The 12th Imam – Fact or Fiction Part Two of Three

The first question that I would ask is….Does it matter? Many people claim that religion is not the reasons for the tension in the Middle East. I claim that religion is the ONLY reason for tension in the Middle East. It is not American Imperialism or mercantilism as I previously mentioned. It goes back a whole lot further than that. So, let’s take a journey into the world of Islam and its definitions and why I make my claim that the ME tension is strictly religious.

Origin of Islam: According to Secular History

The origin of Islam can be traced back to 7th century Saudi Arabia. Islam is thus the youngest of the great world religions. The prophet Muhammad (circa 570-632 A.D.) introduced Islam in 610 A.D. after experiencing what he claimed to be an angelic visitation. Muhammad dictated the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam, which Muslims believe to be the pre-existent, perfect words of Allah.

Origin of Islam: According to Islam

The origin of Islam is generally accredited to the prophet Muhammad but to the devout Muslim, Islam began long before Muhammad ever walked the earth. The Qur’an was dictated by Muhammad but, according to the Qur’an, it did not originate with Muhammad. The Qur’an testifies of itself that it was given by God through the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. “This is a revelation from the Lord of the universe. The Honest Spirit (Gabriel) came down with it, to reveal it into your heart that you may be one of the warners, in a perfect Arabic tongue” (Sura 26:192-195). “Say, ‘Anyone who opposes Gabriel should know that he has brought down this (the Qur’an) into your heart, in accordance with God’s will, confirming previous scriptures, and providing guidance and good news for the believers'” (Sura 2:97).

The Origin of Islam: The “Previous Scriptures”

The origin of Islam is controversial. The “previous scriptures” mentioned above are the Hebrew Torah, the Psalms of David, and the Gospels of Jesus Christ (Sura 4:163; 5:44-48). The Qur’an accepts these books as divinely inspired and even encourages us to test its claims by these “previous scriptures.” “If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture” (Sura 10:94). But this is where we run into a problem. The problem is that the Qur’an thoroughly contradicts the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels. For example, the Qur’an explicitly denies Jesus Christ’s crucifixion (Sura 4:157-158) while all four Gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus Christ as crucified and resurrected.

One contradiction in particular has caused a great deal of conflict between Muslims and ethnic Jews and is thought to have been and continues to be the cause of much bloodshed in the Middle East. According to the Hebrew Torah, God made a covenant with a man named Abraham. God promised Abraham a child through whom He would fulfill this covenant (“the child of promise,” Genesis 15). Abraham was at that time childless. His wife, Sarah, was barren. This of course made the promise very special to Abraham. But it would require nothing less than a miracle. Sarah, conscious of her condition, decided to help God out. She offered her maidservant Hagar to Abraham with the hope that Hagar might conceive and bear the child of promise. Abraham agreed to take Hagar as his concubine. She conceived and bore Ishmael (Genesis 16). God allowed Ishmael to be born but Ishmael was not the child of promise God had in mind (Genesis 17). God promised a child through Sarah, not Hagar (Genesis 17-18), and in due time God fulfilled His promise. “And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him-whom Sarah bore to him-isaac.” (Genesis 21:1-3) Isaac was the child of promise. Isaac later begot Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes of Israel, and the Messiah, Jesus Christ, eventually came into the world through the nation of Israel, fulfilling the covenant which God had made with Abraham. God also promised to give the land of Canaan (Palestine) to Isaac’s descendants, the land which Israel possesses today (Genesis 12:4-7; 13:12-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-22; 21:1-14; 25:19-26; 26:1-6; 35:9-12).

The problem is that the Qur’an teaches that Ishmael was the child of promise (Sura 19:54; compare Sura 37:83-109 with Genesis 22:1-19) and so Muslims believe that God’s covenant promises were meant for Ishmael’s descendants, not Isaac’s. Muhammad descended from Ishmael and so Muslims seek to lay claim to these covenant promises, namely the land of Palestine. Since Israel’s U.N.-sanctioned return to Palestine in 1948 there has been unceasing hostility between Israel and her Arab neighbors, with major armed conflicts in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973-74, and 1982. That Israel remains today is a miracle in-and-of itself.

Then we have the comparison of the Qu’ran to all other religious writings. “As we have seen, the history of Islam can be traced back to the prophet Muhammad, a man who professed to proclaim a revelation from God, a revelation which was supposed to confirm and supercede the “previous scriptures” (Sura 4:163; 5:44-48; 10:94). And as we have seen, the Qur’an thoroughly contradicts those previous scriptures. How do Muslims reconcile these contradictions? They don’t. And rather than throw out the Qur’an, they prefer to throw out the previous scriptures instead. The claim is that somehow the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels were lost or corrupted beyond recognition and that the books which we have today which bare the names “Torah,” “Psalms,” and “Gospels” are clever forgeries.”

Now let us go to the 12th Imam. First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad’s message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Islam believes that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe. The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario.

This belief (The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war) is VERY important in Iran’s Jekyll and Hyde scenario and is being carried out by Ajad. All of the hotspots currently are listed in part one. Iran is at war. This is pure and simple recognition of the fact that Iran is using surrogates….just as the United States did, Russia did, China did……but it does not change the situation or definition. Wars are being started (in the name of revolution) and financed by no one else other than Iran. Iran’s military has seized control and it works in concert with the ruling cleric class with one exception. If ANY ruling cleric steps out of line with the belief of the return….they are eliminated by the military….which has been done 8 times now. Eight clerics have disappeared in the last two years in Iran because they dared to interpret the Qu’ran differently than the Shiite interpretation….in other words, they disagreed with A-jad. Critics of the Islamic Republic allege that Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader would even go so far as to hasten a nuclear showdown and cataclysmic strike — perhaps an attack on Israel and inevitable retaliation — to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam. Ahmadinejad has even called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly. During his speeches within Iran, Ahmadinejad has said that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.

Allow me to reference the following: Obama promised to extend his hand if Iran would unclench its fist. Low-level sidelines chats reportedly took place between Iranian and U.S. envoys at an international conference on Afghanistan, but Iran quickly denied any negotiation was in the works. In fact, most of the Islamic Republic’s response to the U.S. has been in the form of challenging Obama to prove that he was a “change” from the Bush administration. Ahmadinejad has even challenged Obama to debate multiple times.

Throwing a wrench in the diplomatic efforts has been the June 12, 2009, presidential election in Iran, which produced an unreasonably lopsided result in favor of Ahmadinejad shortly after polls closed. Supporters of reformist candidate Mir-Hossin Mousavi poured into the streets in protest as Washington declined to cast judgment on the validity of the results. As Tehran violently cracked down on protesters, Obama came under increasing pressure at home and abroad to more forcefully denounce the bloodshed. After Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by the events, Ahmadinejad angrily said any prospect of talks had been jeopardized and called on Obama to “avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it.”

Iran’s stubbornness against discussing its nuclear program, though, has less to do with who’s actually in the White House. The Islamic Republic has built their nuclear capability into a fixture of national pride; even domestic reformists like Mousavi express an unwavering commitment to Iran’s right to a nuclear program. It’s also a way of exerting the country as a regional power and as a leader of the Muslim world — another aspect that worries Saudi Arabia to the point that it has expressed concern to Washington about the proposed talks.

