“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Tyrants slandering patriots is nothing new and Obama may be President but he is no patriot and would not know one if he met one.


I know that on a Sunday morning, it is cruel and unusual punishment to have to listen to Obama for five minutes but I found myself on another planet listening to this scurrilous presidential runt.

Obama makes allusions to the Russians under Putin being Nazis, wishing some gay and lesbian athletes would go the Moscow Olympics to win some medals.( go to 3:10 on video) 

Obama is alluding to the black Jesse Owens going to Berlin and showing up Nazi propaganda on racial superiority. Obama is still trying to recover from losing his son but all the same, he is truly  loathsome.


MULLEN: Obama says Snowden no patriot. How would Ben Franklin’s leak be treated today?

TAMPA, August 9, 2013 — President Obama declared Friday that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is not a patriot. Snowden has secured asylum in Russia after leaking widespread collection of phone, e-mail and web browsing data of millions of Americans by the NSA.
Obama now claims that he had already instructed the intelligence community to “make public as much information about these programs as possible.” He says that those who do the spying to protect America and its allies are the patriots.

“They’re patriots. And I believe that those who have lawfully raised their voices on behalf of civil liberties are also patriots who love our country,” the president said.
But not Edward Snowden.
It is true that Edward Snowden likely broke the law in revealing “classified” information. But how would the Founding Father’s view it?
Thomas Jefferson once famously said, “The law is often but the tyrant’s will.”
In 1773, Benjamin Franklin leaked confidential information by releasing letters written by then Lt. Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Hutchinson and his secretary Andrew Oliver to Thomas Whatley, an assistant to the British prime minister.
The letters contained opinions on how the British government should respond to colonial unrest over the Townsend Acts and other unpopular policies. Hutchinson suggested that it was impossible for the colonists to enjoy the same rights as subjects living in England and that “an abridgement of what are called English liberties” might be necessary.

The content of the letters was damaging to the British government.  Franklin was dismissed as colonial Postmaster General and endured an hour-long censure from British Solicitor General Alexander Wedderburn.
Like Snowden, Franklin was called a traitor for informing the people about the actions of its government. As Franklin’s biographer H.W. Brands writes;
“For an hour he hurled invective at Franklin, branding him a liar, a thief, the instigator of the insurrection in Massachusetts, an outcast from the company of all honest men, an ingrate whose attack on Hutchinson betrayed nothing less than a desire to seize the governor’s office for himself. So slanderous was Wedderburn’s diatribe that no London paper would print it.”
Tyrants slandering patriots is nothing new. History decided that Franklin was a patriot. It was not so kind to the Hutchinsons and Wedderburns.
History will decide who the patriots were in the 21st century as well. It will not be concerned with health care programs or unemployment rates. More likely, it will be concerned with who attacked the fundamental principles of freedom and who risked everything to defend them.
Tom Mullen is the author of “A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.”


  1. Alt. Headline:

    Obama Supports American Athletes; Won't Withdraw From Olympics.

    1. Alternate, alternate headline:

      America Won't be Pushed Around by the Russians. Will Cooperate; Won't Kowtow.

    2. Question for the day:

      Snowden, the New Franklin? Really?

    3. Snowden is more close to Franklin than Obama is to any signers of The US Constitution.

    4. Or, maybe, just a Whistleblower, that might have actually done a little good, and who should be slowly, quietly allowed to recede from view (until, later, some cooler heads can "make a deal?")

    5. Maybe Franklin was just a “publisher” that may have actually done a little good.

      : )

    6. Well, Snowden Is a white man.

      And, I doubt that Obama would sign a Constitution that attributed 0.60 Humanity to those of African descent.

    7. That is really not quite what that meant.

    8. No time now, but I’ll do a post on that misinterpretation.

    9. To parse it much finer than that is probably a bit above my meager abilities. :)

    10. Obama would like to redress that historical inequality by assigning 5/3 humanity to blacks going forward.

    11. .

      Now, some would invalidate the truth of the basic civil and human rights elucidated in the Constitution because at the time they were noted in the document they were not universally practiced, ignoring of course that it was these principles that have led to any progress we have seen on social issues in this country since.

      Well, Snowden Is a white man.

      There it is again, the liberal excuse used whenever no other justification or rationalization exists, the final solution to justify any action or inaction. Depending on which side it is viewed from it is either art form or kabuki.

      Since it's Sunday morning, I won't comment of any the lack of abilities.


    12. .

      That's it?

      That's your response?



    13. .

      Alternate headline: Obama learns the 'Carter' lesson regarding pulling out of the Olympics.


    14. .

      My, my, a recurrence of the Tourette Syndrome. Note yesterday's response for possible help.


    15. No, Quirk, it's just that I've been putting up with your argumentative shit for too many years, now; and, I'm tired of it.

    16. .

      You sit here constantly calling everyone on this blog a racist on every subject from Obamacare to national security just because they disagree with you and Obama and then you get in high dudgeon when someone calls you on it.

      Well, boo fucking hoo.

      If you want to see racism, take a look in the mirror.


    17. Smarts, don't it?

      I'm tired of you, Quirk. Leave me alone.

    18. .

      By the way, I do appreciate you 'putting up' with my argumentative style. Real considerate, especially from a guy whose every other utterance ends with 'we are total fucking morons' when even to the casual reader that translates to 'you are all total fucking morons' when you don't agree with me.


    19. .

      Fine, Ruf.

      I will leave you alone as long as you keep your 'racism' bullshit in check.


    20. Yeah, I probably went 9 months without making that statement, but in the whole time you kept riding me for every comment I made. You never attempt to make a positive comment, just to bitch, bitch, bitch when someone else does.

      Well, it's worn thin, bubba. It's no longer "cute," just tiresome. I'll say it again, "Get Off My Ass." (and I'll stay off yours.)

