Blog @ MoreWhat.com

So who cares if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes the ground zero mosque and Senator Dick Durbin supports it? Answer: only liberals who view this party split as one more reason to expect a severe beating at the polls in November. What? Reid takes his position based on election year politics and Durbin concludes he should support the mosque for the same election year considerations?

More to the point is that Dick Durbin uses the lame argument that this is about religious freedom and the idea that America is a cultural melting pot. He says NYC Mayor Bloomberg supports it and that’s good enough for him.

Once again it is not about religious freedom. No one is suggesting that Muslims are not allowed to practice their religion. Unless you agree they believe all infidels must convert or die and somehow that is not at odds with the founding of our nation. Much about Islam is at odds with the founding of our nation.

If Mayor Bloomberg is so supportive of the ground zero mosque and as Durbin suggests this is about religious freedom ask them this. What about the St Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on September 11, 2001 when a group of Muslims committed acts of terrorism or war at the World Trade Center?

It is approaching a decade later and their church is still not rebuilt. You can follow this link if you are unfamiliar with the story. Where was Bloomberg’s support for St Nicholas’ Church during his years in office. You know, the years he extended by corrupt politics. While you’re at it ask the Port Authority why the St Nicholas Church is still not replaced.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Howard Dean’s approach is to sound like he gives a damn while pushing the liberal agenda. That is clear throughout this vid.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said.

Another piece from Voice of America had this to say.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s support for an Islamic center to be built near the scene of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks has done little to mollify critics of the plan. However, it has strengthened the argument that it should be allowed in because of America’s tradition of religious freedom.

And this is what the Bill of Rights has to say about freedom of religion.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No one is demanding a law about religion nor requesting that anyone not be allowed to practice their religion. But at the very least it is in bad taste to place a mosque in close proximity to the location where more than a dozen Muslims carried out the vicious murder of thousands of innocent victims.

Mr President, the flaw in your appeal to the Bill of Rights to defend what has been called an intentional provocation by certain Muslim individuals or groups obviously avoids the other side of the ‘rights’ equation. That is responsibility. When the rights of two or more persons clash a reasonable approach is needed to solve the problem.

Rather than pander to a special interest in direct opposition to the American traditions you cite as part of your argument you might consider calling them out on how they justify the description of a ‘religion of peace’?

Better yet, name one other religion that calls for the death of non-believers or infidels who do not convert to their religion. Name one other religion who has been responsible for as many deaths as Islam in the last 235 years. Name one other religion that calls for the destruction of an entire nation. Name one other religion having members who claim to denounce the radical elements within and do nothing to change it.

Could it be the quiet ones privately condone the violence of the religion of peace? Could it be their Jihad has its sights set on world domination? Could it be you will deny the threat of Islam until it is too late to respond?

Or are some of your critics right? You are just a Muslim at heart willing to aid the Jihad.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘and jihad is not terrorism’ is what one of the five said outside a Pakastani court ealier this year according to AP.

So the story goes, made contact with a group tied to al-Qaida in Novvember 2009. Traveled to Pakistan in December of 2009. Arrested in the home of the leader of the group they contacted also in December 2009. Defended by CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, who says the five made a ‘farewell video’ stating ‘Muslims must be defended.’

So they didn’t get life for terrorism in a Pakastani prison why? Back in December 2009, Pakistani police have said they plan to ask the court to press terrorism charges, carrying life sentences.

A Pakistani court on Thursday sentenced five American students accused of contacting militants in Pakistan over the Internet and plotting terrorist attacks to 10 years each in prison, the deputy prosecutor said.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at Maggie’s Notebook

The great divide between the political left and right often described as the degree to which America has become ‘polarized’ is present in every debate on issues of the day. National defense, border security, terrorism and illegal immigration are related issues featuring this obstacle to good governance.

Two recent columns from the Washington Examiner highlight the problem. In one, Diana West recounts the Times Square bomber episode and reactions from Mayor Bloomberg and others including the MSM. While they were hoping the bomber was some ‘right wing militia man’ or someone angry over Obamacare or a foreclosure one media marvel hoped it wasn’t someone from an Islamic country and slipped in the race card while she was at it.

West makes valid points throughout the piece not the least of which places responsibility where it belongs.

If our leaders faced facts, you see, they might also have to act. They might have to consider such measures as halting Islamic immigration to stop the demographic spread of Shariah.