Another reason for the back-and-forth jabs between Iran and other nations could be stonewalling, if indeed they are developing a nuclear weapons programs. And this isn’t lost on leaders who have proposed time limits to let talks with Iran work. These have ranged from a proposal by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to put a three-month cap on talks, to an announcement after the meeting of Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Obama wanted to give negotiations through the end of the year. After the June presidential election, the bloody protests, and further rhetoric from the hardline regime, though, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced after the G-8 meeting in Italy at the beginning of July that leaders agreed to give Iran until the G-20 summit at the end of September 2009 to respond to overtures. If there was no response to efforts, Sarkozy said, leaders would assess which moves to take next with Iran. There are no steps and will be no steps until the European and Western states make those steps.

Make no mistake about it. Iran is the Muslim Brotherhood…pure and simple. A-jad is a liar; peace only exists in his mind if you submit to his (Ajad’s) belief. It is said that he believes that he is the 12th Imam and his goal is to rule over Islam with a puppet Khomeini and that Islam is the destined ruler of the world. It is not Russia or China or the United States or Europe that is driving this world towards a major conflict….it is the agenda of Iran. “War is inevitable…there is no way for negotiation…” So says President Iran A-Jad in a speech to the Arab Summit in Cairo, Egypt……2009. This is a religious war….nothing else.


  1. Mathius says:

    In the words of Heath Ledger: and here we.. go.

    The problem is that the Qur’an thoroughly contradicts the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels. The bible fails by the same test as it holds numerous contradictions and “revisions” to the Torah. But, perhaps most importantly, all three holy books contradict themselves. My favorite example is the creation of man in Genesis: created man and woman at the same time from earth/dirt versus creating woman after man from his rib.

    • Good Morning, my friend. Remember, I am not comparing the bible to anything. I am merely quoting the context as it regards religion. I KNOW that the bible is not a perfect document and never claimed it was. I am ONLY pointing out why I feel that it is a religious issue. I am not comparing religions.

  2. Mathius says:

    That Israel remains today is a miracle in-and-of itself. Naw.. not really. The US is keeping them afloat and supplying their military with advanced weaponry. There’s no miracle here, just the fact that we want them to stick around, so they’re still there.

    Also, I don’t know if you know this but, Jew are stubborn people. They settled there, declared it their rightful gift from God, and the only way you’re moving millions of them off the land is in a casket. It’s very tough to dislodge a population which is so hell-bent on staying put.

    • No kidding….you ? Stubborn? I also know that the US is propping them up and that Israel will most likely cease to exist if the US was not there…or logistically supplying them. I amonly pointing out, that both religions are claiming jurisdiction and the contradictions as to why. I am NOT taking religious sides here and will not. But it is a thorn in the side over there and I put out the reasons as I see it, as to why I feel that way.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Being stubborn has nothing to do with it. You can flip the coin and say Palenstin is stubborn. It all depends on which side of the fence you sit one. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter…

  3. Mathius says:

    Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospels were lost or corrupted beyond recognition and that the books which we have today which bare the names “Torah,” “Psalms,” and “Gospels” are clever forgeries. Well this is actually pretty true. I don’t know if I’d call them forgeries, but they’re certainly not the exact same texts that were originally written. Hell, the bible was assembled by a Roman committee which decided which books to include and which to exclude (the Apocrypha). Men did this, not God.

    So if there was ever a divine truth in the bible, you’d be hard pressed to guarantee the the current version you’re reading happens to contain it exactly right. Even the ancient Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Latin writings contain small transcription errors (remember this was all done by hand). And, before much of it was written down at all, it was passed down orally for generations – how can anyone keep a straight face while claiming that the KJV, or any other version, is exactly the same?

    The Koran, however, was written down as originally intended (intended by God or by Mohammad – it doesn’t matter here) and is painstakingly copied letter by letter. Any translations to other languages are considered “commentary” and are not considered to be the Koran. Contrast that with the bible, and who really has a better claim to divine accuracy?

    • Which is why you have the controversy. Who is correct? Religion is in the eye of the beholder and its interpretations. It is what is driving the ME. That is the point that I am trying to make. It is not imperialism nor mercantilism, I feel that all this tension is religious in nature that goeas waaaaaaay back. Even if the United States was still in its enclave and confinements of the NOrth American border, this problem would still be there.

    • So for the Bible and Torah, “Even the ancient Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Latin writings contain small transcription errors (remember this was all done by hand).” Yet “The Koran, however, was written down as originally intended (intended by God or by Mohammad – it doesn’t matter here) and is painstakingly copied letter by letter.”

      I’m not going to hang out for this debate, because I know I’ll just be eviscerated by the atheist/anti-religion posters, but I will bring up a few points. Sure the torah was originally an oral tradition, but you underestimate just how important it was. There may be some transcription errors, but this was the most important part of a Hebrew’s life and was memorized by thousands of people. I think they would do a pretty good job of it. Secondly, while the Bible was composed by men, those men took what were held as sacred scriptures and scrutinized them to judge whether or not they hold up as the Word of God. I’d say that should lend them authority, not detract from it. Finally, I find no problem with inconsistencies in the Bible. This just shows that we humans cannot comprehend the mind of God. Big surprise. I will just do my best to study the Word and live life like I think He wants me to. I may be wrong, but it’s better than giving up…

      Like I said, I know you won’t accept my arguments. You’ve made up your mind about it, I can see that. I just felt compelled to make these points.

      • I don’t know about evisceration.. how about just some good old fashioned humble disagreement?

        • 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

          17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

          18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

          19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.

          • .. sorry, I don’t get your point ..

            • Why would I argue with you about God or the Bible when the Word of God tells me that he has already put a measure of faith into everyone. The discussion is yours to have with yourself because you are fighting against that which you already know but resist. Now before you blow up-just realize that this is to me an absolute truth-one I base on my own personal experience-you will have your own spiritual trip through your life and you have the free will to come to your own conclusions.

              • Mathius says:

                It’s actually interesting. There’s an area of the brain which, when stimulated with magnets, produces the feeling which test subjects have reported as “the presence of God.” This would certainly seem to suggest that god is, indeed, in-built.

                At the same time, one wonders which came first: this part of the brain which (may) make us believe in God, or God who put this area in our brains to make us believe in him?

                Personally, I don’t know for sure, but the idea of a sentient all-powerful all-knowing god as (conflictingly) described in the various holy books.. I can’t swallow it.

                I don’t begrudge you your faith, but you err when you suggest that I “already know but resist.” I do not know. I resist nothing. But I don’t believe without evidence.

                I have no such evidence.

              • That is interesting-I think you know my answer 🙂 . As far as resisting or not -My own experience here 🙂
                didn’t know I was resisting either until I stopped-then all the times God had reached out were as clear as a picture-another clue that I personally resisted-was that I got inwardly angry whenever anyone wanted to talk about it. I think denying God or really just ignoring him somehow made me feel guilty and at the time I just didn’t understand why. But alas, this was my journey-you continue on yours-just don’t close your mind completely-remember that Faith is the key to finding that absolute proof.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:


                Most of that work was done by a professor I actually know.
                Read some of Dr. Michael Persinger’s works and you would be amazed at what certain EMF profiles can do to sensation and perception!

