What's Wrong With AMERICA today?

[jamestkirk]

TEA PARTY evangelicals!
Jesus protect us from your followers!

"Audience at tea party debate cheers
leaving uninsured to die"

One of the saddest moments in American history caught on TV...


If you're uninsured and on the brink of death, that's apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night's tea party Republican presidential debate.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, "this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody…"

"Are you saying that society should just let him die?" Blitzer pressed Paul. And that's when the audience got involved.

Several loud cheers of "yeah!" followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer's question.


Jim Easton...Jesus Protect Us...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuvRllwUi_I

[silentseason]

Political season is just now heating up; we haven't even reached the conventions or fall electoral push and I am already sick of it and nauseated in general.

To answer your question jtk, America is now run by almost soley by greed, short sightedness and a complete lack of understanding of what "We the people" really means. The hypocrisy and condescending attitude of specific elements is leading to the inevitable: a revolution, probably violent. Too few are getting too much and this can only last for so long-this is a historical fact. I don't know if we will be around to experience it, but its day is coming, and in the not too far future.

So enjoy your "me first, me only" America, Tea Party. It won't be around too long.

[jamestkirk]

Right on!

They are already dying a slow death as the GOP dangles in the wind on the end of the rope they tied for themselves...all the way to Nov 2012.

[Encuentro]

Right on!

They are already dying a slow death as the GOP dangles in the wind on the end of the rope they tied for themselves...all the way to Nov 2012.

It appears that Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee. His former "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" stance is really going to hurt him, particularly in states such as Ohio and Michigan that depend on the American auto industry. Thankfully, President Obama didn't take Romney's advice. GM is now #1. It's a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will bombard the airwaves with ads using Romney's own words about the American auto industry against him.

[jamestkirk]

Right on!

They are already dying a slow death as the GOP dangles in the wind on the end of the rope they tied for themselves...all the way to Nov 2012.

It appears that Mitt Romney is going to be the nominee. His former "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" stance is really going to hurt him, particularly in states such as Ohio and Michigan that depend on the American auto industry. Thankfully, President Obama didn't take Romney's advice. GM is now #1. It's a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will bombard the airwaves with ads using Romney's own words about the American auto industry against him.

Have we ever seen the GOP self-destruct so efficiently and stupidly?! It's like watching the Three Stooges run for office!

The GOP would take us down a very dangerous path...in their desperation.

Land Of Hope & Dreams..Springsteen can always lift me up, no matter how bleak the theme
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTDNW9Bf ... ure=relmfu

[polished_chrome]

I'm not American, but from my perspective, Obama has been leading you down that very same path. I think the root of most of America's problems is the result the debt based monetary system created in 1913, ie, the PRIVATE "Federal" Reserve.

"The Creature from Jekyll Island"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLjZPTbRdG4&feature=fvst

"Federal Reserve Monopoly" Dr. Ron Paul
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e17510.htm

"Mike Malone's excellent presentation on the Federal Reserve and the coming collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj2s6vzErqY

Rothschilds and the Federal Reserve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzLIz27G ... re=related

[mystery_train67]

Polished Chrome, I wish I could 'like' your post. I'm with you. The system inherently rewards greed, if not encourages it unashamedly.

edit- i should add, that some of these 'conspiracy' theorists also go into some details about a reptilian alien race, and their so called illuminati of lizard-jew inter bred people... i have jewish friends, and i find this to be impossible to digest. moreover, it really has nothing to do with having jewish friends, because not all of the alleged 'lizard interbred' people are jewish, so regardless of race and religion, i don't buy into the lizard people thing. but the banks are definitely strangling the world!

[lament of an indian]

Polished Chrome, I wish I could 'like' your post. I'm with you. The system inherently rewards greed, if not encourages it unashamedly.

edit- i should add, that some of these 'conspiracy' theorists also go into some details about a reptilian alien race, and their so called illuminati of lizard-jew inter bred people... i have jewish friends, and i find this to be impossible to digest. moreover, it really has nothing to do with having jewish friends, because not all of the alleged 'lizard interbred' people are jewish, so regardless of race and religion, i don't buy into the lizard people thing. but the banks are definitely strangling the world!

Actually Trav... us Jews are a comprised of llizard/jew genes with the sole purpose for zionism to take over the world...