Beyond terrorism the issues of national defense, border security and illegal immigration were ignited again in Arizona with the passage of SB 1070. And the rising anger of voters has been felt since last summer’s townhalls and the emergence of the tea party movement. And it should be no surprise that the other column mentioned from the Washington Examiner is another attempt to demonize voter outrage as something it is not.

David Sorota suggests the following:

“I Want My Country Back” — this ubiquitous tea party mantra belongs next to Nike’s “Just Do It” on Ad Age’s list of the most transcendent idioms. In just five words, it perfectly captures the era’s conservative backlash.

And concludes with this:

As a marketing masterpiece, the slogan would certainly impress the old Madison Avenue mavens. The trouble is that as a larger political ideology, its hateful and divisive message is encouraging ever more misguided madness.

Both major political parties in the US would probably like the tea party movement to go away. With the November 2010 midterm elections poised to empty Congress of incumbents both Dems and the GOP are nervous. How else do you explain the preemptive exit by so many POLS? Roll Call has the casualty list. Retirements and resignations alone total 28 house vacancies and 15 in the Senate.

And the first real casualty of the 2010 midterms is Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT). He didn’t make it through the state GOP convention as delegates chose two other candidates who may see each other in the primary.

The story behind this news finds Mitt Romney introducing Bennett at the convention. The same Romney who like Sarah Palin endorsed John McCain in his re-election bid. Palin also sinned again by endorsing Carly Fiorina in the race against Barbara Boxer in California. Fiorina was the failed CEO of HP and an adviser to the McCain/Palin ticket in their failed bid in 2008.

The former Republican vice presidential candidate made the endorsement on her Facebook page, saying Fiorina’s experience running a major corporation is sorely lacking in Washington.

In the Thursday posting, Palin called Fiorina a “Commonsense Conservative” who has the potential to beat “liberal” Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer in November.

But Eric Odom, chairman of Liberty First PAC, a Tea Party-fueled political action committee, called Palin’s endorsement an “unforgivable sin,” and her second strike after endorsing her 2008 running mate John McCain in his Senate race.

That’s a fair assessment from Odom. Conservatives certainly do not need Bennett or Fiorina any more than they need McCain. As for the actions of Palin and Romney this year it would appear they learned little from the 2008 campaign season.

And last but not least, David Obey (D-WI) announcing his retirement this past week is too much of a coincidence to believe being ‘bone tired’ is the primary reason (pun intended) for his decision. Most of those leaving office voluntarily are controversial and vulnerable. Obey was no exception.

The tea party movement contrary to Sirota’s description demonstrates the public is fed up with the ‘establishment’ POLS in our country and yes, we want to take it back from them. So Mr Sirota, given Bennett, a member of the GOP, is the first 2010 casualty try this mantra for your analysis. Throw the bums out!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: DLTDHYOTWO: Bob Bennett gets the boot. And next… 

There are simply too many troubling stories in recent weeks. And this post simply selects a few that demonstrate the contrast of issues needing attention. From the never ending failure to enforce immigration law in the US to years of ignoring an issue of equal importance to national security, Iranian nukes, President Obama adds his ‘Katrina’ to the list of issues railed on by liberals during the Bush years but now silent with the Messiah in the White House. And let’s not forget about financial reform, too big to fail, bailouts and the announcement of a merger between United and Continental airlines.

An estimated 10 to 12 million people are thought to have entered the United States illegally, and most come from Latin America. Hispanics are the largest minority group in the American southwest, and immigration reform has become a potent political issue in the Hispanic community, where calls for crackdowns on illegal immigration have been viewed as anti-Hispanic.

There was a time when the number of illegals was estimated near 30 million. Over time it has been greatly reduced. The excerpt above points to the problem. ‘People thought’ to be here illegally. More important is stating ‘most come from Latin America.’ That the largest minority group in the southwest is ‘hispanic’ and the ‘hispanic community’ protests enforcement of immigration laws speaks to the larger problem. Being here illegally, making the most noise about amnesty, expressing no intention of becoming American while invoking the race card explains the fallacy. Illegal immigration is an entirely self-serving proposition. It denounces the very principles it claims to represent.

President Barack Obama says an expanding oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico is a massive and unprecedented environmental disaster that will require a relentless, coordinated effort to overcome.

