(via Free Dominion blog, which archived article before deletion)
Commentary
Obama and Ahmadinejad
Amir Taheri 10.26.08, 1:33 PM ET
Is Barack Obama the "promised warrior" coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world?
The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.
According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet's cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a "tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West." Commanding "the strongest army on earth," the new ruler in the West will carry "a clear sign" from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali.
The tradition concludes: "Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us."
In a curious coincidence Obama's first and second names--Barack Hussein--mean "the blessing of Hussein" in Arabic and Persian.
His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means "he is with us," the magic formula in Majlisi's tradition.
Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama's rise as another sign of the West's decline and the triumph of Islam.
Obama's promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama's position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions.
Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a "systematic violator of human rights."
Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is "a state sponsor of terrorism." Instead, he uses the term "violent groups" to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency.
Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.
Obama's election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad's entourage claim that his "steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan" was a factor in helping Obama defeat "hardliners" such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.
"President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson," says Hassan Abbasi, a "strategic adviser" to the Iranian president.
"This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran's power." The Iranian leader's entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan "Yes, We Can" from Ahmadinejad's "We Can," used four years ago.
A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an "enemy of Islam." A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama "a better choice for everyone." Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic "prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House" next year.
Tehran's penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power.
He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.
Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a "sunset" (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a "sunrise" (toluee) power.
Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America--attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.
Seen from Tehran, Obama's election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat.
American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region.
Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.
During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show "understanding of Muslim grievances" with regard to Palestine.
Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the "Iranian solution for Palestine," which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.
Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.
Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.
#1
If The One is elected, does anyone in the world not believe that Israel takes out Iran nukes before Jan. 20?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/28/2008 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To be followed by a strongly worded condemnation of Israel from President Elect Obama and a request to the UN to prevent future evil Bush doctrine preemtive attackes by permitting the United States to provide a USAF "peace keeping" AIR CAP and defensive radar systems in the region.
But......"he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."
#6
I read a while ago that there's a 2300+ year old tradition/event in Persian history that translates to something like "The Year They Killed all the Priests". Obviously pre-islam, but here's hoping the custom hasn't died out.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/28/2008 18:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Cue music from the Outer Limits. Joachim, the precursor of postmodernism and Marxism, believed in the appearance of Dux e Babylone (Duke of Babylon) who was to usher in the third era or new era. The template for this era would be a monestory, where all would be equal. The Dukes signature characteristic would be his beautyful speaking voice and preaching.
Maybe the One is the Duce and the Madhi.
Looks like two eschatological concepts are coming together.
#12
Compare wid WORLD MILITARY FORUM [China = paraph]> RISE IN POST-9-11 INTERNATIONAL DISARMANENT CHALLENGES US GLOBAL HEGEMONY, EXPANSIONISM.
Also from SAME > WORLD SOCIALISTS NETWORK TO PLACE DECLARATION FOR UNIVERSAL SOCIALISM ON INTERNET/US FINANCIAL CRISIS PROVES WORTH OF SOCIALIST PLANNED ECONOMY, SOCIETY!?
#1
Write to POTUS and insist that the Department of Justice (DOJ) continue to send prosecutors to suspect polling places. Please do not let Obama supporters and campaign donators within DOJ discontinue the practice of sending prosecutors to suspect polling places.
Capitol Hill Democrats want to target the Pentagon.
Barney Frank will not soon be named secretary of defense or, insha'Allah, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So there's really no reason to fear that his recent call to cut defense spending by 25% is a harbinger of what to expect in an Obama administration.
Then again, maybe there is.
When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.
And then there is the candidate who early this year recorded an ad for Caucus for Priorities, a far-left outfit that wants to cut 15% of the Pentagon's budget in favor of "education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger [and] deficit reduction."
"Thanks so much for the Caucus for Priorities for the great work you've been doing," says Mr. Obama in the ad, before promising to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending . . . slow our development of future combat systems . . . not develop new nuclear weapons." Joe Biden also cut an ad for the group that was even more emphatic: "I'll tell you what we cannot afford . . . a trillion-dollar commitment to 'Star Wars,' new nuclear weapons, a thousand-ship Navy, the F-22 Raptor."
Mr. Biden is right that we can't afford a thousand-ship Navy, not that anyone has proposed it. Current levels of funding don't quite suffice to operate 300 ships, or about half the number the U.S. had at the end of the Reagan arms buildup. The Navy would be satisfied with 313.