[mystery_train67]

Polished Chrome, I wish I could 'like' your post. I'm with you. The system inherently rewards greed, if not encourages it unashamedly.

edit- i should add, that some of these 'conspiracy' theorists also go into some details about a reptilian alien race, and their so called illuminati of lizard-jew inter bred people... i have jewish friends, and i find this to be impossible to digest. moreover, it really has nothing to do with having jewish friends, because not all of the alleged 'lizard interbred' people are jewish, so regardless of race and religion, i don't buy into the lizard people thing. but the banks are definitely strangling the world!

Actually Trav... us Jews are a comprised of llizard/jew genes with the sole purpose for zionism to take over the world...

Fuck, how did I miss this?

[universalmind69]

Actually Trav... us Jews are a comprised of llizard/jew genes with the sole purpose for zionism to take over the world...

confirmed at last...

[jamestkirk]

You guys!!



I wish the politicians and pundits had such good sense of humor--laughing at ones self is the greatest gift we can have...I think the biggest flaw one can have is taking oneself TOO SERIOUSLY!!



One more (dark) thought...to believe that any ONE president, Republican or Democrat or Tea Partier, can alter the course of the corporate greed and capitalist tenor of this country or the world for the most part is just naive...the people no longer have a say in the course of human events...as long as oil and Wall Street control the destiny of our well being.

Voting, many times to me, seems like an exercise in futility...a con perpetuated by those in power to keep us in a cloud of self-delusion that we can actually make a difference. Sure they throw us little bread crumbs of victories that make us think we are still the voices, but they laugh up their sleeves all the way to the Bank (preferably located on a small tax sheltered island in the Pacific.

Jaded yes, I've live too long to see that a Kennedy or Nixon or Reagan or Clinton or Bush or Obama has caused no more than a fleeting ripple in the Corporate Pond we call America.



I just smile and let it go...life's too short!!

[Encuentro]

I believe that voting makes a big difference. If McCain were elected gay men and women would not be allowed to serve openly in the military. They can thanks to President Obama. That's a big deal to the thousands of men and women who just want to be who they are, free from discrimination, while serving their country. They no longer have to fear being booted from the military because they happen to love someone of the same gender.

President Obama made the defiant decision to order his Justice Department to stop defending the discriminatory DOMA.

If McCain were elected, he would not have signed a healthcare bill that will insure millions more Americans, will allow struggling young people to stay on their parents' insurance plans until age 26, will prevent insurance companies from denying Americans coverage due to a preexisting condition or take away their coverage when they get sick.

President Obama signed the reauthorization of SCHIP to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children.

If McCain were elected, the war in Iraq would not be over. McCain and most Republicans criticized President Obama for not leaving a residual force behind in Iraq.

If McCain were elected, we would not be drawing down troops as quickly as we are in Afghanistan or we would not be drawing down troops at all. McCain has criticized President Obama for drawing down troops at the rate that he is.

If McCain were elected, he would not have signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. President Obama supported it and signed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledb ... ct_of_2009

President Obama saved the American auto industry. He saved millions of jobs either directly or indirectly related to the American auto industry. GM was on the verge of bankruptcy. Now they are #1.

[jamestkirk]

Don't get me wrong...I love Obama. He has achieved EVERYTHING he said he would & more. He gets called weak because he quietly and bravely moves forward with each new goal he has set for the country.

He decisively got us out of Bush's War in Iraq.

He HAS been the voice of the people...not of the rich CEOs or the upper class suburban TeePees & Stepford wives.

I just hate to see his efforts shot down by the likes of the dark side of the Supreme Court...it makes one feel a little discouraged.

Here, he gets more bad press than good it seems....wrongly portrayed as weak, ineffective, and until recently, NOT re electable.

Thank god for Santorum & Romney-- if only we could get Romney to put Santorum on as VP candidate...it would be the perfect Tweedledumb & Tweedledee act...and a slam dunk for the Obama re election.


But how is Obama viewed by the rest of the World...anyone? My impression is that Obama is viewed with great respect and admiration overseas.

[Encuentro]

John posted this on his Facebook page.