              • Mathius says:

                I’d sure love to see what it’s like.. maybe I’ll build an EM and just put it around my brain and see what happens.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

                I’ve been in the “God chair” , you have to wear a hockey helmet with electromagnets placed all over it. If they stimulated certain regions of the brain with a particular EM pattern people reported a “presence” in the room with them. I think I was in the control group with no EM activity… I didn’t get spooked at all, some people got seriously f***ed up afterwards and had to be calmed down.

              • Tell us more-Carbon-why were they so upset? Do you know any other details about their reactions? This is really interesting. 🙂

              • anoninnc says:

                Thank you! I do not comment much anymore . . . but I still track and pray.

              • Because of the way the reply’s line up-I am assuming you are talking to me 🙂 So thank you too and I truly wish you would comment more-I have always felt your comments added to the conversation.

              • DisposableCarbonUnit says:


                Since I was probably in the control group I can’t explain why they reacted the way that they did. Suffice it to say that no one claimed to see, hear, or speak to “God” after the experiment. Their report after the experiment was that they felt there was a “presence” there in the room with them. One subject reported that they had sensed their deceased grandmother in the room. Most others were non-specific in the description of the presence.
                Interestingly, the EM field that was used in the experiment was approx. 90 (nano- or micro-, can’t remember which) Tesla, which is the same field strength as that of a digital alarm clock. Your clock just emits a different waveform than in the experiment.

              • Never thought they did-but Matt likes using this example 🙂 I wonder if there is any correlation to those odd times we feel like we are being watched-or when we get goose bumps of fear for no apparent reason. Figuring out how the brain works-fun stuff!

          • VH….where you headed on this?

            • Hopefully, I answered that question above although I’m sure I have inadvertently angered some with my response. But since your article wasn’t really about religions in general-perhaps we should try to get back to your original point.

              Which I believe was that A-Jad as the leader of a theocratic government is using his religious beliefs to cause chaos.

              • Mathius says:

                Fair enough, but little different than Christian theocratic leaders who listen to their religious beliefs can cause chaos.

              • I will agree that man, no matter his religion has away of causing chaos. But if A-Jad believes that only through chaos can his Messiah return-and is at this time in history trying to create that chaos-than his religion is relevant to the discussion.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      The Book of Mormon! hah!

  4. Mathius says:

    Iran’s stubbornness against discussing its nuclear program, though, has less to do with who’s actually in the White House. Well they want nukes. So does everyone else. While it’s certainly, er, problematic for them to wield the big stick, it’s certainly understandable that, whatever offensive intend they may have, MAD may appeal to them in light of the fact that Israel has nukes too.

    If you neighbor has a massive tactical advantage, it makes perfect sense that you would want to narrow the gap, no? This isn’t necessarily about Islam, so much as it is about a plain old-fashioned arms race.

    • I agree wirth the exception that the program fits into the mold that Ajad is using to inflame. I am not arguing the tit for tat issue of arms race. I am pointing out HOW the nuke issue fits into the 12th Imam, as I see it, and the return of the 12th Imam, as Ajad as stated for the last trwo years. I am also under the belief that there is the strong, if not inevitable, issue of the old Persian Empire revelation. I don;t know for sure, but when you add a lot of things up….it is a conclusion that cannot be ignored, in my opinion.

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    Col, Top ‘O the Morning Sir 🙂

    Very interesting article. I had heard of the Twelfth Imam some months ago. The claim of world chaos is a must for his rising. Let’s say A-Jad and Iran are behind all of the chaos in the ME, since the world must be in chaos, not just the ME how does this nutcase plan on accomplishing that? It seems Mother Nature has helped in Japan, does that count?

    Well done Sir!

    • Good morning, Gman….In part three, I will point out how I feel that the chess game that is going on the MED, ME, and the African Continent fits into the Iranian issue and the return of the 12th Imam which is paramount in the thinking of Ajad. What surprsies me more is the silence of the clerics on this issue..but that is also understandable since so many of them are coming up missing. ( And it is not a clandestine issue of the Mossad, Mathius ) 🙂

  6. Truthseeker says:

    Nice Article! This just reaffirms why Religion is a farce. While I do believe that its core principles are Noble, this and other “holy” books are written by man, plain and simple. To see people blindly follow this stuff as if their life depended on it is truly sad.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Can I be the 13th Imam? (lucky number!)

    • Bama dad says:

      “This just reaffirms why Religion is a farce”

      To you it may be a farce but to me it is my way of life. Evil men in the name of Religion cause great harm regardless of whom and what they call god.

      “To see people blindly follow this stuff as if their life depended on it is truly sad.”

      Don’t be sad because I follow nothing blindly. Now if people blindly follow what someone else believes is god’s will then that too makes me sad. As a free man I and I alone decide my relationship with god and what I do in life, just as you are free not to believe.

  7. Mathius says:

    Make no mistake about it. Iran is the Muslim Brotherhood…pure and simple This may be, but I see no support for this conclusion in your article.

    A-jad is a liar; peace only exists in his mind if you submit to his (Ajad’s) belief. This may be, but I see no support for this conclusion in your article.

    This is a religious war….nothing else. That may be, but how is this any different than the thousands of other religious wars? The Crusades come to mind. For millennia, Christianity brutalized, forcefully converted, or murdered members of every other religion. Yet you would, I’m sure, maintain that Christianity is not inherently violent, but that it was being misused. That’s fine, but then how do you justify the opinion that Islam is violent when it does the same thing?

    • Again, Matt….I am not saying it is different at all and I am not justifying it either way….only that it is religious in nature and not encroachment of the US or Russia or China or India….WITH the excpetion of the fear that as these countries continue their march in that area…..the old concept of Persia is on its way out. I doubt that but it is something to look at.

      As to the Brotherhood….everyone knows who is financing it as I pointed out in the first article. I am not saying tha Iran is going to conquer the ME through military might. It cannot. But there are other ways to contol things and religion is playing the major role. (My opinion of course).

      As to the statement that he is a liar……no more so than Obama or anyone else pushing an agenda. BUt the fact remains. But, it is again, my opinion, that if you believe that he is serious about the 12th Imam and his role in it…it is a logical conclusion. (to me it is, anyway) We, the United States and Europe, have been watching this for years so it is nothing new….but as I stated, these are my opinions.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:


      I will harp on this point until the day I die, the Crusades were a defensive war against a rampant Islam that had conquored all of North Africa and most of the Middle East. The analogy would be to condemn the atrocious bombings of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan without ever bothering to mention what those bombings were the result of.

      • Mathius says:

        Some crusades could be considered defensive.

        Others would be considered plundering.

        Still others could be considered as an expedient way to send the warrior classes abroad so that they do no cause trouble domestically after the mitigating the threat from the vikings.

        Sill others could be considered a good old fashioned “holy” war.

        There were a bunch of crusades – I would hate to generalize.

        But every single one was justified under the banner of “spreading Christianity.”

        • SK Trynosky Sr says:

          Spreading it back to places where it had been before?

          What was the Reconquista in Spain?

          Your points are well taken but the rationale for the Crusades was the retaking of the Holy Land from the Muslims. Along the way the message got a bit warped. Not unusual in war especially when command and control is poor.