That ‘relentless, coordinated effort’ is taking a long time to begin. Compare this to reaction over the response to Katrina during the Bush administration. NOAA has had an oil spill response program for 15 or 20 years. So why the long delays here? Now it is suggested the oil slick will travel around Florida and up the east coast of the US. Another example of how ineffective big government is.

And then there is the small matter of a merger in the airline industry.

The merger between United and Continental Airlines will be worth some $3 billion.

The combined company will have nearly 700 planes, 80,000 employees, and fly to 370 destinations in 59 countries.

Airline industry expert Joseph Schwieterman of DePaul University in Chicago says the announcement is a positive sign for an industry that has struggled since the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

The airline industry struggled long before 2001. In many ways the troubles of the airlines is quite similar to that of automobile manufacturers. So two airlines merge as the answer to solve their problems. It does nothing to confront the underlying problems of the industry. But it does present a possible example of what the current push for financial reform in Congress, too big to fail and more bailouts in the future will bring. More problems for the American taxpayer, consumers in general and evidence politicians have no idea what they’re doing or are lying to you about their intentions.

This post concludes with a brief mention of Iranian nukes. This issue is the most troubling in this list. Continued failure to properly address and resolve it may result in a mushroom cloud. The only positive outcome thus far illuminates ineffective leadership around the planet, not just the United States. And that is little consolation.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad kicked off the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference with a lengthy diatribe against the United States and other Western powers who seek to sanction his country for its controversial nuclear program.

Mr. Ahmadinejad spoke for more than half an hour, giving what has become something of his trademark - a speech criticizing the United States, Israel and invoking God - and sending the U.S., British and French delegations walking out of the hall in protest.

There is nothing new about this issue. The UN is as impotent as ever. The Obama administration has done nothing. China, Russia and Iran have used this issue to their collective advantage and no one else presents an answer. As another terrorist demonstrates how vulnerable to attack everyone is weak minds obsess on how to be fair to those who do not understand the concept. When will we treat terror threats like terror threats? Stop coddling those who support and produce terrorism and other acts of war.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘…the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.’

There’s a quote to attract your attention. It’s a safe bet Lee Smith, author of ‘Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations’ will not be offered a job in the Obama State Department.

The report offered below was a timely find for presentation with the last post featuring another slur of Israel from the United Nations Secretary General. The view from this blog has typically been the reason for elusive Middle East peace is that no one really wants it. It is as if world powers need conflict among less powerful nations to accommodate their perverse competition. A handy excuse to distance themselves from direct confrontation with each other.

Be that as it may the book by Smith provides a tempting addition to anyone’s reading list. It is refreshing to see a story not blaming Israel or the US for Middle East problems. A few more authors from the Middle East couldn’t hurt. But then speaking out in other parts of the world is much more dangerous than it is here. (the US) At least one American tradition (and contitutional concept) seems to remain intact.

So repeat after me, it’s all the Arabs’ fault.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

Lee Smith says it has always been hard for Americans to understand exactly why peace in the Middle East is so elusive, and why violence and terrorism are so pervasive and persistent in the Arab world.

He says those questions became even more difficult to answer after the 9/11 attacks by a group of Sunni Arab terrorists that killed 3,000 people on American soil, and after the massive U.S. military deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Smith says American academicians and journalists often cite a list of root causes for Middle East turmoil, in which the U.S., the West and Israel usually play a big part: a history of colonialism and economic exploitation, the creation of Israel and American support for the Jewish state, the politics of oil, Western backing of repressive Arab regimes and the U.S. military presence in the region.

‘Culture of Violence’

Smith concedes these are factors in Arab perceptions of the West. But in his new book, “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.

It is a political culture, Smith argues, in which violence has always played a central role. “Of course, it was not America’s hand that blew up mosques in Iraq. It was not the Bush administration that conducted a campaign of terror in Beirut, assassinating Lebanese politicians, journalists and civil society activists,” says Smith. “And the U.S. State Department sentenced no opposition figures, intellectuals, journalists or bloggers to prisons in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere around the Middle East, where they were subject to torture, rape and murder. It was Arabs who did this to other Arabs.”

Smith believes that is the main lesson American policymakers should learn: that Arabs today are divided against themselves.