Current funding is also just adequate to purchase about 65 new planes for the Air Force each year, even as the average age of each plane creeps upward to nearly 24 years. Last year, the entire fleet of F-15Cs -- the Air Force's mainstay fighter -- was grounded after one of the planes came apart in midair. Spending on maintenance alone is up more than 80% from a decade ago. Is that another defense item Mr. Biden thinks we can't afford? As for nuclear weapons, the U.S. hasn't built a new warhead in decades. Its mainstay, the W76, is widely suspected of being unreliable, yet Congress has resisted funding the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead.
Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs. But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.
All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary.
But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?
Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate. The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.
And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's? Some voters may like answers sometime before next Tuesday. Alternatively, they can click the button called "I'm Feeling Lucky."
If they want to play accounting games, they can move military retiree pay and services from the DoD budget to the VA budget and magically reduce defense by an sizable amount.
#3
I don't think it matters who is next president because either will have to seriously gut the federal budget. But that being said, there are far better and far worse ways of doing it.
There is no way we can continue to pay enormous salaries to military personnel. But with the economy in the crapper, ordinary pay will look mighty attractive.
R&D will take a major hit, because we have jumped technology for eight years now and are way ahead of the game. Drones are the one exception because they are a lot cheaper to build.
The Navy is going to get its butt kicked, and have to rely on old ships, because it wasted time and resources when it should have been building next gen. They will be lucky if the USS Ford and USS Bush are even completed.
But this is just defense. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are also going to take major hits.
#5
Procurement holiday part II. Production lines kept idle, but open to provide jobs for all. Look for the real $$ cuts to come from O&M.
Bottom line? BOHICA
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
10/28/2008 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
But this is just defense. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are also going to take major hits.
Somehow I can't imagine the Donks going for this. If anything they will seek to expand these problems in order to make more people beholden to them.
And how will they pay for it? Increase taxes of course. The taxes won't be directly on individuals but on businesses - which will tack it on the pricetag for goods and services. And sorry the numbers just don't add up and that $250K limit promised? Well it'll be closer to $50K....
#10
Afghanistan is "anti-war" Obama's favorite place to send our troops because it is most like VietNam--in that we can't really win there as easily (or at all) as we did in Iraw, and in that it will drain our resources and cut back on our volunteer force through higher casualties than in Iraq--he will first gut the military with a war there, then justify his disallowance for bringing military weaponry up, and justify vast military spending cuts as he encourages all to embrace the New World Order.
#12
The taxes won't be directly on individuals but on businesses - which will tack it on the pricetag for goods and services. I'm not going to comment on future taxes. I want to point out that businesses can jack their prices up as high as the moon, but if their customers are tapped out, vastly overextended in debt, and/or under- or unemployed, afraid for their jobs, many of those higher prices won't be paid. Bare necessities will still be purchased whatever their price, but beyond that markets will not be doing very well. Consumer confidence is now at the lowest ever recorded. Cutting government expenditures on defense & health care will most likely just make my scenario worse.
#15
There is no way we can continue to pay enormous salaries to military personnel. But with the economy in the crapper, ordinary pay will look mighty attractive... The Navy is going to get its butt kicked, and have to rely on old ships, because it wasted time and resources when it should have been building...
#17
What enormous salary :
the VAST bureaucracy of the Armed services and ALL the "Retiring on a Pension" officers.
THAT VAST SALARY!
In civilian life when you work for your salary and pension you typically create value of some sort for which you are compensated. There is the express idea that value is created through work.
#19
My guess is that Obama closes most forward bases and nearly every future arms research and development.
He might cut down the overall numbers of the Army and Airforce but will probably learn that the carriers/Marines are too useful for emergencies (Tsunami anyone?) and quick peacekeeping stuff.
I suspect a lot of foriegn military aid will also dry up and a lot of allies that bemoaned Bush will be unpleasantly surprised to find that the US is indeed isolationist by nature and a lot of Obama's cuts will not be seen as the bad thing they really are.
#20
In civilian life when you work for your salary and pension you typically create value of some sort for which you are compensated.
Like cops and firemen? You usually don't need them till the situation arises. Of course, if you wait till then it's a little too late. Your military provides the same 'security' service that those local governments do in a very nasty Darwinist world where if you mess around, you don't get a second chance. Then again if you're a socialist you would have wanted the great Socialists of the 20th Century to win. They left such a lovely legacy - 100 million dead and lands of true poverty. At least the Chinese figured that it didn't work.