    21. .

      Refer to my comment just above.


  2. I think Obama went off script. When the question came up about the Olympics, he was looking for an opening to take a shot at the Russians.
    For him to even get near that shows what an ass he really is.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. No, Rufus, he's not "OUR" ass. He's "YOUR" ass. He's your communist ass.

  3. Enjoy your Sunday. Go outside and smell the ethanol. Have a good one Rufie.

    1. Nuttin to do taday. If I wuz a religious man I might even go to Church. :)

      Rainy Summer days make for poor fishin' in the Midsouth.

    2. Oh, I meant to say, "you, also." :)

    3. The operative word being "due," of course. :)

  4. By: Patrick J. Buchanan
    8/9/2013 06:00 AM

    “There have been times when they slip back into Cold War thinking,” said President Obama in his tutorial with Jay Leno.

    And to show the Russians that such Cold War thinking is antiquated, Obama canceled his September summit with Vladimir Putin.

    The reason: Putin’s grant of asylum to Edward Snowden, who showed up at the Moscow airport, his computers full of secrets that our National Security Agency has been thieving from every country on earth, including Russia.

    Yet there are many KGB defectors in the United States, and Russia has never used this as an excuse to cancel a summit.

    The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal are delighted, hopeful that cancellation presages a more confrontational policy toward Putin.

    But is a second Cold War really a good idea? And if it is coming, who is more responsible for it?

    From 1989 to 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to let Eastern Europe go free and withdraw his troops and tank armies back to the Urals. The Soviet Union was allowed to dissolve into 15 nations. In three years, the USSR gave up an empire, a third of its territory, and half its people.

    And it extended to us a hand of friendship.

    How did we respond? We pushed NATO right up to Russia’s borders, bringing in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, even former Soviet republics Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

    European objections alone prevented us from handing out NATO war guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia. Was this a friendly act?

    Would we have regarded post-Cold War Russian alliances with Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Mexico as friendly acts?


    1. So what was Putin's excuse when he canceled a summit right after taking office on his second, permanent term?

    2. You forgot Kissinger's timely "history", declaring Russia an eternal, implacable, imperialist enemy of freedom generally and the US particularly.

      Look, it's really simple: without an existential threat, there is no need for new toys. For reasons unknown, the US is incapable of pure research.

    3. Obama's communist crap has done more harm to America and our personal freedoms than vladimir ever even wanted too. I'd sooner have Vladimir Putin as America's president (10 to 1) than the dumbass half-black communist bastard Obama who doesn't know shit from shinola, and is to goddamn dumb to learn. But then, he isn't American.


  5. {…}

    To cut Moscow out of the Caspian Sea oil, we helped build a pipeline through two former Soviet republics, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and, thence, under the Black Sea to our NATO ally Turkey.

    In the Boris Yeltsin decade, the 1990s, U.S. hustlers colluded with local oligarchs in looting Russia of her natural resources.

    In the past decade, the National Endowment for Democracy and its Republican and Democratic subsidiaries helped dump over governments in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, and replace them with regimes friendlier to us and more distant from Moscow.

    George W. Bush sought to put an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Neither country had requested it. We said it was aimed at Iran.

    When my late friend, columnist Tony Blankley, visited Russia in the Bush II era, he was astounded at the hostility he encountered from Russians who felt we had responded to their offer of friendship at the end of the Cold War by taking advantage of them.

    Putin is a former intelligence officer, a patriot, a nationalist.

    How did we think he would react to U.S. encirclement of his country by NATO and U.S. meddling in his internal affairs?

    How did American patriots in the Truman-McCarthy era react to the discovery that Hollywood, the U.S. government and our atom bomb project were riddled with communists loyal to Josef Stalin?

    Why cannot we Americans see ourselves as others see us?

    Why is Russia still supporting the brutal regime of Bashar Assad in Syria, the Post and Journal demand to know.

    Well, Russia has a long relationship with the Assad family, selling it arms and maintaining a naval base on Syria’s coast. Did we expect Russia to behave as we did when our autocratic ally of 30 years, Hosni Mubarak, was challenged by crowds in Tahrir Square?

    We ditched Mubarak and washed our hands of him in weeks.

    Russia stood by its man. And does not Putin have a point when he asks why we are backing Syrian rebels among whom are elements of that same al-Qaida that killed thousands of us in the twin towers?

    Is the Syrian war so clear-cut a case of good and evil that the Russians should dump their friends and support ours?

    If the Assad family is irredeemably wicked, why did George H.W. Bush enlist Hafez Assad in his war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, a war to which Damascus contributed 4,000 troops?

    There is another reason Russia is recoiling from America.

    With the death of its Marxist-Leninist ideology, Russia is moving back toward its religious and Orthodox roots. Secretly baptized at birth by his mother, Putin has embraced this.

    Increasingly, religious Russians look on America, with our Hollywood values and celebrations of homosexuality, as a sick society, a focus of cultural and moral evil in the world.

    Much of the Islamic world that once admired America has reached the same conclusion. Yet the Post is demanding that our government stand with “the persecuted rock band” of young women who desecrated with obscene acts the high altar of Moscow’s most sacred cathedral.

    Upon what ground do we Americans, 53 million abortions behind us since Roe v. Wade, stand to lecture other nations on morality?

    Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, trade, arms reduction — we have fish to fry with Putin. As for our lectures on democracy and morality, how ’bout we put a sock in it?

    1. Flash! This Just In!

      The world is a mess.

      Let's blame Obama.


    2. The owner of a blog titled "The Libertarian" sides with Putin against the "moral evil" of homosexuality and Pussy Riot. Go figure.

    3. .

      You don't have to side with Putin to recognize Obama's petulance.

      As for blaming Obama, why not? As someone put it above, "...he's Our ass" and the only one we can blame or applaud for US foreign policy.