          You cannot however underestimate the threat from the Ottoman Empire which used Islam as a rallying cry. The final defeat (up to now) was outside Vienna in Austria in 1683. This was 19 years after the founding of New York City to put it in perspective. Had the Turks won, one wonders at the history of Europe.

          • SK,

            First, your opinion of the Crusades is badly wrong, historically.

            Had the Turks won Vienna, history would be different, of course.

            But worse? Better? (shrug). Fundamentally, there is little difference in the purpose and goals of men, and thus, the drive of history would generally land us at about the same place – a techno-centric society.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              I daresay that the Greeks and Armenians and a good chunk of the populace of the former Yugoslavia would answer WORSE!

              The final collapse of the Ottoman Empire was brought on by their defeat in World War I. This allowed Mustafa Kemal to create a “modern Turkey”. had there been no defeat, had they in fact gone on from Vienna or Taranto to take over the bulk of Europe, the world would have been a very different place. It is unlikely that a significant number of Europeans could have been evacuated to the New World in the Eighteenth century to create a bulwark against them.

  8. Good morning/day, Colonel. I’m not sure what is/isn’t the cause of what’s going on in the ME, except to say it will ultimately ratchet-up what I believe will ultimately start a nuclear world war some day. I’m not a religious person and think it has caused more bad than good in the world over time, but I do not think it will be the cause of the nuclear war I fear. I think that will ultimately be some rogue nation state or terrorist group finding the ability to nuke someone else; whether the rest of the nuke capable world joins in at that time is something else (I believe it will eventually), but I also think there’s no way to stop it. I don’t have the faith in man in general to come to his senses and eliminate nukes. So long as one nation state has them, the rest might as well (for their own deterrence). The problem is technology is way too advanced to keep such weapons out of the hands of rogue lunatics (not that they can be made in one’s basement, but I suspect that is around the corner–maybe not in my lifetime, but my lifetime is a nothing by comparison).

    Pre-emptive strikes will only hasten the apocalypse, I think. Whether religion is used as a reason for just wars is irrelevant. You can’t stop religion the same way you can’t stop us red thru-and-thrus from wanting to see everyone get a fair shake. I mean, we’ll offer you an eye-talian dinner and all, but we’ll start want to see level playing fields. Religions are powerful, indeed and men have fought wars over them, but there’s no stopping zealots from pursuing their nirvannas.

    • Good points all, Charlie. Religion is all powerful. I have seen it split families, unfortunately.

      I am not advocating a nuclear war at all. If Iran gets the power, it fits within the IMAGE thing. That is all. Somewhere a rogue nation will get one and it will most likely be used. Iran has no interest in using one….but having the threat of it is good enough and imagery is all powerful in the ME.

      Hope your day is going well, sir.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, Good morning Sir 🙂

      This may well be the start of WWIII. I think it was Nostradamus who predicted it would start in the ME (I could be mistaken, going from memory). You mentioned nuclear war and I just read this morning that the EPA is redefining what the safe legal levels of radiation will be in food and water. In other words, they are raising the legal safe levels. To top that off, Canada simply turned their radiation detectors OFF! Government at their finest!

      • Scary stuff, Gman. I posted at your place earlier. Good day to you, too!

        Raining here … I have a reading to do Thursday. The six shills I’m sending may not make it if the weather is bad. That’ll leave me and the bookstore owner. I’ll be forced to do my tap dance routine …

      • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

        Bah! Who needs radiation detectors.
        We Canadians are a tough bunch 🙂

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Let us not get bent out of shape. Before there was a nuclear test ban treaty in 1962 I believe, everyone and their brother was blowing the crap out of little Pacific islands, Central asia and Nevada. Us oldsters survived, even if we glow a bit in the dark.

  9. 😐 for comments

  10. The Prophet Mohammed’s(P) disciples used to write down his recitations on leaves, animal skins and rocks and kept the writings in the home of Hafsa, one of the Prophet’s widows. No chance of a poor translation there, leaves are such a durable medium.

    The `Uthman Qur’an, as it is known, is one of four Qur’ans hand-written by the third Caliph `Uthman. According to Sheikh Ahmed Ismail, head Sheikh at al-Hussein Mosque, this is the Qur’an that all other Qur’ans are based on. The Prophet Mohammed’s(P) disciples used to write down his recitations on leaves, animal skins and rocks and kept the writings in the home of Hafsa, one of the Prophet’s widows. `Uthman, the son-in-law of the Prophet collected the Prophet’s writings after his death and put them into one book, creating the version now accepted by Muslims. `Uthman made four copies to be distributed in the Arab world. One was sent to the ruler of Egypt; the other three are believed to be in Iraq, Yemen and Syria.

    `Uthman was eventually assassinated by a group of Muslims, who became disgruntled with his ruling abilities and his perceived nepotism. It is said that he was slain while reading the Qur’an, his blood flowing on to the pages. His death ushered in an era of civil wars and political schisms in Islamic history. However he is most remembered as the Caliph who pushed for the preservation of the Qur’an as one book.

    Since that time, the holy book has been in the possession of each successive Egyptian ruler. About 500 years ago, the `Uthman Qur’an was moved from the ruler’s home to a place called “relics of the Prophet” in old Cairo, then to `Amr Ibn al-As Mosque in Old Cairo, then to the Salah Tala’i Mosque also in old Cairo and finally to al-Hussein Mosque where it has been ever since.

    “It was very prestigious and an honor as well for the ruler to have the original Qur’an and relics of the Prophet in his country,” says Sheikh Ahmed. “Every ruler was proud to have such relics, as a way to show love and respect.”

    The years however, haven’t been kind to the book. Although it was carefully enclosed in a leather box and a glass case, dust had accumulated between the 1,400 pages and tiny insects had eaten away some portions of the leather pages.

    • Mathius says:

      An excellent point. And the Torah was an oral tradition for generations. The bible was assembled in comittee.

      So, the question becomes: If we accept that there was divine truth in the original bible/torah/koran, then how can anyone be sure that the divine truth is retained in the version they are currently reading? If it said X is an abomination, how do they know that that is part and parcel of the word of God?


      The historical Muhammad was the savage leader of a gang of robbers from Medina. Without scruples they looted, raped and murdered. The sources describe orgies of savagery where hundreds of people’s throats were cut, hands and feet chopped off, eyes cut out, entire tribes massacred. An example is the extinction of the jewish Kurayza tribe in Medina in 627. One of those who chopped off their heads was Muhammad. The women and children were sold as slaves. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.

      In Vienna the women’s rights activist Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was recently sentenced to paying a fine for insulting a religion by calling Muhammad a paedophile. However, that is the truth. Numerous hadiths contain testimonies by Muhammad’s favourite wife, the child wife Aisha. Aisha literally says: “The prophet married me when I was six years old, and had intercourse with me when I was nine.”

      According to the historian Theophanes (752-817) Muhammad was an epileptic. Epileptic crises are sometimes accompanied by hallucinations, perspiration form the forehead and foaming at the mouth, the very symptoms which Muhammad displayed during his visions.

      • LOI

        Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from

        As the First Crusade marched through Europe to engage the Muslims, they took to ethnic cleansing along the way – upon the Jews.

        At a local level, the preaching of the First Crusade ignited violence against Jews, which some historians have deemed “the first Holocaust”.[55] At the end of 1095 and beginning of 1096, months before the departure of the official crusade in August, there were attacks on Jewish communities in France and Germany.