#23
When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace";...and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.
We've seen this schizoid behavior before. JFnKerry was for the war before he was against it. These guys (donks) will tell you anything, ANYTHING to get elected.
#5
What about the letter N? That's what Murtha is saying in code.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/28/2008 6:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
We can only hope and pray that The Chosen One (TM) and his followers get a cream pie in the face next week. Else, many R-Burgers may eventually find themselves sentenced to change.
#7
Unfortunately, O-man is going to win. Have all you Rantburg guys figured out where you are going into hiding? After Backdoor Barney Frank cuts the military budget by 25% and we have to pull our troops back to the Potomac, what are you guys going to do?
#8
I have total confidence that a team of President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi can, in their first hundred days, alienate enough people to lose their majority in 2010 and lose the presidency in 2012.
Not a chance. The fairness doctrine will silence talk radio. It will, eventually, be applied to folks like you. When this happens, there will be a series of events that will be blamed on "right wing extremists" that will "necessitate" a state of emergency. All of your property will be seized. There will be "camps" for "re-education". It will pretty much be patterned after the Rhodesia-Zimbabwe transition. And Obama (Peace be Upon Him) will be there for good.
#12
Rubicon. We will need grassroots in the Military. We might start by setting up PR teams in major off base Military towns. Helping with jobs and Food Stamps for the NCO's who will want to take care of their families. Learning which men in the key units are our people. That sort of thing. Approach senior Officers to sound them out. Choose leaders.
Wouldnt it be delicious to see Obama lose next week? Pride and arrogance make a man too confident. I would like to see a "Whaahhtt ?" on his face. And then we call a cab for him and shut the door.
#16
For a totalitarian takeover to succeed, the prime requirements are a submissive, splintered, and uninformed populace. Americans are by nature and nurture activist, self-organizing and know how to inform themselves on subjects of interest -- which means they can turn that skill to new interests. Nor are those charged with enforcing the law likely to enforce property seizure from select groups or mass seizure of persons for educational purposes -- both the Left and the Right teach that "just following orders" never excuses wrong behaviour, nor are there anything close to the numbers of careerists that would be necessary to suppress refusal in the ranks to get blatantly unjust actions enforced.
Finally, the control of information. A great many IT people are more or less libertarian; they tend to become highly creative when challenged, as they would be were an Obama government to try to shut down the free flow of information on the internet, China-style. Then, too, there are fax machines everywhere -- how to control high-pitched squeals over the phone lines?; private printers attached to personal computers, which make Samizdata documents so much easier to disburse than the methods used in the Soviet Union; and enough citizens have personal experience living under totalitarian rule to quickly start up a nationwide underground -- my own mother was a runner for the Dutch Underground, a friend of hers from that time who forged documents under her father's direction is now a professor emeritus at a nearby university... not to mention how many of the generations of retired military have training that would be useful in forming an underground to suborn any attempt to keep the populace ignorant and compliant. All sorts of nefarious plots can be hatched over beer at a VA post by men and women innocently reminiscing about the past.
It won't happen here because there are too many of us who won't let it. America really is different.
President Jordan Lyman: [to reporters at a televised press conference] There's been abroad in this land in recent months a whisper that we have somehow lost our greatness, that we do not have the strength to win without war the struggles for liberty throughout the world. This is slander, because our country is strong, strong enough to be a peacemaker. It is proud, proud enough to be patient. The whisperers and the detractors, the violent men are wrong. We will remain strong and proud, peaceful and patient, and we will see a day when on this earth all men will walk out of the long tunnels of tyranny into the bright sunshine of freedom.
[president exits; reporters stand and applaud]
Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, that was the President of the United States.
#18
You guys will just have stubs if you keep hand-wringing this way for another week.
Not hand-wringing. Just in wait-and-see mode. I don't expect this to be even close to over until January. With all the voter fraud and suing that will take place. This election really has the potential to send this country straight into civil war with all the illegal shit going on.
TW, don't underestimate the power of the Left. I've seen perfectly good professors drummed out of their careers and ruined (despite being elected teacher of the year several years running, despite being widely published, despite bringing millions of research dollars into their university) by deconstructionists of the ilk of Ayers and Obama (and Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Clinton, etc.)--and the "good" people do nothing--they do nothing because they don't really know what's going on behind the scenes and the baddies paint a different picture for public consumption, or the "good" people are just too busy with their own lives and problems to be invested, or the "good" people are confused and don't really understand what's happening and think perhaps there are things they don't know about the victims that make the victim deserving of the actions, or the "good" people are worried over their own position and income.