“A clash of Arab civilizations; clashes between Arab regimes and their own people, the regimes and their domestic rivals and insurgencies, clashes between Arab regimes themselves,” says Smith. Perhaps most importantly, there is the clash between world views, where on the one hand, there is the democratic and progressive trend embodied in the venerable and still extant tradition of Arab liberalism, and on the other hand, the bloody and violent current represented by far too many of the region’s seminal figures.”

Strong Horse

Smith is an Arabic speaker who moved to Cairo after 9/11 determined to find out what motivated the al-Qaeda attackers. He has spent the past nine years crisscrossing the Middle East in search of the answer. Smith took the title of his book, “The Strong Horse,” from a quote by Osama bin Laden, who said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

Smith believes Arabs are trying to stabilize and strengthen their societies after centuries of Ottoman control, Western colonization and decades of conflict while also looking for that strong horse to lead them out of their troubled past. Faltering Arab states like Yemen, which faces new threats from young, radicalized Muslim insurgents, also need help maintaining the rule of law and exploring democratic pathways to political reform. Smith argues that the United States can and should continue to play that role.

“There is no evidence that the U.S. is any less strong than it has always been. So I think it becomes clear that even if we want to reduce our regional profile, an issue like the Yemen issue makes it clear that this is not possible,” says Smith. “I think the U.S. can certainly be of assistance. I think that one of the things that a ’strong horse’ does is not just punish his enemies but he rewards and protects his friends.”

Struggle for supremacy

Smith sees a clear distinction between the two world views vying for regional supremacy in the Middle East. On the one hand, there is Iran and its allies in the so-called “resistance” block, including Syria, the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. And on the other hand, there is the United States and the American-backed Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

Smith says the U.S. and its allies cannot afford to lose to the other camp. “It would be very bad for the U.S. and even worse for our allies in the region, because that would affect the political culture of the region to show that resistance ideology has scored a victory and that moderation and compromise are not as successful as resistance ideology,” says Smith. “So it would be a very bad thing for U.S. interests and U.S. allies in the region.”

Smith believes a victory for what he calls “the culture of resistance” would enshrine violence and vengeance as the manner in which all grievances, real and imagined, are routinely addressed.

U.S. role

The author acknowledges that after nine years of large-scale U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and with the nation’s economic difficulties bearing down on them, many Americans feel the temptation to pull the U.S. strong horse out of the region.

But Lee Smith’s new book concludes that diminishing the American presence in the Middle East at this moment could create dangerous new instabilities that could worsen, not improve, the prospects for peace in the region.

Smith believes that would be especially true in the Arab Gulf states, where the U.S. for decades has ensured the security of the world’s largest oil reserves.

“The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” by Lee Smith, is published by Knopf Doubleday.

While Islam being a religion of peace is an idea largely dismissed by most infidels as well as some Muslims and former Muslims the Catholic Church is not immune to such controversy. But it is fair to say these two issues have contrasts as well as similarities.

Terrorism is certainly violence and so is sexual abuse. So-called honor killings and mistreatment of ‘non-believers’ and women in general are violent or can be. You could develop a long list of contradictions in these and other forms of institutional religion. Yes, let’s not forget abortion and those who claim to be religious that support the practice. Indeed, the list can go on.

Could that explain the dwindling membership in the Catholic Church and their recent marketing push to boost their numbers? Odd that they would continue to mishandle the big scandal and at the same time make an emotional appeal for lost sheep to return to the flock.

These concepts may explain in part this blogger’s decision to pursue spiritual matters absent the benefit of group activities (or is it detriment?)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from Sabina Castelfranco

Germany’s top bishop briefed Pope Benedict XVI on the spiraling cases of clerical sex abuse in the pontiff’s native Germany on Friday and said the pope encouraged him to pursue the truth and assist the victims.

The head of Germany’s bishops, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch apologized to victims of child abuse by priests today following a meeting with Pope Benedict at the Vatican. He said the pope encouraged him and the church in Germany to tackle the problem.

Archbishop Zollitsch said the church in his country is taking steps to counsel victims and investigate abuse allegations. He added that the pope was greatly dismayed as he was being briefed on the sex abuse scandal in his native Germany.

At least 170 former students from Catholic schools in Germany have come forward recently with claims of physical and sexual abuse, including claims from an all-boys choir once led by the pope’s brother.