        And the massive slaughter of women and child in Jerusalem by the Christians still ranks among the worst in history — and so on — so, how did you say…confronted with the lunacy of Christian democracies today, it is not hard to find out where the lunacy comes from.

        • Flag,

          Does the New Testament have anything that says it’s OK to loot, rape and murder? Crusades? No, I do not defend them nor any other invasion. Much evil has been done in the name of many gods.

          Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor as yourself….
          The message Jesus preached is in sharp contrast to that of
          Muhammad. And the crucial point, if a Muslim condones violence to promote their religion, I don’t see common ground for us to be neighborly. What Christian advocates violence to spread Christianity?

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    Gold is up $22.10 at $1455.10

  12. Canine Weapon says:
  13. Mathius says:

    Just for fun, let’s see whose head explodes after reading this.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Are you daft man!? This is all because of a government controlled economy and government imposed welfare state. If we could only kick government out of economy, the invisible hand of the free market will sweep in and save us all from this gross inequity.

      • Mathius says:

        You would not have been my first guess..

      • The data is contained on the following IRS site: Section: Tax Generated; subsection; Tax rate and size of Adjusted Gross Income (2008): Table 3.5 (The table is here)

        The tax year of 2008 was the last to date that the IRS has done this kind of analysis. In 2008 the highest marginal tax rate of 35% applied to all AGI above $357,700.00. In that year the total amount of AGI subject to the highest rate was $622.8 Billion. The government collected in taxes $218.0 Billion (35%).

        In 2011 the annual budget deficit will be nearly $1,665.0 Billion and in 2012: $1,100.0 Billion. If the Liberal Democrats in league with the Socialists, the Unions and the Communists, succeed in raising the highest marginal rate, how much more would Washington D.C. receive, assuming no change in behavior and a general eagerness to pay more?

        If the highest rate of 35% were raised by a factor of 20% to 42%, then the additional tax revenue would be $43.5 Billion, not much of a dent in $1,665.0 Billion. So, let’s raise the rate by a factor of 50% to 52.5%; the additional revenue would be $108.9 Billion. Still nowhere near enough, so let’s just tax it at a rate of 100%, bringing in an additional $404.8 Billion. Unfortunately the country is still $1,260.0 Billion in the hole for the year.

        Obviously by confiscating at 100% of all the income of the so-called rich above a predetermined level, there would never again be an incentive to earn above the highest tax rate threshold. So where will the Left have to turn next: where the money is, the middle class.

        The Left knows the gullible among us easily fall for centuries-old class warfare rhetoric that demonizes the wealthy, yet they persist in doing the unconscionable, as it keeps them in power despite the fact that it enflames passions and in some cases, violence.

        What the Democrats are doing is entirely based on a lie. The United States cannot tax its way out of the present financial crisis, and from a cursory examination of Paul Ryan’s proposal, his is the best plan yet presented and needs to be defended and promoted.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          No, the US cannot simply tax its way out of the current mess. No one is proposing it can.

          However, wouldn’t it make a bit more sense to raise tax rates on the very wealthy as opposed to cutting funding to programs that provide services to the poor?

          On Ryan’s proposal — the last thing that needs to be done is to defend and promote this proposal.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Good Morning Buck 🙂

            Chuckling, Let’ raise taxes on the very wealthy, so we can give it to government to mismanage. That’s a great idea!

          • Democrats Not Governing, But Lying in Wait
            Email David Limbaugh | Columnist’s Archive

            Do you believe Rep. Paul Ryan when he says we only have a few years left to get our fiscal house in order, or we’re going to face European-type austerity? How about the co-chairmen of the bipartisan deficit commission, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, who have essentially issued the same warning?

            Have you taken a hard look at President Obama’s 10-year budget with a view to whether it would marginally address the crisis? Are you aware of the gargantuan deficits it projects — averaging some $1 trillion per year — and that this is before considering the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring that revealed that its projected cumulative deficits were understated by a staggering $2.3 trillion?

            Did you know that entitlements — mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — are the primary drivers of these deficits but that Obama has yet to come to the table with a genuine entitlement reform proposal? Or that congressional Democrats, for the first time since 1974, did not pass a budget and all of the current wrangling over continuing resolutions and government shutdowns is a direct result of their dereliction?

            Can you explain why President Obama, touted as the finest orator in the modern era, didn’t exercise leadership over his Democratic lieutenants in Congress to quit playing fiscal Russian roulette? Or why those Democrats proposed just $6 billion in further budget cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year — and then, only under GOP pressure — when the budget is $3.8 trillion? Or why they are characterizing the GOP’s proposal of $61 billion in cuts (1.6 percent of the budget) as “Draconian”?

            You surely know that President Obama has ceaselessly dodged his fiscal responsibilities by blaming his budgets on the $1.3 trillion deficit he “inherited.” But how about that he was instrumental in ensuring the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which contributed heavily to that then-extraordinary deficit number, and that even so, the actual number is substantially lower when you factor in the TARP repayments?

            Regardless, don’t you think it’s fair that we hold him accountable for what he’s done since he assumed office? Or should we just let him run against President Bush’s record again in 2012, blithely pretending he’s been an impotent bystander for four years?

            Consider Obama’s audacity in scapegoating Bush for deficits that he was instrumental in creating and then proposing, as a solution, an $800 billion pork-laden stimulus bill and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

            You’ll remember his boastful promises that if we would just indulge his “stimulus” idea, he would jump-start the economy and ensure that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. Despite getting his way, he has managed to achieve the worst of both worlds: He’ll double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10, yet unemployment is just now — after two years of hovering between 9 and 10 percent — dipping below 9 percent.

            So Obama came into office during very difficult economic times and, instead of implementing policies to truly stimulate economic growth, further smothered the private sector by ratcheting up government spending and onerous regulations, and he has deliberately compounded our national deficits and debt at a time when we are on the brink of a financial catastrophe. Though his own bipartisan deficit commission told him entitlement reform is imperative, he continues to kick the ball farther down the road without so much as an overture toward a nod of a pretense of a good faith effort to tackle it.

            This very week, he and his Democratic colleagues are lying in wait for congressional Republicans to refuse to approve the Democrats’ reckless budget for the remainder of the year so they can blame the mean GOP for another government shutdown. They’ll pretend they have no role in such a shutdown and hope this fraudulent narrative turns the political tide in their favor — all while the fiscal crisis remains unattended. They’ll doubtlessly employ a similar strategy to ambush Republicans as heartless scrooges when Rep. Ryan unveils his long-term budget and proposes real economic growth and authentic entitlement reform.

            When you take politics out of the equation, there is a consensus that we are on a collision course with national financial disaster. When you put politics back into the equation, only one party is trying to do something about it.

            But here’s the rub. Some Republican congressmen are horrified that if they stick to their guns in the upcoming budget battles, they’ll lose the PR war, just as Republicans supposedly did in 1995-96. For reasons I’ll address next time, 2011 is not 1995 (we have a nation-threatening emergency, folks), and Republicans must remain strong. Honor your mandate, ladies and gentlemen. We’ve got your back.