I'm not going to list the details on a public blog, but it's already happening here. The Chicago/Lakes area is where a lot of this junk originates. It's where the whole term "politically correct" came from.
The other thing is that it's slow. Nothing happens in a big way or quickly, and that's how the Left assumes power.
#21
where the whole term "politically correct" came from I thought the term originated from Moscow-on-the-Charles. The other thing is that it's slow. Nothing happens in a big way or quickly Disagree completely with this, at least for the next 12 months. The financial Panic is world-wide, HUGE, and happened very quickly, and it's still in progress. The Panic has completely swamped US politics, and our esteemed elected ones have been behind the times for about a year now, and the new batch will be about as bad.
#25
Just maybe the truth is starting to get through on talk radio, Fox, and the internet. Screw the MSM. Those phony ba$stard jounalists. They shouldn't even be called journalists. I don't know what you call these liars.
#2
Dang it, Tipper, you left out all the good quotes!
"Hey, is it just me or does that neo-Nazi assassination plotter look like maybe he goosesteps with the left jackboot as well as the right? You know, siegheils from both sides of the Nuremberg rally. Like maybe his death train rattles in both directions. . . ."
Posted by: Mike ||
10/28/2008 6:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Metro skinheads?????
That's pretty much the sixth seal.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
10/28/2008 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
White tuxes and top hats? Was this an assassination plan or a revival of A Chorus Line?
Ooooooooooh! Show tunes!!
#2
Even today it is common to hear that there was never a bad peace or a good war. Better Red than Dead. The West’s aversion to fighting, even against evil, stems from the certainty that resistance will bring punishment. And that punishment will be visited, as at Lidice, on the innocent and the children. It is the inescapability of reprisal that makes the public willing to take a chance on “getting along” rather than endure the inevitable response even to justified resistance. . . .
No one wants to get in the playpen with bad guys. Almost anything but that. We remember the Anthropoids today only because the Soviet Army and the Western Allies of the time were willing to generate more violence against the Third Reich than it could generate against them. If Hitler had won the war, Benes would have been the goat. Well, give it time and he will be the goat still. Dennis KucinichÂ’s proposed new Department of Peace and Nonviolence will convince us all that resistance, if not futile, opens all of us up to reprisal. ThatÂ’s called the Cycle of Violence.
This is why I am not voting for Obama.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/28/2008 17:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
My reason for not voting for the SOB is right HERE!
#5
The great irony of the assassination was that Hitler would have likely killed him soon, himself. Hitler was intensely paranoid about his lieutenants, and was careful to only surround himself with "defectives", individuals who were physically or psychologically crippled. Then, he created overlapping authority and irrational authority. After the bomb plot, Hitler's paranoia became intense.
Heydrich was unique among Hitler's lieutenants because he was not a freak. His only flaw was a persistent rumor that he had Jewish ancestry, a flaw that made him Hitler's favorite, once it had been disproven.
However, he kept amassing power. And that was a deadly mistake. His death was very convenient to Hitler, and Hitler made the most of it.
#1
I think we are all underestimating what the crisis or multiple crisis or actions will be. My feeling is that it will be both diplomatic and military and economic. NORK's will bring on a diplomatic one, Iran a military one and the Chinese an economic one. Something along those lines. This guy can't even speak coherently without a speech writer and teleprompter. He has never had to make any decisions on anything of import. When he gets put in the mixer with his head spinning and everyone trying to speak to him at the same time, he is toast. And so are we, unfortunately.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/28/2008 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I hope you're talking about The Messiah and not the Walrus.
#3
An interview with John Bolton is always refreshing. He talks so clearly. I disagree with him on NK, though. It's unlikely that NK in any of it's anguish can reach out much further than it's neioghbors - SK, Japan, Russia, and the big one, China. It's unlikely that it can deliver death and destruction to us, for example. Self interest forces it's neighbors to take decisive against them, if need be. China and Russia would love it if NK found a way to zap us, of course, but the likelyhood that would happen is small. Personally, I think that Pakistan is the biggest worry and will continue to be in the next few years. Talk about a dragon with lots of heads! That baby has lots of heads and lots of butts and it's hard to tell the difference. So, when you addres one of these head/butts you can't be sure whether fire or personal wastes will come back at you. What makes it so unpredictibly dangerous is they have the capacity to form alliances with so many of their neighbors against others. Iran will continue to be a diplomatic headache, but, like Russia and Venezuela are broke. Dangerous, but no longer fully armed to act out their ambitions. God! I wish that there was a way to have Bolton in there helping us steer through the diplomatic and military issues over the next few years. Don't think there is any way that will happen, though.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/28/2008 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Nice analogy about Pakistan.