    4. If Obama went ahead and did the summit, everyone would be saying how spineless he is. As it is, even Hugh Hewitt is giving Obama a thumbs up.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. .

      Here is another observation on the Obama 'snub' of Putin from a foreign source.

      It get's into a discussion of the Snowden affair about a third of the way into the article. It also raises the question, does Obama 'really' want Snowden returned to the US or would he prefer he stays in Russia?


  6. "Yet the Post is demanding that our government stand with “the persecuted rock band” of young women who desecrated with obscene acts the high altar of Moscow’s most sacred cathedral."

    Indeed, Pussy Riot were Heroines around here for awhile. Everyone was all for them. They were even given a "Free Pussy Riot" place of honor.

    Come on, Pat, try to think a little more clearly, if you please.

    1. Rolling Stone magazine is conflicted. On one hand, they never met a strong man anti-American dictator they didn't like. On the other hand, all the cool kids like Madonna are saying Pussy Riot should go free.

  7. It i not so much that "Russia" stood by Assad, as much as the fact that Assad's Military stood by Assad.

    Mubarak's Military knew that the time had come, Mubarak had to go. The US was standing by Mubarak, Mrs Clinton voiced her full support, until she was briefed by those in the US government in contact with the Egyptians, over at DoD.

    The US followed the Egyptian military's lead, the US Security Partner in the region, well, it was and is running the internal domestic politics of Egypt. Make no mistake about that.

    That the US Security Partner is running Egypt, a mark of the continued success of US foreign policy.

    1. I thought neo-cons were all about democracy. Isn't that why we left a Sharia state behind us after every intervention? One man, one vote, one time?

    2. .

      That the US Security Partner is running Egypt, a mark of the continued success of US foreign policy.

      You are completely delusional on this subject, rat.


    3. Rat never argued an argument with his-self he ever lost.

    4. If you have not noticed, Rat has an opinion on every subject, every topic and ever query.

      thank all that is holy for his google skills.

      Rat is THe Bar's Cliff Claven.

    5. rat has no one else to argue with than himself, as no one else pays any attention to him any longer.

    6. Not at all delusional.
      Every US policy goal is being met.

      The Suez Canal is open, traffic flows freely.

      The Egyptian military is cooperating with the Israeli military.
      Days after alleged Israeli drone strike, Egypt army says kills 12 militants in Sinai

      There are no Russian military facilities in Egypt.

      Everything else, pure theater.

    7. The US was never allied with Mubarak, but with the power structure he represented.
      When the power structure dumped Mubarak, so did the US.

      The US stayed on the "strong horse".

      That horse dumped the first rider, then the second.
      Maybe the next one can stay on.
      Regardless the US has ats interests in the horse, the rider is secondary, to be sure.

    8. .

      The US has turned off all sides in Egypt. The population despises us, both seculars and Islamists. As for the military, they take the baksheesh and the toys then ignore us. Just ask John Kerry.

      As for the Suez Canal, it would be remain open regardless, the Egyptian's and the Egyptian military (which controls 40% of the economy) has no other choice, they need the income and the foreign currency, not to mention the reality that the world wouldn't allow the canal to stay closed for long.

      As for peace with the Israelis, again it's not in Egypt's interest to get into a war with Israel. Israel is more powerful and though the US might provide Egypt with toys, they always provide Israel with newer and bigger toys.

      US foreign policy vis-à-vis Egypt is strange and wondrous, IMO. It is inconsistent and ad hoc proving to the world that previous commitments will be cancelled at the drop of a hat or with the first demonstration. It has turned both sides in the conflict against the US. And while we pay annual tribute to the military, they offer nothing in return that we wouldn't have had without the ransom.

      Effective policy? If so, I don't see it.


  8. Replies
    1. Ah, the Idaho I know so well and love, home sweet home.

    2. Great neighbors, Idahoovians.

    3. Great people make great neighbors.

  9. Tell me, again, how the EPA is such a bad idea -

    Surfing Indonesia

    1. Why was "New Coke" a bad idea?

      Why was Custer's last stand a bad idea?

      Why was Windows Vista a bad idea?

      Why were sleepovers with Michael Jackson and Sandusky bad ideas?

  10. The following is really a paean to Quirk. As you recall, he took down the Guards when we freed Paolo from the Vatican gaol. It was no mean task on Quirk's part -

    >>>What Does the Swiss Guard Actually Do?
    Don't let the ostrich feathers fool you.

    By Christopher Beam|Posted Wednesday, June 6, 2007, at 6:36 PM

    Swiss Guard. Click image to expand.
    The Swiss Guard

    As Pope Benedict XVI passed through St. Peter's Square during his weekly Wednesday audience, a man jumped over the barrier and apparently tried to climb aboard the pope's jeep. This video footage shows the papal security detail pouncing on the man while a member of the Swiss Guard stood by and watched. What do the Swiss Guards actually do?

    Protect the pope. While the Swiss Guard has many ceremonial responsibilities—guarding Vatican checkpoints, standing sentry in the Apostolic Palace, appearing at celebratory masses and other events—their ultimate job is to keep the pope out of harm's way, even if that means taking a bullet for him. Judging from the barrier-vaulting video, it might look like the Swiss Guard was doing a poor job of defending the pope's life. In fact, it was on the case: Two of the men who rushed to hold down the intruder were Swiss Guard officers in plainclothes—the commander and a high-ranking officer. (A pair of undercover Swiss Guard officers accompanies the pope whenever he travels.) The other men in suits are most likely members of the Vatican security forces, or gendarmeria, and possibly the Italian secret service. Meanwhile, the uniformed guard from the footage appears to be manning the route, but not as part of the security entourage.