"John Densmore
Military experts say: Know your adversary. So would it make sense Iran would want a bomb? They are surrounded by countries with bombs. The only way to stop nuclear proliferation is disarmament.
We started the arms race and we're the only country who has used the bomb... twice. We need to think about these things. I have Iranian friends and I don't want their country to end up like Iraq. As the Iranian director who won the Oscar for Best Documentary this year said, "we are an old, dignified culture." The U.S. seems
to learn about other countries after we bomb them (i.e Vietnamese restaurants and geography). Granted, my Iranian friends say the head of their country is "crazy," but Bush was pretty "crazy" to me. His preemptive policy didn't work. It is interesting that we are intimidated by a small country in the mid-east, when it used
to take Russia with lots of bombs, to threaten us. Oh... the reason: OIL. Why aren't we on the cutting edge of alternative energy to get off the mid-east mainline? Germany, for example, has 30% of its energy coming from solar, and they hardly have any sun! I think about these things because I think about several generations down the road, and I care about America."

[lament of an indian]

John posted this on his Facebook page.

"John Densmore
Military experts say: Know your adversary. So would it make sense Iran would want a bomb? They are surrounded by countries with bombs. The only way to stop nuclear proliferation is disarmament.
We started the arms race and we're the only country who has used the bomb... twice. We need to think about these things. I have Iranian friends and I don't want their country to end up like Iraq. As the Iranian director who won the Oscar for Best Documentary this year said, "we are an old, dignified culture." The U.S. seems
to learn about other countries after we bomb them (i.e Vietnamese restaurants and geography). Granted, my Iranian friends say the head of their country is "crazy," but Bush was pretty "crazy" to me. His preemptive policy didn't work. It is interesting that we are intimidated by a small country in the mid-east, when it used
to take Russia with lots of bombs, to threaten us. Oh... the reason: OIL. Why aren't we on the cutting edge of alternative energy to get off the mid-east mainline? Germany, for example, has 30% of its energy coming from solar, and they hardly have any sun! I think about these things because I think about several generations down the road, and I care about America."

I replied to him and I am glad to say that my reply has the most "likes" so far even though I disagreed with john

[Encuentro]

John posted this on his Facebook page.

"John Densmore
Military experts say: Know your adversary. So would it make sense Iran would want a bomb? They are surrounded by countries with bombs. The only way to stop nuclear proliferation is disarmament.
We started the arms race and we're the only country who has used the bomb... twice. We need to think about these things. I have Iranian friends and I don't want their country to end up like Iraq. As the Iranian director who won the Oscar for Best Documentary this year said, "we are an old, dignified culture." The U.S. seems
to learn about other countries after we bomb them (i.e Vietnamese restaurants and geography). Granted, my Iranian friends say the head of their country is "crazy," but Bush was pretty "crazy" to me. His preemptive policy didn't work. It is interesting that we are intimidated by a small country in the mid-east, when it used
to take Russia with lots of bombs, to threaten us. Oh... the reason: OIL. Why aren't we on the cutting edge of alternative energy to get off the mid-east mainline? Germany, for example, has 30% of its energy coming from solar, and they hardly have any sun! I think about these things because I think about several generations down the road, and I care about America."

I replied to him and I am glad to say that my reply has the most "likes" so far even though I disagreed with john

You were very diplomatic in your response.

I don't want to assume that you were advocating a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure what you were advocating or if you were advocating anything. However, for those who do support a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities or any kind of military strike, the majority of people who are going to die are innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the Iranian government. Furthermore, I agree with John that the only country to use the bomb twice and has by far the most nuclear weapons in the world is in no position to tell others to disarm.

[lament of an indian]

John posted this on his Facebook page.

"John Densmore
Military experts say: Know your adversary. So would it make sense Iran would want a bomb? They are surrounded by countries with bombs. The only way to stop nuclear proliferation is disarmament.
We started the arms race and we're the only country who has used the bomb... twice. We need to think about these things. I have Iranian friends and I don't want their country to end up like Iraq. As the Iranian director who won the Oscar for Best Documentary this year said, "we are an old, dignified culture." The U.S. seems
to learn about other countries after we bomb them (i.e Vietnamese restaurants and geography). Granted, my Iranian friends say the head of their country is "crazy," but Bush was pretty "crazy" to me. His preemptive policy didn't work. It is interesting that we are intimidated by a small country in the mid-east, when it used
to take Russia with lots of bombs, to threaten us. Oh... the reason: OIL. Why aren't we on the cutting edge of alternative energy to get off the mid-east mainline? Germany, for example, has 30% of its energy coming from solar, and they hardly have any sun! I think about these things because I think about several generations down the road, and I care about America."