I think you're wrong about Venezuela and Russia; keep in mind oil is only at about where it was this time two years ago, and they were doing fine then.
Also, it probably wouldn't take much in terms of military conflict to force the price of oil back up.
There are two types of leaders in this world. Some leaders in the face of serious economic challenges strengthen their resolve and try to overcome them primarily through mobilizing the energies of their people. They are conscious of the fact that the resolution of economic problems basically requires action at home and that despite the interdependence of the modern world external assistance can play only a marginal role in prevailing upon them. This, of course, is the honourable way to handle serious economic problems. Admittedly this course of action requires the leaders and the people at large to take difficult decisions and make painful sacrifices. But the nations emerge stronger in the long run after such an experience and their prestige in the international community is enhanced.
Then there are leaders who take the seemingly easy way out and seek solutions of their national economic problems primarily in assistance from foreign governments and international financial institutions instead of focusing on the initiatives to be taken at home for redressing them. In the process, the control over the economic destiny of the nation is lost to foreign governments and institutions, the independence of the foreign policy is compromised and, above all, the dignity of the nation is lowered. After all economic dependence and independence of foreign policy cannot go together.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
10/28/2008 08:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't see that Pakistan has had, or has now, or will have in the near future, a government with the strength to put down their begging bowl and take up the tools of building their nation. Without outside props, any government there is simply too weak. Containment and a little encouragement is about all that outsiders can realistically offer.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
10/28/2008 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I don't see that Pakistan's begging bowl looks any different than that of Americans' who are living beyond their means or longing for socialism. They're all dysfunctional parasites.
#3
The difference is that Americans are begging from their own govt. these guys are going around begging from everyone else's taxpayers. I don't mind bailing out Americans as much as I would EUnicks or Pakis, if we have to bail anyone out that is.
#5
"Then there are leaders who take the seemingly easy way out and seek solutions of their national economic problems primarily in assistance from foreign governments and international financial institutions instead of focusing on the initiatives to be taken at home for redressing them. In the process, the control over the economic destiny of the nation is lost to foreign governments and institutions, the independence of the foreign policy is compromised and, above all, the dignity of the nation is lowered. After all economic dependence and independence of foreign policy cannot go together."
Can this be applied o the USA and our dept load, most of which is owned and financed by Communist China?
Items 4 & 5 naturally proceed from the basic principles expressed in items 1-3.
The aim of the meeting is to speak "a common word." That was the title of the open letter written to the pope by 138 Muslim scholars. But Fr. Christian Troll says that in addition to words, action is needed. Especially in regard to religious freedom
#2
This contribution starts from the common affirmation of the absolutely central place held within each faith by love of God and love of neighbour, or the dual love commandment Hey, that's not in my copy of the Quran!
. . . Someone is going to be sorely disappointed on Tuesday--either you or the guy next to you--and it seems not unlikely to be us religious conservatives.
If this should prove to be the case, it is possible to see why people of faith might feel estranged from a country that has elected the most pro-Death president in its history. Recall how Robert P. George and the First Things symposium declared democracy at an end in 1996, because of the way the Court was ignoring fundamental human liberty in favor of the culture of death. And it will indeed be vitally important for conservatives to gird up their loins and fight an administration and congress that may well seek to reverse the progress we've made out of the abyss over recent years. But, at the same time, we need only look to the derangement of the Left over the last 8 to 14 (to 28?) years in order to see what we must avoid.