    1. That's not to say the uniformed guard couldn't have interfered. Swiss Guardsmen (yes, they must be Swiss, and, yes, they must be men) are trained in hand-to-hand combat. They also learn to use various weapons like the halberd, a spear-axe combo for which the halberdiers—the Swiss Guard equivalent of privates—are named. (These pikes were great for knocking knights off their horses. Against modern firepower, not so much.) Guardsmen also know how to use standardissue SIG Sauer 9 mm pistols and the H&K submachine gun, although these days they don't carry those weapons—at least not conspicuously. They carried rifles until the 1970s, when Pope Paul VI reorganized the papal forces.

      When Julius II founded the Papal Swiss Guard back in the 16th century, defending the pope wasn't such a safe job. In 1527, three-quarters of the Swiss forces were killed during the sack of Rome. Then in the 19th century, attacks on the pope increased as Italy was becoming unified, and the Swiss Guard had to disperse crowds with gunfire. But in modern times, being a Swiss Guard isn't too dangerous. Attempted assaults on the pope are extremely rare—an assassin shot John Paul II in 1981—and pepper spray is usually enough to immobilize Vatican intruders. The Swiss Guard did face tragedy in 1998, however, when one of the halberdiers shot the newly appointed Swiss Guard commander and his wife.<<<

    2. The new Pope took the glass out of his ride, he has more faith.

  11. James DiMaggio was a sitting duck. The 'wilderness' is not a good place to hide out. Them thermal imaging devices, for instance. And night vision. Better odds in some slum somewhere. Motel Six. Anything but a few short miles out of Cascade/McCall. Better in some city under a bridge.


  12. James DiMaggio was a sitting duck. The 'wilderness' is no place to hide out. Them thermal imaging devices, for instance. The night vision equipment. Better off in some slum somewhere. Motel Six maybe. Anywhere but in the 'wilderness' a few short miles from Cascade/McCall. Better off under some big city bridge somewhere. City slicker got himself slickered.


  13. double post screw up, but you get the point

  14. Take a little hottie like that into the woods you're gonna show up on IR.

  15. "America is the greatest country in the world. . .help me change it!" -- Obummer, 2008

  16. A key unsettled question about protections for whistleblowers is whether tipsters have to take their claims to the Securities and Exchange Commission to qualify.

    Big U.S. companies have a surprising answer: Yes.

  17. >>>>August 11, 2013
    PA Fleeces new Palestinia​n City
    Leo Rennert

    It's called Rawabi, an entirely new Palestinian city with an expected population of 40,000. It's located halfway between Jerusalem and Nablus. Its developers already have sold more than 600 apartments. But, no surprise, they've also encountered a few snags, especially from Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority.

    But that's not the way the New York Times reports Rawabi's problems. In an Aug. 11 dispatch, Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner instead turns the tables to make Israel the fall guy, although Rawabi's travails stem far more from obstacles created by the PA. To Kershner and the Times, objective reporting counts for very little. The more important thing is to engage in Israel bashing. Starting with a blame-Israel headline: "Birth of a Palestinian City Is Punctuated by Struggles -- Project Depends on Israeli Cooperation -- Cement has to be imported, and there is no port or airport." (Page 9)

    Kershner starts off by asserting that Rawabi's future growth depends on the cooperation of Israel and she clearly doesn't think that Rawabi is getting it. There are issues, she writes, like water and getting permits. Also, the builders have to buy cement from Israel. Since there is no airport or port in PA-controlled territories in the West Bank, cement and other supplies have to be bought from Israel.
    But such difficulties pale by comparison with far more serious challenges posed by Abbas and the PA. However, they are tucked away farther down in Kershner's piece, where fewer readers are apt to notice. Such as Rawabi attracting "almost no international financing despite the billions of dollars that donor nations have given to the Palestinian Authority" (Paragraph No. 20) Where, one wonders, did that money go?

    "Four years ago," Kershner acknowledges in Paragraph No. 21, "the Palestinian Authority agreed to pay for the building of schools, a police station and some other public amenities in Rawabi at a cost of $150 million. None of that money materialized." Why? Kershner prefers to keep her distance, lest she trip over a real scandal.

    Building the new Palestinian city also has come under attack from a Palestinian outfit called the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, which accuses the developers of sacrificing Palestinian rights and "whitewashing the Israeli occupation."

    By any objective yardstick, it would seem that Palestinian obstacles, like shutting down promised financing, far outweigh a few bureaucratic snags from the Israeli side. But leave it to Kershner, the Times and its headline writers, the higher imperative remains to stick it to Israel, while hiding much bigger Palestinian obstacles in Rawabi's way.

    Such journalistic tricks are part and parcel of a long-running practice by the Times to whitewash Abbas and PA transgressions, while blowing up the slightest Israeli missteps -- an egregious double standard.
    Welcome to Rawabi -- or rather the NY Times version.

    Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers<<<<


    The noble PA FLEECING the noble Palestinian People?

    Money in Swiss bank accounts? In Paris?? Parked there with all that Romney money in whatever Caribbean Island it was???

    Say it ain't so, Joe.

    1. Bob, why do you always throw monkey wrenches into the great fair and balanced anti-Israel monologue taking place here?

  18. NATO said three of its servicemembers were killed Sunday in eastern Afghanistan but provided no further details.


    The deaths bring to 103 the number of foreign troops killed so far this year. Of those, 78 were from the United States.

    1. The important thing is the poppies must flow.

  19. Argue with this, you infidel dogs -


    Iran's supreme leader promises Jewish land to Palestinians

    Audio translation: Reza Kahlili

    Iran’s supreme leader promises in a newly released audiotape the destruction of Israel and Palestinians’ return to that land.

    Fars News Agency, an outlet run by the Revolutionary Guards, last week posted an audiotape of excerpts of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s speeches to Palestinian officials and others with a title “Palestine will surely become free.”