Archbishop Zollitsch apologized to German victims and pledged to cooperate with prosecutors.

Zollitsch says the Church in Germany wants to unveil the truth and wants an honest clearing up of this and he says even if cases are discovered that date back to tens of years ago, the victims have the right to know.

At least 19 of Germany’s 27 dioceses have been affected by the scandal which follows similar cases in Ireland, The Netherlands and Austria. Vatican expert Marco Politi said the recent cases have brought the sexual abuse scandals much closer to the Vatican and to Pope Benedict himself.

“The atmosphere in the Vatican is of great nervousness, anxiety because these last facts, which happened in Germany and in Europe, are devastating,” he said.

The latest sex abuse scandals have also renewed debate on priestly celibacy but Pope Benedict said Friday it is a “holy value”. He told an international theological conference at a Vatican university that celibacy is an expression of the gift of oneself to God and to others.

Only pointing to the bad is as unhelpful as always pointing to the good. Certainly life as well as history is a mixture of both. But the report from Sonja Pace at VOA presented below may not even correctly point to the good when describing Muslim heritage and inventions.

There is evidence to suggest much of what Muslims may claim as their own was provided to them from others and certainly much of it before the beginnings of Islam. For example, Muhammad was born in 570 AD. Algebra likely has roots at least 1000 years earlier in Babylonia. The same culture may be responsible for a number of innovations but the religion known as Islam may have nothing to do with it.

Even in the report below one person interviewed mentions ‘Indian numerals’ which would be more accurate than some other representations. Let’s not try to cover over the terrorism aspect and hate for ‘infidels’ expressed by many Muslims.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

1001 Inventions and Muslim Heritage
Sonja Pace - London

Coffee, computers and piston engines - could we imagine a world without them? These are intricate parts of every day life for most of us and the knowledge that led to them was either invented by or passed down through the ancient Muslim world. That’s the theme of an exhibit in London’s Science Museum and it’s a far cry from the view held by some that the Muslim and Western World represent a “clash of civilizations”.

It has become an intricate part of so many cultures - that cup of coffee - latte, cappuccino, espresso. It’s “Kawha” - where it was first developed as a drink - in the Arabian Peninsula, in today’s Yemen.

Professor Salim al Hassani of the University of Manchester explains the coffee beans were actually brought to Yemen, from Ethiopia. “Well of course, coffee was invented in the very early years of Islam - a guy called Khaled in Ethiopia, a young man looking after his sheep,” he said.

The sheep seemed to like the beans. So the young man took the beans to Yemen - the story goes — and the drink was developed.

And there were many other inventions or innovations passed on by the early Muslim world from the 7th Century onward. “One of them is the invention of the university. This was done in the year 850 by a young lady called Fatima al-Firhi in the city of Fez in Morocco. The first university as we know it in the world, giving degrees and so on,” he said.

And that’s the theme of this exhibit at the London Science Museum. It’s called 1001 inventions: the Muslim Heritage - a bit like “1001 Arabian Nights” the well known fairy tale.

But, the exhibit here focuses on scientific or technological inventions and advances that changed our world — from some of the earliest universities, to innovations in medicine, hygiene, pumps, and water wheels.

“Forgotten history? Not really. Ask just about anyone on the streets of Cairo or Damascus today and they’ll readily tell you about Islam’s glory days - not just its conquests but its cultural, scientific and technological innovations.”

These advances came at the height of the Islamic empire’s glory when it spread from the Middle East, across North Africa to southern Spain and beyond. “During that time, which is about 1,000 years, there were enormous contributions in science and technology, that came to us from other civilizations over another very important civilization and that is the Muslim civilization,” he said.

Muslims absorbed knowledge - from India, China, the Greeks, the ancient Egyptians - and passed it on, a bit like this replica of the elephant clock designed by the Muslim inventor, mathematician and engineer al Jazari in the early 13th Century.

Anne Marie Brennan teaches forensic biology at London’s South Bank University and is fascinated by these innovations. The clock with its giant Indian elephant and Chinese dragons is her favorite. “The elephant clock is wonderful because it is like a United Nations clock. It has all the elements of different civilizations and I like it as a scientist because it shows that science doesn’t have to be boring and sterile and plain, but it can be decorative and it can also pay homage to the cultures that bring it forward,” she said.