While it is an entirely predictable effect of the Rationalist condition that the Left should be discombobulated by the failure of reality to conform to the apparent power of their ideas, just look at all of the good that their breakdown has prevented them from even noticing, nevermind celebrating. Despite the current correction, American and global wealth is at undreamt of high levels. The academic performance of even those students we had the lowest expectations of is improving and the entire nation is dedicated to improving it further. Abortion is down. Homelessness is down. Life expectancies are rising and from record high rates. Almost uniquely within the developed world we have a rising population. We have transformed health care in Africa. We have, either directly or indirectly, contributed to the liberation of or liberalization in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Liberia, Sudan, Libya, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Haiti, Indonesia, Mongolia, India, Georgia, Kosovo, etc., etc., etc....all of this coming within two decades of our having left the Soviet Empire in the dustbin of history. And on and on. But because these things have not been achieved in accord with the vision they have of how they should have been done--and by whom--the Left has alternately moped and raged its way across a decade. One of the most noticeable aspects of what has been a pretty good run for America and the world has been the miserableness of the Left.
It is incumbent on the Right to avoid such a fate. After all, our theology doesn't afford us the "luxury" of imagining that the world must yield to our wants and wishes. When we consider ourselves to be estranged from our lives just because they aren't going exactly as we'd like them to we are, in some sense, denying Creation. And were to snarl and snipe our way through an Obama presidency we would be elevating Caesar above God in ways that ought to shame us.
Even setting aside the fact that Bill Clinton's 90s were themselves a rather good stretch and that we have ample reason to be hopeful that the coming years will be good for America and the world as well, it is a threshhold mistake for us to follow the Left in believing that life can not be good just because we think the political results are bad. Though we can never rest in a society that hasn't yet recognized the truth that Cardinal Egan speaks . . . , neither can we slip into the slough of despond . . .
If it is natural for those who don't genuinely believe in American ideals to be easily alienated, it is thoroughly unnatural for we who believe devoutly to succumb to similar despair. What, after all, is an unwelcome election result or an inept politician or even an unfortunate law or two in comparison to your family, your friends, your neighbors, your community, your relationship with God?
I had two people tell me remarkably similar stories this weekend abut being at social events and having people launch into tirades about religion or conservatives or both. One had a friend say: "I'm sure I'm offending you, but...." To which they responded, bewildered: "What? But you don't care?" We can pity the folk who behave (misbehave) in this manner, but we must not react by aping them. The impulse to vent must be subordinated to the values of friendship, citizenship, comity, and, yes, love. Where it is inexplicable to the Bright that anyone could differ with them, it is doctrine to us that people will disagree, even on the most fundamental issues. Where it is unimaginable to them that Reason could have yielded up an erroneous answer, it is obvious to us that Fallen Man is prone to mistake, oneself no less than another. Where they seem to think that spilling enough bile will act as a solvent to disagreements, we know such divisions to be part of the human predicament and the proper response to be an attempt at understanding, not an intellectual bludgeoning.
I've been absurdly fortunate in life and not at all unfortunate in politics. My first vote was cast for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and since then my preference has prevailed more often than not. But in 1992 we were living in Chicago and I walked out of the polling place facing the seemingly dire prospect that, despite my vote, Bill Clinton, Carol Mosely-Braun, and Dan Rostenkowski would be announced as winners later that night. Woe the Republic, eh? Well, last night our eldest asked what the best decade of the 20th Century was. And there's really only one honest response to that question: the 1990s.
A good many of us may feel a tad homeless as we walk out of the polling place on Tuesday, but we'll emerge into the sunlight (or snow here) very much at home. And there's every possibility that we'll be more at home in the months and years to come than those who vote differently. America is rather more resilient than we're prone to imagine in our darkest moments and politics means rather less than we're wont to recognize in the midst of a campaign. Think about what truly matters and be happy. Life is awfully good.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/28/2008 12:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, there's a thing, though.
Many of the people voting for O don't really think he's going to do what he probably is going to do, based on what he's said--outside the campaign--he's going to do.
Many of them will have to swallow a good deal of stuff they don't really like in order to justify or excuse their vote.
Is gloating okay?
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
10/28/2008 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
*rolls eyes* I loathe orrin. A boil-headed poseur if there ever was one.
#2
Argentina is now effectively broke, and the government of Cristina Kirchner has expropriated the country's private pension plans to obtain cash. Its foreign credit has collapsed completely.
Seems like I heard something similar to this recently...hmmm...would the next step be mandatory bond purchases taken from paychecks, ostensibly for retirement savings (call it something catchy like the Patriotic Obligatory Service, or P.O.S. Act)?
#4
Those who objected to America's role as world policeman will get what they wanted, but they won't like it: a religious war reaching from Lebanon to Pakistan, and Colombian-style narco-war spreading to Mexico and Brazil. To date the Powers That Be have been clueless about the underpinnings and full extent of the current financial crisis, and ObamaMessiah is the most clueless of all -- his influence would most likely be to worsen and prolong the current Panic, which will hurt the rest of the world more than the US.