    In the audiotape, which is partly in Arabic, Khamenei gives blessings to those who fight against Israel and says, “Peace be upon the children of our nation, peace be upon the brave jihadists in Palestinian and Lebanese resistance. Today the Islamic world and the whole world are witnesses to great revelations that show change in international affairs.”

    The ayatollah promises a restructuring of the Middle East: “Palestine will be free, have no doubt in this. … Palestinians will return there and there will be a Palestinian government … and that is based on the truth revealed by God. A new Middle East will be … an Islamic Middle East.”

    Khamenei attacks Israel for defending itself: “They attacked Lebanon – a mistake. They attacked Gaza – a mistake. They attacked those (Turkish) ships – a mistake. These mistakes, one after another, show that the murderous Zionist regime of Israel is reaching the final fall and destruction of its own non-existence.”

    In promising the annihilation of Israel, the supreme leader also says, “There is no doubt that victory awaits the Palestinian people in the future, and the myth of Zionist power over this region will completely vanish, Allah willing.”

    Become a part of the investigative reporting team uncovering the truths about Iran, and get author Reza Kahlili’s “A Time to Betray” about his life as a double agent inside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

    On Friday Khamenei called the current peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority “futile” and said, “The U.S.-brokered talks … are aimed at undermining the Palestinians’ resistance.”

    He assailed the U.S. for reviving the peace talks between the two.

    Khamenei’s audiotape comes on the back of a statement by Hassan Nassrallah, the secretary-general of the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah.

    “Some think that the fall and destruction of Israel is only good for Palestinians,” Nassrallah said recently. “However, [such an event] will be good for all the countries of the region, and one cannot separate this threat [Israel] from Jordon, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. For this reason, the annihilation of Israel is in the national interest of Jordon, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon.”


    1. Nassrallah, quoted by Amar news, an Iranian media outlet, recalled a statement by the founder of the Islamic Republic: “Imam [Ruhollah] Khomeini provided a clear and precise definition for Israel when he called this regime [Israel] a cancerous tumor. … And the only way to cure it is not to give it time, not give in to it and eradicate its roots.”

      The clerics ruling Iran believe that Khamenei is the one named in a centuries-old hadith who will prepare for the coming of the Islamic last messiah, the Shiites’ 12th Imam, Mahdi. According to the hadith, Israel is to be destroyed before Mahdi’s re-appearance.

      Mojtaba Zolnoor, an adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei in the Revolutionary Guards, has stated publicly that a number of the Ulama (Islamic scholars) and authoritative grand ayatollahs have announced that Khamenei is quite possibly the fabled “Seyed Khorasani.” According to the Islamic hadith, Khorasani is an individual from the region who is not only a companion of the Mahdi, but also is responsible for setting the stage for Mahdi’s re-emergence.

      Also, according to close associates of Khamenei, the supreme leader has acknowledged his role in history by telling a confidant (Mohammad Reyshahri) that Khomeini told him personally, “Dear Seyed Ali, it will be during the time of your leadership that the last Shiite Imam, Imam Mahdi, will re-appear.”<<<<


    2. Good luck to them, Israel destroys back.

  20. (Humans are typically born with 23 pairs of chromosomes, including one pair of sex chromosomes, for a total of 46 in each cell. People with Down syndrome have 47 chromosomes in each cell.)

    The researchers discovered that a gene called XIST -- which normally turns off one of the two copies of the X chromosome in female mammals, including humans -- could be inserted into the extra copy of chromosome 21 in lab cultures.

    Using skin cells from a person with Down syndrome, they created pluripotent stem cells, which can form a range of different body cell types. When they inserted the XIST gene, they found that it effectively silenced the extra chromosome.

    1. Could it be a 'cure'? Breakthrough prompts Down syndrome soul-searching

      JoNel Aleccia NBC News

      >>>>“What if fewer babies with Down syndrome are being born and Down syndrome starts to inch closer to being a rare condition?” said Skotko.

      The promise of new drug therapies and treatments may help, he says, giving hope to families expecting Down syndrome babies and to those with older children – and adults.

      Still, Jawanda Mast says she’s certain the questions raised by the new research will be debated for years in public meetings and in private conversations.

      “It’s an interesting thing because Rachel’s whole life, there’s been this discussion: ‘If you could take it away, would you?’” she said. “I think, ethically, we’re just taking the cap off the bottle.”<<<<

      If we could cure it, should we cure it?

    2. We can cure Downs, but no, it's stem cells, so the Catholic Church says "There Are Some Things Man Was Not Meant To Know".

    Clown’s Obama stunt at Missouri State Fair draws rebuke
    August 11
    The Kansas City Star

    Read more here:

    nifty video of Obama the Clown in article


    Time for western music -

  22. Carol Zaleski -

  23. ...if only I could get as far under Rufies' skin as Quirk has.

    boo hoo

    I feel like a racist even tho I'm not.

    Rufie II is SO Mean!

    1. DON'T!! Get as far under the skin of Rufus as Quirk has. Unless you have enough money for body armor!


  24. Still wonder if there's some slave owners in Rufies family's closet.

    There has to be some reason, doesn't there?

    ...or is he just (another) mainstream brainwashed Drone?

    1. Cherokees were slavers all the way back.

      Answer is a definite 'yes'.

  25. There's always Occam:

    He just needs to feel better than us.

  26. ...hence his ethanol fetish.

  27. ...and Carbon Heated Water in Mississippi.

  28. I think part of the problem is he seems to have given up going to Doyle's. This is a bad sign. When a man has lost the urge for the companionship, poker, and mutual drink at Doyle's it is a true cause for concern.

    If this isn't the 'problem' it is surely a symptom of it.

    An older man like Rufus, like many of us, simply does not change healthful habits like going to Doyle's without some deep inner urge.

    Something is going on here.