I replied to him and I am glad to say that my reply has the most "likes" so far even though I disagreed with john

You were very diplomatic in your response.

I don't want to assume that you were advocating a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure what you were advocating or if you were advocating anything. However, for those who do support a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities or any kind of military strike, the majority of people who are going to die are innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the Iranian government. Furthermore, I agree with John that the only country to use the bomb twice and has by far the most nuclear weapons in the world is in no position to tell others to disarm.

I do not advocate a strike on iran and I would at all costs try to prevent such a thing. Unfortunately, the window for diplomatic solutions is closing and it is looking more and more like a strike is the only option to stop this crazy theocratic regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a jew and as someone who has a lot of friends and family in Israel, I am especially concerned with what Iran would be capable of with a nuclear weapon. The counter-attack on Israel and U.S interests would be quite large and result in many casualties, many of whom would be civilians.

As i said in my post to John, Iran funds Hizbollah, Hamas, Assad's murderous regime in Syria,etc so the thought of regime like Iran having control over a nuclear weapon is totally unacceptable. Asking Iran to disarm is as absurd as it was when Obama asked Iran to return the american drone that crashed in iran. The sanctions are working and the Iranian economy is declining but this does not seem to curb the desire for nuclear weapons. If Iran's program was not being used for weapons why would they be so against inspectors coming into to inspect? Why would they be building under mountains and have secret facilities spread all across the country? The proof is in the pudding and as Netanyahu said, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it is a duck.

Again, I would like to see all of the other options exhausted before an attack but honestly, I do not see Iran changing course unless the Iranian people rise up or unless there is an attack.

[jamestkirk]

I replied to him and I am glad to say that my reply has the most "likes" so far even though I disagreed with john

You were very diplomatic in your response.

I don't want to assume that you were advocating a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure what you were advocating or if you were advocating anything. However, for those who do support a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities or any kind of military strike, the majority of people who are going to die are innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the Iranian government. Furthermore, I agree with John that the only country to use the bomb twice and has by far the most nuclear weapons in the world is in no position to tell others to disarm.

I do not advocate a strike on iran and I would at all costs try to prevent such a thing. Unfortunately, the window for diplomatic solutions is closing and it is looking more and more like a strike is the only option to stop this crazy theocratic regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a jew and as someone who has a lot of friends and family in Israel, I am especially concerned with what Iran would be capable of with a nuclear weapon. The counter-attack on Israel and U.S interests would be quite large and result in many casualties, many of whom would be civilians.

As i said in my post to John, Iran funds Hizbollah, Hamas, Assad's murderous regime in Syria,etc so the thought of regime like Iran having control over a nuclear weapon is totally unacceptable. Asking Iran to disarm is as absurd as it was when Obama asked Iran to return the american drone that crashed in iran. The sanctions are working and the Iranian economy is declining but this does not seem to curb the desire for nuclear weapons. If Iran's program was not being used for weapons why would they be so against inspectors coming into to inspect? Why would they be building under mountains and have secret facilities spread all across the country? The proof is in the pudding and as Netanyahu said, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it is a duck.

Again, I would like to see all of the other options exhausted before an attack but honestly, I do not see Iran changing course unless the Iranian people rise up or unless there is an attack.

All valid points...but it's ALSO easy to see other world powers viewing a certain Western country as a crazy theocratic regime...(Soutern Evangelical TeePee-ers are as crazy as it gets!)

john D. is so right-on about it all....disarm, NOT da bomb! Iran feels unsafe too! As does Israel. Sometimes we are justly more afraid of our OWN leaders...what is that saying? "Save us from ourselves?!"

I think the best advice to Iran, Israel, America....
GROW UP!!...and play nice.

I often think if we got rid of all the leaders and demagogues, we would all get along much better!

We all pray to the SAME GOD, so again...put down your weapons & PLAY NICE!!

[lament of an indian]

You were very diplomatic in your response.

I don't want to assume that you were advocating a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure what you were advocating or if you were advocating anything. However, for those who do support a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities or any kind of military strike, the majority of people who are going to die are innocent civilians who have nothing to do with the Iranian government. Furthermore, I agree with John that the only country to use the bomb twice and has by far the most nuclear weapons in the world is in no position to tell others to disarm.