#5
Oh, you're just saying that because the markets go to crap every time a poll says Obumble has a big lead, or barney talks about raiding 401s, reid talks about major institutions possibly failing, so on...
I think this guy see himself as a "humorist"... It's for the good of the country and for those who're bitter for a reason and armed because they're scared.
As a lifelong Caucasian, I am beginning to think the time has finally come to take the right to vote away from white people, at least until we come to our senses. Seriously, I just don't think we can be trusted to exercise it responsibly anymore.
I give you Exhibit A: The last eight years.
In 2000, Bush-Cheney stole the election, got us attacked, and then got us into two no-exit wars. Four years later, white people reelected them. Is not the repetition of the same behavior over and over again with the expectation of a different outcome the very definition of insanity? (It is, I looked it up.)
Exhibit B is any given Sarah Palin rally.
Exhibit C would be Ed Rendell and John Murtha, who in separate moments of on-the-record candor they would come to regret, pointing out that there are plenty of people in Pennsylvania who just cannot bring themselves to pull the lever for a black man - no matter what they tell pollsters.
These people are ruining things for the rest of us white people who are ready to move on. Sure, they have their reasons, chimerical though they may be: He's a Muslim. He's a terrorist. He's a Muslim terrorist. He's going to fire all the white people and give their jobs to blacks.
But those are just the little white lies these people allow themselves to be told, a self-induced cognitive dissonance that lets them avoid saying the unsayable: I cannot pull the lever for a black man. Hey, some people just aren't ready yet, even the governor said so. Just like some people aren't ready yet for computers or setting the clock on the VCR.
Or, to hear Murtha tell it, some people - specifically some people in Western Pennsylvania - will never be ready. But the fact is, if you did a statewide head count of racists, you'd find just as many in eastern Pennsylvania as you would in the western part of the state.
That's why this ban on white people voting I'm proposing has got to be statewide. And I'm sorry to say, it's going to have to include all white people, even those who would vote for Obama, because you can't just let some white people vote. That would be unfair.
By this point, you either think I am joking or are calling me an elitist. I assure you I am neither. OK, maybe a little of both. But it wasn't always like this. I come from the Coal Belt, from that Alabamian hinterland between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, as per James Carville's famous formulation.
I am, in fact, just two generations out of the coal mines that blackened the lungs of my grandfather, leaving him disabled, despondent and, finally, dead at the ripe old age of 54. So, understand that I am saying all this for the good of the country and, in fact, for the good of those hard-working white people that Hillary used to pander to.
I know those people, I come from them. They are not some shameful abstract demographic to be brushed under the rug of euphemism by Wolf Blitzer and his ilk.
I have broken kielbasa with those people. I went to school with their children. I have gone to Sunday Mass with a deer-hunter hangover with those people. They are bitter with good reason, and they are armed because they are scared. They mean well, but they are easily spooked.
I fear for what is to become of them after the campaigns leave town for the last time, and Scranton and Allentown and Carlisle go back to being the long dark chicken dance of the national soul they were before the media showed up.
Jonathan Valania is editor in chief of the blog Phawker.com
#3
"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote - and all votes count equally - has no internal feedback for self
correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other
citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he
sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'.
"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the
state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
To Sail Beyond the Sunset
by Robert A. Heinlein
published 1987.
#7
but isn't the very definition of racism treating people differently depending on their skin colour? That's just the dictionary definition of racism. The definition actually in current use specifies that only "white" people can be racists, and in fact all of them "are" racists. No "person of colour" can be a racist by definition. It is politically incorrect to articulate this definition, however.
#8
Humorist, at his best! Overwhelmed by white guilt for no apparent reason(unless he went on a blind date with a black girl in college, once), self loathing asshole(he's gay, contradicted, conflicted by his lapsed Catholicism), lives in his Mother's basement, wants to be a psychologist BUT can't even get past the counselor requirements for HS, should give up the Web Log because as a writer - well, he sucks AND the dumbfuck doesn't even know that he lives in a Commonwealth NOT a state. As for the being scared hence armed, it's more like forward strategic thinking. Ever check the Game Commissions stats on hunters accidentally killing their drinking, lets go to Mass with a hangover best friends? heh
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