  29. "Something is going on here."

    ...a master of understatement.

    Obviously a Doyle's scholar.

    1. Have seen it before, Doug, have seen it all before. The giving up of companionship and laughter and mutual drinking, the turn inward, the cathecting to a fetish, the idolatry, the insistence, the tunnel vision, the irrationality, the anger at others who disagree, the cursing, the degradation of language, the commands to lewd acts.......the final arrest, trial, jail, the whole nine yards....

  30. Being Bipolar, my greatest fear is going out on a downer.

  31. At least I got a 50 percent chance.

  32. See here, even the dreaded and abhorred American Thinker is not immune to the claim of the US of A being a 'one party state'-

    >>>August 12, 2013
    Rule of the Republicrats
    By Todd Keister

    If there was any lingering doubt that Americans live under one-party statist rule, the events of the past several weeks should have removed them. When it was revealed that the federal government has been illegally spying on every American's telephone call records and emails, members of both parties expressed their enthusiastic support of the program. Now, Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has publicly attacked Republican Senator Rand Paul -- one of the few members of the US Congress that still believes in the America of our revolution.<<<

    Read more:

    1. Pubs can't wait to kiss the party and the country goodbye with Amnesty.

      Texas Republicrat Poe wants more Visas than Schumer asks for!

  33. August 12, 2013
    Russia Makes a Fool Out of Obama, Over and Over
    By Kim Zigfeld

    The worst has finally happened. It took much longer than expected -- nearly two thousand days -- but Barack Obama's foreign policy has finally collapsed, leaving Americans to gape slack-jawed at the smoking ruins. Obama has undermined American influence and honor in ways that will be very difficult to repair.

    Writing in the Moscow Times, Russian attorney Vladimir Berezansky plays the funeral dirge. He calls Russia's granting of asylum to Edward Snowden a "Suez moment." By this he means that China and Russia have effectively burst the bubble of American power in the same way that the U.S. burst the bubble of French and British power during the Suez crisis. The latter two nations were never the same afterwards, and, Berezansky argues, neither will the USA be after Snowden. Watching Obama's helplessness as these two malignant dictatorships thumb their noses at America reminds one of nothing so much as the Iran hostage crisis and the Afghanistan invasion, where Jimmy Carter's presidency ran aground.

    Russia went out of its way to snub and provoke the United States and to humiliate Obama. It took the minimum amount of time and gave Snowden the maximum number of benefits available. Russia sent a clear message that it cares nothing for its relationship with the United States, has no fear of Obama's retaliatory moves, and believes that there will be none anyway. Obama replied by making it clear that he would not impose any tangible sanctions, such as an Olympic boycott, once again handing another easy victory to Putin.

    Leon Aron, the dean of American Russia watchers, believes that Obama's feeble response to Russia on Snowden, canceling a scheduled personal meeting with Putin, was a fatal display of weakness and a national disgrace......<<<

  34. The Death of the U.S.-Egypt Alliance
    August 12, 2013 By Joseph Klein 1 Comment

    President Obama’s misguided attempt to bend Egyptian political affairs in the Muslim Brotherhood’s favor is unravelling the carefully nurtured military and economic alliance between the United States and Egypt, which has served for decades to stabilize that vital part of the Middle East.

    First, after throwing former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak under the bus, the Obama administration did everything it could to portray the Muslim Brotherhood as a worthy organization committed to democratic principles of governance. The United States was seen by many secular Egyptians, including those who spearheaded the original revolution that led to Mubarak’s overthrow, as helping to unfairly tip the scales in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidates.

    A year later, millions of Egyptians filled the streets demanding an end to the Islamic theocracy that Mubarak’s elected Islamist successor, Mohamed Morsi, tried to impose on the country. U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson stirred up hostility against the United States when she said the protesters should stop wasting their time with street demonstrations and allow the Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to continue to govern. “Some say that street action will produce better results than elections,” she said. “To be honest, my government and I are deeply skeptical.”

    After the Egyptian military heeded the wishes of the people and ended Morsi’s authoritarian rule, the Obama administration has continued to meddle by advocating for the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood while at the same time hedging its bets. It has so far avoided using the word “coup” to describe the military’s action, in order to forestall the automatic triggering of a statutory requirement to cut off non-humanitarian aid when a military coup overthrows a democratically elected government. Secretary of State John Kerry even went so far as to say earlier this month that Egypt’s army was “restoring democracy.” He added that “The military was asked to intervene by millions and millions of people. The military did not take over, to the best of our judgment — so far.”

    Such mixed signals have ended up alienating both the Muslim Brotherhood and its opponents, but the Muslim Brotherhood need not worry. President Obama’s heart is with them.

    In fact, Obama has reportedly agreed to meet with Muslim Brotherhood representatives at the White House. According to the Egypt Independent, “Obama would reportedly meet with Brotherhood officials to ‘hear their opinion’ on developments in Egypt, in the presence of Turkish diplomats.”

    On July 30th, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel set the stage when he phoned Egypt’s defense minister and leader of Mohamed Morsi’s removal from power, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and urged him to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back into the government. According to an exclusive report in the DEBKA File, al-Sisi told Hagel that “it was up to the Muslim Brotherhood to subscribe to his roadmap for the caretaker administration which is ruling the country until elections are held. He then floored the US defense secretary by announcing he was launching a lightning campaign for his own run for the presidency in an early election.”

    General al-Sisi expressed his exasperation with the United States a few days later in an interview with the Washington Post. “You left the Egyptians. You turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won’t forget that,” said al-Sisi. “Now you want to continue turning your backs on Egyptians?”