I do not advocate a strike on iran and I would at all costs try to prevent such a thing. Unfortunately, the window for diplomatic solutions is closing and it is looking more and more like a strike is the only option to stop this crazy theocratic regime from acquiring nuclear weapons. As a jew and as someone who has a lot of friends and family in Israel, I am especially concerned with what Iran would be capable of with a nuclear weapon. The counter-attack on Israel and U.S interests would be quite large and result in many casualties, many of whom would be civilians.

As i said in my post to John, Iran funds Hizbollah, Hamas, Assad's murderous regime in Syria,etc so the thought of regime like Iran having control over a nuclear weapon is totally unacceptable. Asking Iran to disarm is as absurd as it was when Obama asked Iran to return the american drone that crashed in iran. The sanctions are working and the Iranian economy is declining but this does not seem to curb the desire for nuclear weapons. If Iran's program was not being used for weapons why would they be so against inspectors coming into to inspect? Why would they be building under mountains and have secret facilities spread all across the country? The proof is in the pudding and as Netanyahu said, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then it is a duck.

Again, I would like to see all of the other options exhausted before an attack but honestly, I do not see Iran changing course unless the Iranian people rise up or unless there is an attack.

All valid points...but it's ALSO easy to see other world powers viewing a certain Western country as a crazy theocratic regime...(Soutern Evangelical TeePee-ers are as crazy as it gets!)

john D. is so right-on about it all....disarm, NOT da bomb! Iran feels unsafe too! As does Israel. Sometimes we are justly more afraid of our OWN leaders...what is that saying? "Save us from ourselves?!"

I think the best advice to Iran, Israel, America....
GROW UP!!...and play nice.

I often think if we got rid of all the leaders and demagogues, we would all get along much better!

We all pray to the SAME GOD, so again...put down your weapons & PLAY NICE!!

You think that southern tea partiers are as crazy as they get? My grandmother, who is from Boston and now lives in Atlanta is a "tea partier" and she is not crazy or radical. She just doesn't want government controlling our lives and especially disagrees with Obama on just about every policy. I think you need to be careful when you categorize every conservative who is against big government and considers themselves a "tea partier" as a dangerous southern evangelical. In fact, she is an 80 year old Jewish northerner which is about as far removed as you can get from southern evangelical.Not to mention the African Americans that are also part of this movement. The movement is not based on religion controlling lives although unfortunately there are radical religious nutjobs that associate themsleves with the conservative party. I hate the fact that the right wing nuts call themselves republicans especially when our candidates have to appeal to them in order to win votes. I am frankly appalled that Rick Santorum has gotten as far as he has.

Anywaysssss, simpler said than done with regards to playing nice. Iran is the country who has promised to wipe another one off the map... not Israel or the USA. The whole region is completely fucked up but when we look at the culprits behind global terrorism and increasingly hostile rhetoric, it is clear who is behind it all.

I personally think John lives in an idealistic world where world peace is as simple as disarming and everyone living in harmony. I wish it was this easy but the complexities involved make this almost impossible.

[Encuentro]

Ahmadinejad is not in charge in Iran, and his statements in which he was quoting Ayatolla Ruholla Khomeini. The exact meaning of the quote has caused some confusion due to the translation. The bottom line is that nothing would happen if Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, because if they were to use it, it would be a national suicide.

"Did Ahmadinejad really say Israel should be ‘wiped off the map’?
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 10/05/2011 TheWashingtonPost

“Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map.”

— President Obama, speech to the U.N. General Assembly, September 21, 2011



“It was only perhaps three weeks ago that the president of Iran once again said that Israel should be eradicated off the face of the Earth. As you recall, it was about in 2005 when he [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] said before that Israel -- he would use a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.”

— Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), September 19, 2011



“Outrageous statements by Ahmadinejad, such as a pledge to wipe Israel off the map, made it easier to keep that coalition together. Germany had been considered the weak sister of the group, but after Ahmadinejad’s comments about Israel, the historical burden of the Holocaust made it difficult for Germany to appear too sympathetic to Iran.”

— Glenn Kessler (aka The Fact Checker), “The Confidante: Condoleezza Rice and the Creation of the Bush Legacy (St. Martin’s Press, 2007), page 188.


