spending is hardly akin to slavery. The truth the media should report is that putting American taxpayers over $5 trillion more in debt in only 3½ years is enslaving our children and grandchildren to a lower quality of life. But the media have been careful not to mention that form of slavery.
If the media told the truth, they’d report that Paul Ryan’s plan reforms Medicare and saves it for future generations (with no change for anyone over 55) while President Obama has stolen $700 million from Medicare to pay for Obamacare (with no plan whatsoever to save this debt-riden, out-of-control program). They’d also report that Obama’s massive January tax increase raises taxes on dividends and interest to levels not seen in decades. Seniors live off investment income, interest and dividends. With Obama cutting their income, many seniors will lose their homes and retirement income. If the media told the truth, they would report:
“This guy Obama clearly hates old people.”
Liberal feminists often call men “verbally abusive.” If the media told the truth, they’d report that Obama is the “verbally abusive President.” His never-ending punching bags are small-business owners and the rich. His off-teleprompter rants such as “You didn’t build that,” “The private sector is doing fine” and “We want to spread the wealth around” demonstrate Obama’s total economic incompetence and lack of understanding that America’s business owners provide the jobs and taxes that pays for government. How can any educated journalist protect a President so ignorant (and arrogant) as to not know that without businesspeople and entrepreneurs there would be no government services or employees?
If the media told the truth, they’d report Obama is “the bribery President.” Free contraception to women, amnesty through Executive Order to young Hispanics, advertising campaigns in Mexico to inform illegals in the USA that they qualify for food stamps, creating an Office of African-American Education. Every day, comes a new bribe to Obama’s voters, all within weeks of the election. Yet the media are silent. They are like Sgt. Schultz of the “Hogan’s Heroes” television series: “I see nothing! I know nothing!”
If the media told the truth, they’d report we are facing economic collapse. They would report the tragic economic indicators just out for July:
- Last month, California’s sales tax revenues plunged a shocking $539 million below expectations.
- The jobless rate rose in 44 States in July, including 9 out of 10 battleground States.
- In the 10th (Ohio) it stayed even.
My advice to the national media: Newsweek did it. You can do it, too. Break your Obama addiction. The truth will set you free! More importantly, it will set America free!
Well, a guy can dream, can’t he?
Obama's newest ploy for votes
By: Diane Sori
As Barack Hussein Obama’s poll numbers start to fall some of the msm rags, like Newsweek, are starting to turn their backs on him. And with panic mode starting to set in what does Obama do...he’s now trying to make nice-nice with Binyamin Netanyahu after finally realizing how serious BiBi is about a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
A reality check has set in for Obama as he’s finally been forced to accept the fact that Israel could care less what he thinks or has to say. With Obama really hoping that Israel holds off a strike until after the election knowing BiBi would go without so much as giving him a heads up, Obama would then have no chance to use this for his re-election fodder or to warn his muslim pals. And with rumors circulating of late that only a binding US promise to strike Iran next spring might somewhat sway Netanyahu’s plans, I seriously doubt Obama would give him either for fear of a scolding from his muslim brethren.
Word is also leaking out from Israel that Netanyahu plans to call for Iran’s expulsion at the next meeting of the UN General Assembly. Poor Obama...what a dilemma...does he back Netanyahu’s motion for expulsion or does he stand fast against Israel. I think we know what he really wants to do but in this heated campaign season he just might side with Israel to garner and shore up the Jewish vote, which he sees slipping way as more and more Jews are starting to support Mitt Romney. To that effect, the White House is trying to set up a meeting between Obama and Netanyahu for some time in September, because with both men at a stalemate over Iran, this is hurting Obama’s re-election bid not only with the Jewish vote but with the Evangelical vote as well.
And while Iran still considers this threat by Israel as more of a saber rattling than as a sign of an impending attack, Iran continues to boast that they could hit both Israeli and US bases if they are indeed attacked. And with Iran and Hezbollah intrinsically tied together and feeding off each other, Israel can be most certain that its civilian population would be bombarded with thousands of rockets launched from Lebanon, Hezbollah’s home base, in retaliation for any strike against Iran.
And that is a given, as Hezbollah's rockets are Iran’s first line of defense for their nuclear program. Point blank, these rockets must be taken out. Remember, most Lebanese, especially the Lebanese Christians, don’t want Hezbollah or their rockets in their country...they’re tired of war. It would probably make sense for Israel to take these rockets out before moving on to Iran.
But yet another option has also recently been thrown into the mix, that being that Israel may decide to disable Iran’s nuclear program by going for its leaders. Some top military experts are saying that if Israel can no longer shut down Iran’s nuclear weapon’s capacity but only delay it, then Netanyahu may not only try to stop them, but to kill Iran’s leaders also. Remember, the Israeli Mossad has a successful score of targeted covert operations for dealing with any who want to annihilate Israel, and with Ahmadinejad recently bloviating his usual musing that, “the Zionist regime’s existence an insult to all humanity” I think that statement meets the Mossad’s criteria for a takedown of Iran’s leaders.
So here we are just a few short months away from what’s probably the most important election in our country’s history, and our only ally and friend in the Middle East is facing its most important decision in its short lifetime as the Jewish state. And with that we have two men so diametrically opposite in their opinions of what to do with Iran that only time will allow us to see how this plays out and time is NOT a friend in both cases.
The outcome of November 6th might be the very piece that puts this game in motion.