    1. General al-Sisi has a different vision for Egypt’s political future than does the Obama administration. He is trying to build a more unified Egypt based on a nationalist platform, not a religious one. Only after the large sit-ins of Morsi supporters are brought to an end, one way or the other, will the defense minister consider offering the Muslim Brotherhood an opportunity to engage in a limited amount of political activity on a relatively short leash. Understandably, al-Sisi does not trust the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly after Morsi looked the other way while he was president and allowed militants in the Sinai Peninsula to gather for attacks on Egyptian security personnel without any serious consequence. Having failed to successfully subvert the Egyptian political system from within after Morsi and his Islamist colleagues won their elections, because millions of Egyptians caught on to their deception and demanded their ouster, the Muslim Brotherhood is now helping to coordinate the jihadist operations in Sinai for the purpose of launching counterattacks.

      The Obama administration would prefer that al-Sisi and the military he commands move to the sidelines and allow the Muslim Brotherhood to re-assume a central political role. The administration sees this as the best course to avoid another military dictatorship and a violent backlash that could deteriorate into a full-blown civil war, despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s own duplicitous track record.

      Adding further insult to injury, the RINO Bobbsey twins, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, visited Cairo last week and delivered an ultimatum to Egypt’s interim government leaders. According to a report by Youssef Ibrahim appearing in The New York Sun on August 8th, the message the senators delivered was either to release Morsi and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders from detention and to bring Muslim Brotherhood representatives into the new government, or face a cut-off of all U.S. military and financial aid to Egypt. The White House denies that the senators were acting directly on behalf of President Obama, but it is unlikely they would have been so blunt without the president’s blessing.

      The response of Egypt’s current President Mansour and his prime minister, Hazem Biblawi, was swift and contemptuous of the two senators. They described Senators McCain and Graham as “delusional” and “liars.” Egypt’s chief newspaper, Al Ahram, said the senators engaged in “foolish statements that are unacceptable.”

      The Egyptian cabinet sent out a tweet calling Senator McCain “a persona non grata” for insulting Egypt’s sovereignty.

      There is only so much leverage that the Obama administration can get out of a threat to cut off aid to Egypt. If the threat is not acted upon, it will only make the United States look even weaker. If it is carried out, we will be pushing Egypt into the arms of Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Arab States of the Persian Gulf to fill the gap.

      Moreover, in continuing to advocate for the Muslim Brotherhood, the Obama administration is legitimizing a jihadist organization that spawned al Qaeda and Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood may put on the sheep’s clothing of faux moderation for tactical reasons when it can fool its opposition by doing so, but its ultimate objective is the same as al Qaeda’s – an Islamic caliphate governed by sharia law.

    2. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Supreme Guide and overall leader, Mohamed Badie, made his jihadist group’s agenda clear in a sermon he delivered in December 2011, as the Muslim Brotherhood was building up its political power following the toppling of the Mubarak regime. He said that the Muslim Brotherhood’s mission would start with the creation of a sound government and end with the establishment of an Islamic caliphate according to the plan laid out by the organization’s Egyptian founder, Hassan al-Banna, in 1928.

      In a sermon Mohamed Badie delivered a little over a year earlier in September 2010 (as transcribed by The Middle East Media Research Institute), he made clear the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology of Islamic supremacy and resistance against the infidels, principally Israel and the United States:

      According to the Islamic shari’a that Allah [has bequeathed] to mankind, the status of the Muslims, compared to that of the infidel nations that arrogantly [disdain] his shari’a, is measured in a kind of scale, in which, when one side is in a state of superiority, the other is in a state of inferiority…Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny… The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise.

      This is the true face of the jihadist group that President Obama is shilling for. His wrong-headed policy of accommodating the Muslim Brotherhood will only serve to help Badie’s game plan come to pass and further de-stabilize the Middle East.

    3. All I can figure is Obama's agenda is sunni supremacy. But that doesn't seem to quite fit either.

      Could it really be so simple as to say he just doesn't have a clue as to what he is doing?

    4. .

      This all part of our master plan, just ask the rat.


  35. Then there's the McCain/Graham duo -

    >>>Egyptians Enraged by U.S. Brotherhood Outreach
    August 12, 2013 By Raymond Ibrahim 1 Comment

    In the eyes of tens of millions of Egyptians, Senators John McCain’s and Lindsey Graham’s recent words and deeds in Egypt — which have the “blessing” of President Obama — have unequivocally proven that U.S. leadership is aligning with the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Egyptian media is awash with stories of the growing anger regarding this policy.

    A top advisor to Egypt’s Interim President Adly Mansour formally accused McCain of distorting facts to the benefit of the Brotherhood. He dismissed McCain’s recent remarks as “irrational” and “moronic.” Ahmed al-Zind, head of the Egyptian Judge Club, has called for the arrest and trial of McCain for “trying to destroy Egypt.” The leader of the youth movement Tamarod (meaning “Rebellion,” against the Brotherhood), which played a major role in mobilizing the June 30 revolution, said: “We reject John McCain and call on the international community to let the [Egyptian] people decide their own fate.”

    Secular political commentator Ahmed Musa asserted:

    These two men have made more shameless demands than the Brotherhood themselves would dare.

    1. [McCain] is not a man elected by the American people to speak on their behalf; today, he speaks on behalf of an armed terrorist organization — the Muslim Brotherhood. … We had expected [better] from these two men who came to speak with the tongue of the Brotherhood’s leadership, as if they had been recruited as two new leaders of the Brotherhood, which killed, destroyed, and burned in al-Muqattam, and now in Rab‘a al-Adawiya [the main Brotherhood militant camp]. The only thing missing is to see them in Rab‘a, surrounded by armed groups, and in their midst Muhammad Badie [supreme leader of the Brotherhood] and [U.S. Ambassador] Anne Patterson. That’s all that’s missing! Here comes Brother McCain today saying that we must “release the [Brotherhood] prisoners”.