And then there is mathematics and algebra. In general, our numbers are known as Arabic numerals today, but it wasn’t always so. “The numbers that we have today - 1,2,3,4 - they’re called Arabic numerals, but actually the Arabs at the time called them Indian numerals,” he said.

And, the number “0″ for example - “zephir” in Arabic - was used first by early Arab scholars as an integral part of mathematical equations. And that’s part of the all-important formula of zeros and ones that was crucial to the development of computers and other new technology.

And, much like coffee, what would we do today without it?

Watch the video and use these notes to understand the self-interest and folly of the religion of peace.

-There’s a limit
-I cannot do this job
-if you live in the United States you are already an infidel
-it’s not our job to do that
-we are here… because we have better opportunities here….
-….not fair to this community….

This vid and the phrases listed above betray what Muslims claim is unfair and that they pose no threat to others. The tired old excuse of being in the US for ‘opportunities’ is the great liberal myth. To express sentiments designed to exploit the guilt of weak minds residing within their target area Muslims work the ‘po lil ol me’ fallacy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

How long can they keep this up? No, not Iran’s so-called ’supreme leader’, the revolutionary guard or that little Hitler named Ahmadinejad but the opposition. At a time when the UN and more importantly, member nations, have done essentially nothing about Iran’s nuclear program(s) people who actually have the stones are taking their case to the streets at great risk. Many have suggest the US and other countries should rise in support of the protests. It it is true that Ahmadinejad and the ruling thugs of Iran stole the election earlier this year there are plenty of legitimate actions other nations could take on behalf of those seeking justice in Iran.

In the VOA piece below another account in this year’s Islamic saga describes the latest threat of Iran’s ruling crew toward protesters. After that an excerpt from an LAT’s report that is not included in the one from VOA. It is another example of concerns that the present community organizer-in-chief in the US may be placing his influence within this well-known news gathering organization.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Issues Stern Warning to Protesters

Iran’s supreme leader has accused the pro-reform opposition of trying to undermine the Islamic system and insulting the Islamic Republic’s founder.Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Sunday the opposition’s relentless protests were disrespectful. State television had broadcast footage of what it said were opposition supporters destroying photos of both Ayatollah Khamenei and the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, during massive anti-government protests on December 7.

Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard called Sunday for punishment of the demonstrators who tore up or burned photos of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The guard is the country’s most powerful military force.

On Saturday, hard-line Iranian clerics rallied in cities across the country to denounce pro-reform students who staged the violent anti-government rallies.

In the holy city of Qom, cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami accused the opposition of trying to destroy Iran’s Islamic system of government.

Government supporters at the rallies chanted “death to opponents of the supreme leader.”

Defeated presidential candidate and opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi was quoted on Saturday as saying his supporters would not allow any insult against the supreme leader.

Supporters of Mousavi and other reformist leaders held mass protests earlier this year after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad secured a second term in a disputed June election. The post-election demonstrations were the largest in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The opposition accuses Mr. Ahmadinejad of stealing the vote.
from the LAT….

Opposition supporters, however, said the incident was staged by hardliners loyal to Ahmadinejad and aired on TV to discredit their cause.

Now that’s an interesting claim. But beyond this latest episode international action is sorely needed against Iran’s delaying tactics on the nuke problem. Another benefit Ahmadinejad acquires from being allowed to procrastinate on the issue. One could argue that makes the UN and member countries complicit in Iran’s threat to the planet.

BTW, peace on Earth good will toward all.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You could be a little troubled these days with all the talk about politicians and how they respond to matters and issues of the day. President Obama is certainly not immune to analysis or the opinions it generates. Since the mainstream media or those organizations generally considered to be the establishment media rarely open a critical eye toward the President the rest of us must fill the void. After all, the President has pledged his administration would be transparent and accountable. So let’s all help him fulfill that promise.

On the topic of shootings at Fort Hood by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan the President said the following among other things. “But it is all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims.” It should come as no surprise that the community organizer-in-chief is often credited for being a great orator. And he has taken a lot of heat for his habitual use of teleprompters. But make no mistake, little if anything he says in public has escaped the scrutiny of the PR machine and focus groups or the rest in his inner circle. In evidence in the quote above is selecting the word ‘its’ when referring to the ‘victims’ of Hasan. There’s that strategy to appease the terrorists by calling these events ‘man-made’ disasters.