            I don’t know enough about Ryan’s plan to completely support it-but I do know it is going in the right direction-mainly because it is actually talking about cuts. So lets start from the perspective of cutting trillions and then discuss the details. The currant discussions of whether we cut nothing or nothing is insulting and infuriating and the dems won’t even let that little bit of nothing go through.

            • Buck the Wala says:

              “I don’t know enough about Ryan’s plan to completely support it-but I do know it is going in the right direction”

              How do you know this is the right direction without knowing enough about its specifics? Do you only support the plan because it purports to cut $X, without caring where or how?

              Is Ryan’s proposal a ‘good start’ by changing the very nature of Medicare and Medicaid, shifting the costs to states, the elderly, disabled and poor, while refusing to touch the defense budget? To me it sure ain’t!

            • I think I answered those questions 🙂 -because we need to think in terms of trillions. We have had two proposals -one from the people Obama gave the task too and Ryan’s-both are being dismissed because no one wants to talk in terms of trillions. So we look at both-we discuss-but we do it with the end game of cutting trillions.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                But Ryan’s plans don’t really save much at all. The CBO estimate only looks at the impact of Ryan’s spending cuts, without taking into consideration the impact of Ryan’s tax cuts on the deficit as well. When the Tax Policy Center looked at these numbers, it found the cuts would reduce revenue by nearly $4 Trillion over the next decade!

                What happens in reality under this proposal is that most of the spending cuts are offset by these tax cuts and reductions in revenue. Any spending cuts to the fed gov’t are simply transferred to the states, localities, elderly, disabled and poor.

                So when you look at it, Ryan’s not exactly talking in terms of cutting trillions either.

              • Okay Buck-here’s a lib’s take from Slate-He seems to think that Ryan has made a good start.

                Good Plan!
                Republican Paul Ryan’s budget proposal is brave, radical, and smart.
                By Jacob WeisbergPosted Tuesday, April 5, 2011, at 6:09 PM ET

                U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan holds a copy of the 2012 Republican budget proposal. Click image to expand.Rep. Paul Ryan holds a copy of the 2012 Republican budget proposalFor the past 30 years, Republicans have been hypocrites about spending. They’ve raged against big government without ever proposing the kinds of cuts necessary to bring federal expenditures in line with tax revenues. Democrats have been more fiscally responsible, producing an actual budget surplus during Bill Clinton’s second term. But they’ve been little better than Republicans when it comes to confronting the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance, which is driven by the projected growth in entitlement spending.

                This dynamic of political evasion and reality-denial may have undergone a fundamental shift today with the release of Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget resolution. The Wisconsin Republican’s genuinely radical plan goes where Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich never did by terminating the entitlement status of Medicare and Medicaid. (It doesn’t touch the third major entitlement, Social Security, though Ryan has elsewhere argued for extending its life by gradually raising the retirement age to 70.) Ryan changes Medicare into a voucher, which would be used to purchase private health insurance. He turns Medicaid into a block grant for states to spend as they choose. Though his budget committee isn’t responsible for taxes, Ryan includes the boldest tax reform proposal since the 1980s, proposing to lower top individual and corporate rates to 25 percent and end deductions. While he’s at it, Ryan caps domestic spending, repeals Obamacare, slashes farm subsidies, and more.

                If the GOP gets behind his proposals in a serious way, it will become for the first time in modern memory an intellectually serious party—one with a coherent vision to match its rhetoric of limited government. Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects of Ryan’s proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor. He was not specific about many of his cuts, and Democrats have a political opportunity in filling in the blanks. But the ball is now in their court, and it will be hard to take them seriously if they don’t respond with their own alternative path to debt reduction and long-term solvency.

                And before they reject everything in Ryan’s plan, liberals might want to consider whether some of what he proposes doesn’t in fact serve their own ultimate goals. Ryan’s proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher provides an easy political target. But it’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program in its current form. To do so, you have to argue that government-paid health care should be a right only for people over the age of 65, and for no one else. Medicare covers doctor and hospital bills at 100 percent, regardless of income. This gives doctors and patients an incentive to maximize their use of the system and waste public resources. Choosing to pay 100 percent of Warren Buffett’s medical bills while cutting Head Start reflects a strange set of social priorities, to say the least.

                Ryan’s alternative to Medicare hardly seems as terrible as Paul Krugman makes out. Seniors would enter the health care world the rest of us live in, with co-payments, deductibles and managed care. Eventually, cost control would require some tough decisions about end-of-life care and the rationing of high-tech treatments that have limited efficacy. But starting with a value of $15,000 per year, per senior—the amount government now spends on Medicare—Ryan’s vouchers should provide excellent coverage. His change would amount to a minor amendment to the social contract, not a fundamental revision of it.

                Effectively constraining the growth of Medicare could make it possible for Democrats to do a lot else that’s important to them in the future. In 2010, Medicare spending was $519 billion, as compared with $666 billion for all nondefense domestic discretionary spending. Growing at more than 7 percent a year, Medicare is projected to eventually consume nearly all federal tax revenues. It is crowding out everything else that Washington does or might want to do. Conversely, cutting Medicare’s growth rate to near the overall rate of the economy would do more than anything else to enable the kind of activist government liberals support—investment in kids, education, jobs, and infrastructure. Ryan’s goal isn’t to empower the federal government. But if your goal is a more interventionist public sector, you might find yourself on Ryan’s side of the Medicare debate.

                Of the alternatives we face in controlling long-term spending growth, moving Medicare to a voucher system seems only mildly unfortunate—and nothing as compared with a debt-driven economic crisis that could stem from inaction. As Ryan rightly points out, this kind of crisis could come at any time and could cast a pall over the country’s entire future. Keeping Medicare as a fee-for-service program simply isn’t worth that risk. If anything, liberals should go further than Ryan did in this plan, adding a means-test that would diminish Medicare subsidies for upper-income beneficiaries.

                There are, of course, some sleight-of-hand tricks in Ryan’s plan. What he claims would restore fiscal balance would do nothing of the kind over the next decade, leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far as the eye can see. That’s because he slips a large tax cut into his “reform,” leaving government revenues perpetually two percentage points lower than spending expenditures as a share of GDP. What’s needed is not more tax cuts but a modest tax increase, of the kind the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission proposed. That failure is easily remedied, however, by adopting a top rate higher than the 25 percent he proposes, though still lower than the current 35 percent level.

                Ryan also evades a lot of difficult particulars. He seldom spells out domestic spending cuts, preferring to kick the can down the road by applying “caps.” He skirts the question of which deductions and tax subsidies he’d eliminate to pay for these lower rates. Unfortunately, you don’t get big savings unless you eliminate mortgage interest and charitable deductions, which would be politically unpopular. Ryan includes the Heritage Foundation’s projections about job growth triggered by his plan—4 percent unemployment in 2015 vs. 5.9 percent without the plan—that are a supply-side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering. I could go on.

                But more than anyone else in politics, Rep. Ryan has made a serious attempt to grapple with the long-term fiscal issue the country faces. He has a largely coherent, workable set of answers. If you don’t like them, now you need to come up with something better


              • Buck the Wala says:

                Read the last few paragraphs of Weisberg’s review.

              • You are missing the point 🙂 I give up-I must not be making myself clear.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                What’s your point then?