“The Islamic Republic’s proposal to help resolve the Palestinian issue and heal this old wound is a clear and logical initiative based on political concepts accepted by world public opinion, which has already been presented in detail. We do not suggest launching a classic war by the armies of Muslim countries, or throwing immigrant Jews into the sea, or mediation by the UN and other international organizations. We propose holding a referendum with [the participation of] the Palestinian nation. The Palestinian nation, like any other nation, has the right to determine their own destiny and elect the governing system of the country.”

— Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, October 2, 2011

Almost unnoticed, Iran this week joined the United States and Israel as one of the few countries in the world to oppose the statehood bid at the United Nations by the Palestinians. As the Tehran Times noted, the Iranian supreme leader “condemned any measure which would lead to the recognition of the Israeli regime and would ignore the legal right of the Palestinian people to their homeland.”

In other words, Iran continues to oppose the two-state solution. But does this mean that Iran wants to destroy Israel — “wipe it off the map” — as is commonly cited? This is certainly the conventional wisdom, as seen in the statements above. But a colleague at The Washington Post, spotting the Bachmann and Obama statements during the U.N. festivities last month, suggested that this widely cited statement by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was actually a mistranslation.

The Facts

The firestorm started when Nazila Fathi, then the Tehran correspondent of The New York Times, reported a story almost six years ago that was headlined: “Wipe Israel ‘off the map’ Iranian says.” The article attributed newly elected Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks to a report by the ISNA press agency.

The article sparked outrage around the globe, with then-President George W. Bush and other world leaders condemning Ahmadinejad’s statement. The original New York Times article noted that Ahmadinejad said he was quoting Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, but that aspect was largely overlooked.

Then, specialists such as Juan Cole of the University of Michigan and Arash Norouzi of the Mossadegh Project pointed out that the original statement in Persian did not say that Israel should be wiped from the map, but instead that it would collapse.

Cole said this week that in the 1980s Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate.

Ahmadinejad slightly misquoted Khomeini, substituting “safheh-i ruzgar,” or “page of time" for "sahneh-i ruzgar" or “arena of time.” But in any case, the old translation was dug up and used again by the Iranian news agency, Cole says. In fact, that’s how it was presented for years on Ahmadinejad’s English-language Web site, as the Times noted in a somewhat defensive article on the translation debate.

But the story doesn’t end there. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iranian specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the “wipe off” phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. “Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world,” the sign reads in English.

Teitelbaum’s report, while written from a pro-Israel perspective, includes a number of threatening statements about Israel that are similar in tone to Ahmadinejad’s controversial statement.

In 2000, Khamenei stated, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” He went on to say in the same speech that “Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews.”

Sadjadpour, who has closely studied the statements of Khamenei, said that the supreme leader has spoken more on the question of Israel than any other issue, which is remarkable given that Iran shares no border with Israel and that the Jewish state has virtually no impact on the daily lives of Iranians. Sadjadpour said Khamenei has been consistent, stating repeatedly that the goal is not the military destruction of the Jewish state but “the defeat of Zionist ideology and the dissolution of Israel through a ‘popular referendum.’”

Of course, an Israeli might conclude that such an outcome would be the destruction of the Jewish state in any case.



The Pinocchio Test

Some might question why Ahmadinejad’s precise words are important. Clearly, the Iranian government has unrelenting opposition to the state of Israel, so much so that it even rejects Palestinian efforts at statehood if that would result in Israel remaining in the Middle East. Indeed, Tehran has armed and funded Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant groups opposed to Israel. At the same time, the words allegedly uttered by Ahmadinejad have been used to suggest a change toward a more militaristic posture by Iran toward Israel.

In fact, Ahmadinejad is not the power broker in Iran; it is Khamenei. Khamenei, in fact, has been consistent in speaking of his hatred of Israel, but without a military context, as he demonstrated once again this week. Moreover, the fact that Ahmadinejad was merely quoting Khomeini suggests that even less weight should have been given to his words, especially since there is a dispute over the precise meaning in English.

“Wipe off the map,” in other words, has become easy shorthand for expressing revulsion at Iran’s anti-Israeli foreign policy. Certainly attention needs to be focused on that — and Iranian behavior in the region. But we’re going to award a Pinocchio to everyone — including ourselves — who has blithely repeated the phrase without putting it into context."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

[jamestkirk]

Good to hear all Tea partiers aren't crazy...or Dems or Repubs! If your grandma is from Boston she has to be a good lady! I love Boston! And the Celtics, Sox and Pats!