      Are you not aware that these people are accused of murder? Are you not aware that hundreds of Egyptians have been killed at the hands of the Brotherhood, Morsi, Shatter, Qatatni, Badie, Baltagi — have you forgotten? Did you not read the report on what happened? Or did you just blindly accept your ambassador’s words that it was a coup, that 33 million people did not go out?

      What did McCain do and say in Egypt to earn the ire of millions of Egyptians?

      Most offensive to Egyptians — and helpful to the Brotherhood’s cause — is McCain’s insistence on calling the June 30 revolution a “military coup.” In reality, the revolution consisted of perhaps thirty million Egyptians taking to the streets to oust the Brotherhood. McCain is either deliberately misconstruing the event, or believes the story as told by Al Jazeera and Ambassador Anne Patterson. In this narrative, at least an equal amount of Egyptians did support Morsi, and the military simply overthrew him against popular will. Al Jazeera has actually broadcast images of the millions of anti-Morsi protesters and identified them as pro-Morsi protesters, disinformation which was quickly adopted by Western media.

      Several Al Jazeera correspondents have resigned due to Al Jazeera acting as the Brotherhood’s international mouthpiece.

      Fortunately, some American officials have formally rejected the narrative. A new congressional resolution states:

      Whereas in recent weeks, an estimated 30,000,000 Egyptians in a majority of Egypt’s 27 provinces gathered to protest the widespread failures of former President Mohamed Morsi and the Government of Egypt and its violations of the most basic rights of all Egyptian citizens, including Egyptian women, minorities, and those publicly dissenting from its views and policies; Whereas the participants in the June 30, 2013, popular protests far outnumbered those involved in the protests and demonstrations of January and February 2011 …

      Even the Obama administration has been sensible enough not to call the June 30 revolution a “military coup.” Nevertheless, McCain rejected John Kerry’s statement that “the [Egyptian] military did not take over.”

      McCain’s designation raises other questions as well. If he considers the ouster of the Brotherhood government to be a military coup, why didn’t he extend that distinction at the fall of Mubarak’s more moderate government, which was also removed by the military in response to popular protests? If McCain’s argument is that Morsi was democratically elected and Mubarak was not, then why was the U.S. giving Egypt billions in aid for decades? Did not this aid legitimize Mubarak’s government no less than Morsi’s?

      Further angering Egyptians is McCain’s insistence that all arrested Brotherhood members and other Islamists be released from prison. As Musa said, McCain’s stance does not address that Brotherhood leadership is awaiting trial on serious charges: inciting terrorism, causing the murder of Egyptians, and grand treason by conspiring with foreign powers against Egypt’s interests.


    2. McCain claims he is simply interested in the human rights of the incarcerated Brotherhood members, a statement that is additionally curious. If human rights are at issue, why has McCain and the U.S. administration been ambivalent regarding the fate of Hosni Mubarak? Morsi faces perhaps more serious charges than Mubarak does, yet McCain calls for his release.

      McCain’s call to release Brotherhood leadership validates the widespread belief in Egypt that America is a fellow conspirator with the Brotherhood. Egyptians believe the U.S. fears that Morsi and others, if tried, would reveal the nature of their cozy relationship with the U.S. government. This is believed to mean any number of ugly revelations — treasonous ties and conspiracies, the exchange of billions of dollars, and Sinai issues. Hence, McCain wants them freed. This belief seems all the more reasonable to Egyptians considering that in 2011, McCain said of the Muslim Brotherhood:

      I think they are a radical group that first of all supports Sharia law; that in itself is anti-democratic — at least as far as women are concerned. They have been involved with other terrorist organizations and I believe that they should be specifically excluded from any transition government.

      Recently, McCain personally visited Khairat al-Shater, the multi-millionaire deputy chief of the Brotherhood who is currently incarcerated on charges of treason and terrorism. Interestingly, Shatter was not even a member of Morsi’s government. Why is McCain visiting a civilian? Shater’s status as a major figure in the largest Islamist organization in the world is leading Egyptians to connect the dots. Even Shater himself, perhaps understanding the awful visuals, asked to visit “the legitimate president” Morsi as well.

      U.S. media has said little aboutthe administration’s ties to al-Shater, however these ties are well-known among Egyptians: ambassador Anne Patterson was frequently seen going to Shater’s residence.

      Egyptian media has also pointed out that McCain repeatedly dodged critical questions by Egyptian journalists at a press conference. When asked about the fact that the Brotherhood in Rab‘a was armed to the teeth, and — with the aid of al-Qaeda — was killing and terrorizing innocent Egyptians, McCain ignored the question. (Similarly, McCain has not answered as to why he is supports the jihadist rebellion in Syria, which has seen the slaughter and displacement of thousands of Christians, beheadings, and “legitimized rapes” by foreign jihadis. McCain is in favor of arming them.)

      Many Egyptians are also wondering why McCain — as well as the Obama administration — is pushing for elections as soon as possible. Such a rush contributed to the empowerment of the Brotherhood in the first place: once the long-entrenched Mubarak was removed from power, the only party that was organized and ready to campaign was the Brotherhood. Secular Egyptian parties wanted to postpone the 2012 elections in order to mobilize their campaigns, but the U.S. was adamant that Egypt hold elections immediately. When the military wished to perform a recount, citing irregularities in the elections — including widespread allegations of voter fraud by the Brotherhood — Hillary Clinton chastised them and called for a winner to be declared as soon as possible. This turned out to be Morsi, by a tiny margin — if that.

      McCain’s remarks and actions in Egypt have further confirmed the popular narrative — as memorably displayed by countless anti-Brotherhood and anti-Obama placards raised during the June 30 revolution — that U.S. leadership is aligned with the Brotherhood, and thus ultimately a supporter of terrorism. Americans can no longer afford to ignore this serious accusation with broad implications.

    3. McCain speaks for the people of Arizona. That's it.