                That because one more liberal commentator sees some good in Ryan’s plan than it must be a good start? Or, that Ryan’s plan is a good start because it talks about making trillions in cuts even though it really doesn’t when you read the fine print due to additional tax cuts? Or, is the point that its ok to shift costs to the states, elderly and poor so long as these costs don’t show up on the federal budget and the wealthy aren’t burdened with any tax hikes?

                Take your pick! 🙂

      • Buck

        If we could only kick government out of economy, the invisible hand of the free market will sweep in and save us all from this gross inequity</blockquote.

        See, this is where you go insane.

        No one, no where, ever claims "Free Market" will repair inequality – such a claim is ignorant, and those that use such a claim to refute Free Market are equally ignorant.

        What is said – the Free Market, – a consequence of the voluntary choices of men is the optimal system. Every thing else makes society worse.

        This does not mean suffering “disappears”
        This does not mean violence “disappears”
        This does not mean poverty “disappears”.

        It means that the solutions to these problems are best served by the voluntary actions of free men, and not by some men holding guns to other men’s heads.

        • Buck the Wala says:

          So suffering under the free market (which could arguably be worse than the inequalities we face now – after all, who really knows what will happen with zero regulation) is preferrable to the suffering we have now?

          Interesting position to take.

          I would take the position that suffering under a pure free market system would be worse than we face now and the inequalities would grow at an even faster rate than we are experiencing now.

        • Unless, of course, the gun comes in the form of money (which is what we have today). The monied doing whatever they want to those without it.

          If you could start everyone at the same starting point (which you can’t), what you would have with a free market (all that freedom) is what you have today (more or less). Money will bind to protect itself (corporations) and the have nots (whether by their own choice or not) would be subject to the gun anyway.

  14. Kudos to you colonel, for saying what has needed to be said for quite a while here on SUFA. However, if anyone cares to check it out, that guy everyone loves to hate (Glen Beck) has been pointing this 12th Imam stuff for many months now – but those who inhabit SUFA seem to dismiss Mr. Beck as another nutcase on television. Personally, I have found that Mr. Beck seems to have got it all on the button from the gitgo – that is except for his annoying preaching now and then (His Monday programs seem to have the most facts, but by the time he gets to Friday he is in full sermon mode). Which is really to be expected since he is a Mormon, I think(how can one be a Mormon AND a Libertarian?).

    I would like to see what you have on George Soros and just where he spends his money – Just curious.

    • Mathius says:

      Just a thought.. if George Soros is so dangerous, it is because of the power he wields due to his wealth.

      It seem logical, therefore, that anyone with that much wealth is equally dangerous.

      So, the solution that presents itself is easy: Tax the living daylights out of them!

      Problem solved 🙂

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        Would that have happened to Papa Kennedy. One of the few times I might totally agree with you for the benefit of “the greater good”.

  15. Colonel,

    Very informative. I don’t think it matters if Iran is the Muslim Brotherhood or not. They could be separate groups working for a shared goal. And any country they gain control of helps their cause. I think Bush was right to frame the conflict as a war on terror, and try to avoid a religious war that the terrorists court.

    ME countries with unrest

    Add to that the African countries, sure seems something is stirring up trouble.

    • Mathius says:

      Bush was right to frame the conflict as a war on terror Bush was wrong to use that frame to launch a war on countries which did not attack us.

      Bush was also wrong to refuse to acknowledge the cost of the war and keep the whole thing off the book.

      Bush was also wrong to use the “war on terror” thing to stir up panic, ensure re-election, spy on us without warrants, arrest and “render” people without trial, sanction torture, and many other things.


      And, before you let me have it, Obama is also wrong for continuing many of these things.

      • darn

      • Matt,

        Something missing from your post. Oh, isn’t it partly Sara Palin’s fault? 9/11 was an attack. Bush got congressional approval for his/our wars. Does not make it right, just completely legal and responsibility is shared by all three branches of our government(SCOTUS did not rule it illegal).

        So how does that compare to Libya?

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Unfortunately they are always going to frame the discussion (and war) as a “Crusade” against Islam. Great soundbite!
      Reason is not one of their more endearing attributes.

  16. “During his speeches within Iran, Ahmadinejad has said that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.”

    I wonder if anyone has ever asked A-Jad just what it is that Iran must do to “pave the way” for the 12th Imam. Only answer I can get from his words-is that Iran must be a world power -in order to do so.

  17. At some point, the West must realize that Islamism is a global strategic problem, not some aggregate of local crimes or series of isolated atrocities.

    If the threat were recognized, a next step would be reality therapy. Europe and America have little or nothing in common with Arab, Persian, or Muslim cultures — and the gap is getting wider. The culture of which we speak includes law, politics, religion, and history. Call it a “clash of civilizations,” but the bottom line is basic cultural incompatibility. Europe and America cannot show a way forward for a Muslim culture that looks backwards.

    The nut of the dilemma is captured in a word, Islam: literal and figurative submission. All notions of “peace” or co-existence are derivatives of submission. And the coin of compromise is Western values and law, not Islamic dogma or doctrine. The conflict between the West and Islam is a strategic zero-sum game. If we continue to delude ourselves about the nature of this struggle, we do so at our peril.

    Relinquishing the “white man’s burden” is another key to the gates of Islamist hell. In their own ways, maybe Idward Wadi Said, Tariq Ramadan, Tayyip Erdogan, and Yusuf al Qaradawi are correct. Maybe Europeans and Americans need to stop corrupting, patronizing, and exploiting the Arab and Muslim worlds. Maybe the West needs to step back and allow the Ummah to solve its own problems, do its own nation building, and suppress their own insurrections.

    If we can believe what they say about themselves, the goal of Islamist sects, Shia and Sunni, is some sort of theocratic utopia. The ambiguous homophone, “eutopia,” is closer to the mark: good place and no place at the same time. Surely the West can not save Islam from itself or the inevitable implosion. We probably shouldn’t try.

    The nexus of the struggle within the Arab and Muslim worlds is the battle between secular and religious tyranny. The resolution of such dialectics might best be left to history and the natives. Who knows what form of government Muslims will choose after the blood dries? Many on the religious right and secular left seek martyrdom. If the West relinquishes its role as referee, surely the path to the hereafter can be paved with the bones of zealots of both political stripes. In either case, Europe and America do not have any dogs in that fight.


  18. Some a yous will enjoy Doc’s beef with Obama on Libya (short but sweet).

  19. Buck

    So suffering under the free market (which could arguably be worse than the inequalities we face now – after all, who really knows what will happen with zero regulation) is preferrable to the suffering we have now?

    Human suffering is unsolvable. One merely needs to see an earthquake to understand this. Whether Japan is under a prison-like system, where everyone and everything is under the control of a few, or it is a nation of free men – there will be suffering.

    So the best we can do is mitigate suffering.

    However, if you steal from one man to give to another who did not earn the goods –you are merely TRANSFERRING the suffering, not mitigating it.

    You transfer from the man who “owns” the suffering to a man who is innocent – and harming the innocent is evil.

    You have not solved the suffering – it is not lessened. Yes, one man who did not earn the relief becomes relieved and another man who did not deserve to suffer now is allocated the suffering.

    Now, in your funny mind, you believe this is a good thing, because in your dream world, you say the 2nd man can “take it” whereas the first man cannot. But who in the hell gave you the right to decide this?