And I am so glad you are as anti-Santorum as I had hoped. How about those crazy moments when his "followers" all place their hands on him for a moment of prayer..or something--it looks like some cult ritual! There is a bad apple in every party that somehow makes the whole barrel look bad...but it's NOT!

I will say that the finest moments in politics are when the two sides sanely meet in the middle for the good of the people that elected them...a centrist is a good thing.

[lament of an indian]

Good to hear all Tea partiers aren't crazy...or Dems or Repubs! If your grandma is from Boston she has to be a good lady! I love Boston! And the Celtics, Sox and Pats!


And I am so glad you are as anti-Santorum as I had hoped. How about those crazy moments when his "followers" all place their hands on him for a moment of prayer..or something--it looks like some cult ritual! There is a bad apple in every party that somehow makes the whole barrel look bad...but it's NOT!

I will say that the finest moments in politics are when the two sides sanely meet in the middle for the good of the people that elected them...a centrist is a good thing.

Cheers to that!

[polished_chrome]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b76mBlnm86w

Obama Impeachment 2012

Kurt Nimmo

Film director, producer, actor and writer Sean Stone has thrown his weight behind a resolution introduced in the House last month by North Carolina Republican Walter Jones. Resolution 107 states that should the president use offensive military force without the authorization of Congress that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress the power to declare war. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the power to declare war must reside in the legislative branch of government and the president will only act as the commander-in-chief and direct the war after it is declared by Congress.

"The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the legislature," Madison wrote.

In the video, Stone notes Obama's unconstitutional war on Libya was waged "despite the fact that the United States was neither attacked, nor threatened for attack by the nation of Libya."

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said during questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama that the Obama administration does not believe Congress has the exclusive right to declare war and that the Pentagon answers to the United Nations, not the people of the United States.

The Obama administration "does not believe that the Congress has the exclusive power to declare war," Stone notes, and "accordingly the president should be impeached."

Stone also mentions Obama's facilitation of the banker engineered 2008 "bailout" as an additiojnal reason he should be tried for High Crimes and Misdemeanors and impeached. Obama's efforts worked in favor of the "consolidation of private banks, many of them in Europe."

"There was no investment of any meaningful type in the physical economy, there was no protection of the American people," Sean explains. "Rather, an illegal commitment made on behalf of private banking interests, to commit the American people to paying a debt that the American people did not accrue."

He rightly notes that Obama's actions "represent the most clear violation of the principal of the general welfare of the people in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States."

In addition to setting the stage for the economic rape of the American people and waging illegal and unconstitutional wars, Obama has committed a number of other egregious violations of the Constitution.

Specifically, Obama violated the Constitution's Takings and Due Process Clauses when he bullied the secured creditors of automaker Chrysler into accepting 30 cents on the dollar while political connected labor unions and preferential others better deals.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank financial "reform" bill created the so-called Financial Protection Bureau and Financial Stability Oversight Council, bureaucratic monstrosities that are now engaged in unchecked and unconstitutional economic action without consulting Congress. The Dodd-Frank bill also further empowers the bankster's preferred cartel, the Federal Reserve (which has engaged in unconstitutional activity for nearly a hundred years).

"No list of President Obama's constitutional violations would be complete without including the requirement that every American purchase health insurance, on penalty of civil fine. The individual mandate is unprecedented and exceeds Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. If it is allowed to stand, Congress will be able to impose any kind of economic mandate as part of any kind of national regulatory scheme. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to strike this down during its current term," writes Ilya Shapiro, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

Obama signed into law the NDAA with a provision allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens. "He will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law," said the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony Romero.

Finally, Obama may be tried and impeached for signing a large number of executive orders. Article II of the Constitution provides the president with three options when presented with legislation -- do nothing, sign the bill, or veto it in its entirety.

"Obama's use of signing statements has clearly shown his willingness to continue the George W. Bush legacy -- not only of torture and illegal detainment, but in the dangerous trend of de facto rule by 'executive fiat.' Worse, such signing statements put in place a precedent for future presidents to follow -- or expand upon," writes Aaron Dykes.

[jamestkirk]

Silly, desperate, sad sad people....that Rep needs a hobby and day job.