Sorry Mr President but all this is a little troubling. In his weekly Internet and radio address, Mr. Obama says those who responded to the rampage represent the best of America. “We saw soldiers and civilians alike rushing to aid fallen comrades; tearing off bullet-riddled clothes to treat the injured; using blouses as tourniquets; taking down the shooter even as they bore wounds themselves,” he said. Mr President, did you once acknowledge Kimberly Munley by name?

The president, hoping to calm potential ethnic tension, reminds the public about the diversity of those who defend the U.S. “They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers. They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is a patriotism like no other,” he said.

Just by virtue of the fact the statement above was made in response to the Fort Hood shootings by Hasan demonstrates the flaw in that argument. This one must have gotten by the PR machine or the arrogance of the White House assumed you wouldn’t notice. Hasan wasn’t sharing that patriotism part, Mr President. At least at the end of the item below you refer to Hasan’s actions as a ‘crime’. Pat yourself on the back, Mr President.

My prayers go with those who were killed or injured as well as for their families. A special acknowledgment should be expressed for those who responded to the call that day. Although it has been reported Kimberly Munley does not want to be called a hero her actions were incredibly proficient and courageous. Hope she recovers from her injuries as if they never happened. Same sentiment for the others injured.

Let’s not dishonor those who died with more appeasement, Mr President.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Beltway snipers and the Fort Hood killer: Peas in a jihad-inspired pod (Michelle Malkin) 

Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is said to be struggling over what to do in Afghanistan. Does the rookie believe ignoring intel, military and state warnings is the answer? What does this say about his campaign rhetoric to get elected and his desire to maintain favor from the far left antiwar liberal standard?

Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, JOHN WALCOTT AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy Newspapers.

His worry about public opinion ,aka far left support, and resistance to his own advisors is of such concern the report cited here mentions the problem twice in the first seven paragraphs.

However, the officials said, in their effort to muster domestic support for a more limited counterterrorism strategy that would concentrate on disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida, White House officials are neglecting warnings from their own experts about the dangers of a more modest approach.

Given the antiwar sentiment on the left that both candidate Obama and Clinton pandered to in 2008 their ability to do the right thing and at the same time protect their political futures are at odds with each other. With their own ‘experts’ and others suggesting the simmering conflicts are providing renewed strength for al-Qaeda now is not the time for indecision. Biden’s warning of a test for Obama may be just around the corner contrary to the original forecast.

Instead of national security and defense the liberal new direction is focused on an ill-conceived domestic policy Those issues can and should wait based on the pathetic proposals offered to date. The other matters are of immediate concern and need to be handled effectively. And yes, elections have consequences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Recently the US Senate has suggested we are vulnerable to a biological terror attack. They have even brought forth measures to counter that threat. The problem is the concern has been around for years. We are fast approaching a decade since the attacks of 9/11. And the US Senate took this long to get around to considering a biological attack? The list of other potential terror threats is quite long. And there is an overriding reason to keep our collective eye on the ball.

More than one source suggests there are no connections between all the terror activities known to date. But some of us believe otherwise.

Of course there are.

Maybe it will prove to be the case that the three suspects at the heart of these interrupted plots - Najibullah Zazi, Hosam Maher Husein Smadi and Michael C. Finton (also known as Talib Islam) - had no connection in a tactical or operational sense.

Still, it is absurd, and extremely dangerous, to insist that they are not connected in at least one way: What apparently animated all three of these suspects (and perhaps a number of others believed to have been involved in the New York plot who are still at large) is the seditious, supremacist theo-political-legal program authoritative Islam calls Shariah.

Shariah requires its adherents to engage in jihad - the struggle to bring about the triumph of Islam worldwide through whatever means are available. Shariah explicitly calls for the use of violent techniques designed to instill terror in those who stand in the way of a global Muslim theocracy.

The simple fact that the terrorists themselves offer evidence of this being the case by their frequent broadcasts or publications of text, video and other material should be adequate confirmation of their intent. Not heeding these warnings as real is done at risk of one’s own peril.

From state sponsors of terror to Iranian and North Korean nukes to the long history of terrorism around the world one would have to have been sleeping for the last twenty years or longer to not recognize it. So all you Rip Van Winkle’s had better catch up. That includes the US Congress and those members of the liberal appeasement crowd now comprising the majority party.