    The mitigation of suffering is best solved by men in voluntary action. For it is no longer a transfer of suffering decide by men whose insanity claims they are smarter than other men, but by the capacity of the man himself in determining his own charity – which is some amount from “zero” to “everything”.

    But if people like you who believe they are hyper-wise, and can determine this capacity for other men – the consequences of such insanity creates a far worse evil in society then the suffering of man.

    Such insanity -if pervasive- will cause the collapse of society which will lead to a great, great human suffering caused by men upon men and not by the amoral hands of nature.

    I would take the position that suffering under a pure free market system would be worse than we face now and the inequalities would grow at an even faster rate than we are experiencing now.

    So you believe men in voluntary action -that is making choices for themselves (rational thinking) – increases inequality, where as men under coercion -that is, violence overcoming reason- improves equality?

    If this is true, do you believe a prison – the maximum example of coercion – is the epitome of equality? Are the guards equal to the prisoners?

    Men are equal in rights, but not equal in desire or wants.

    Therefore it is irrational to demand equality in the latter and worse, idiotic to sacrifice the former in an attempt to achieve equality in the latter

    • Translation: if we lived in a state of nature (which we do not) and person “a” wanted to be a dancer and person “b” wanted to be own his own business, “b” would have to fend for himself (and might be willing to do so).

      Now, add a few billion people to the scenario and try it. Person “a” has all the gelt and persons 2-3 billion (or whatever the number is these days) have to play by a’s rules or go croak because that is freedom. However, if persons 2-3 billion choose to take person a’s wealth and redistribute it, they are evil. They are probably a lot better off (especially without A around) but they are evil nevertheless. Something tells me they’ll be able to produce on their own (without a).

      The motto: A true free market best serves those who are greedy enough (no matter how they get what they desire) to rule over others. Taking American lands from native indians, then using slaves to increase wealth in certain parts of the new paradise, keeping onetime slaves in economic depravity with ill gotten gains and a government designed to maintain a class structure … it’s all okee-doke with Ayn Randers because it’s the slaves fault for being slaves (whether in chains or not) and the advantages taken by those with the power (money), however they accumulated it, is protected because guess what? If you want it, you’re evil (especially if you use force–which Ayn Rand distinctly prohibits unless you’re protecting yourself/wealth). What a scam.

      • Charlie,

        Now, add a few billion people to the scenario and try it. Person “a” has all the gelt and persons 2-3 billion (or whatever the number is these days) have to play by a’s rules or go croak because that is freedom.

        You completely rely on fantasy stories in an attempt to justify the use of evil.

        No person can have “all the gelt” – ever. . No one can have “everything”. Such an assumption relies on the impossible, and as such, your philosophy requires an impossible condition to exist.

        The motto: A true free market best serves those who are greedy enough (no matter how they get what they desire) to rule over others

        Utter confusion.

        How are “free men” ruled?

        You contradict the concept, and with no surprise, the outcome of contradictions is a massive mess of blurb.

  20. Are there some guidelines or anything set up-to keep this from being just a give to my friends slush fund?

    Washington Post and CBS receiving money from Obamacare slush fund

    By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller | Published: 1:16 AM 04/06/2011 | Updated: 12:04 PM 04/06/2011

    Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.

    “It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”

    The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner.

    At a Friday morning hearing, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, chaired by Rep. Cliff Stearns, Florida Republican, asked Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight (CCIO) official Steven Larsen for how the administration decides who gets a slice of the $5 billion pie – and how the application process works. In his response, Stearns referred to the fact that corporations like General Electric, Verizon and AT&T in addition to several labor unions were getting taxpayer funding.

    Stearns was not impressed. “This program is providing ‘free’ money to corporations, states, unions, and pension plans,” the Congressman said in an e-mail to TheDC. “In addition, the Washington Post and CBS received funding under this program. How can the Washington Post and CBS be impartial on the issue of health care when they received funding under the health care law?”

    CBS Corporation spokesman Gil Schwartz told TheDC that newsroom employees, like any other CBS employees, are indeed allowed to take the taxpayer subsidies.

    “Yes they are,” Schwartz said. “Why wouldn’t newsroom employees be allowed access to that money

    Read more:

  21. Charlie

    Unless, of course, the gun comes in the form of money (which is what we have today). The monied doing whatever they want to those without it.

    To confuse money – the power of Influence to be the same as a gun – the power of Violence is inane.

    So you think that money is evil?”

    Have you ever asked what is the root of money?

    Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them.

    Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.

    Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force.

    Money is made possible only by the men who produce.

    Is this what you consider evil?

    As long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–there is only two ways.

    If not by money, then by the muzzle of a gun.

    Charlie, you live by double standard–you champion the men who live by force, yet count on those who earn so you can steal what they the earn

    In a moral society, your champions would be criminals – but when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law– a race begins.

    Not between those at best of production, but to those most ruthless at brutality.

    When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

    When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.

    Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded.

    Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world?’ You are.

    Blood, whips and guns–or dollars.
    Take your choice–there is no other.

    • When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good.

      Once again, your never ending assumptions assume men are inherently good and not greedy. The why of social contract contradicts you on this. Man required protection from man and formed alliances, tribes, governments. Why? Because man is so good he wouldn’t covet more than he needs?

      Phooey …

      • Charlie,

        I make no such assumption that all men are good.

        Men operate to their best advantage. It is to their best advantage to trade and cooperate. This does not make men angels – it makes them work for trade and cooperation.

        Men need to protect themselves from evil men, and men do cooperate to do this.

        But using evil to protect from evil only ensures the success of evil – it is this that you seem to misunderstand.

  22. Paul Ryan Is Right About the Budget — Americans Cannot Afford Another Decade of Massive Government Spending

    By John Lott

    Published April 05, 2011

    The deficit is a spending problem. That’s the simple truth. If federal government spending after President Clinton’s last budget had simply grown fast enough to keep up with inflation and the growth in population, the 2012 budget would be running over a $70 billion surplus. Instead, federal expenditures more than doubled from $1.86 to $3.82 trillion in the ten years from 2001 to 2011, causing this year’s enormous $1.65 trillion deficit.

    During President Obama’s first three years in office the government’s deficits are adding up to over $4.3 trillion. And there is no let up in sight. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the President Obama’s budget plans will add another $10.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade from 2012 to 2021.

    Americans can’t afford to ignore this problem. The pricetag for that expected addition to the federal debt over the next decade comes to over $134,000 for a family of four. That doubles the debt the CBO expects that families will already face by the end of this year.

    Tuesday Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Chairman of the House Budget Committee, will announce his proposal to make cuts in spending in order to trim the increase in debt by $4.4 trillion — down from the projected $10.4 trillion to $6 trillion. That is a serious start. Unfortunately, the proposal can be expected to be met by incredulity from Democrats, who don’t want to cut any spending and who labeled the current House Republican proposal for this year’s budget of a measly $61 billion as “extreme” and “reckless.”

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, already fired the first salvo on Sunday, accusing Ryan “protect[ing] tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big-money special interests while slashing our investment in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans.” Of course, this was before Van Hollen even had read Ryan’s proposal.

    Yet, Tuesday Ryan proposed an end to the special tax breaks that let companies such as Obama favorite, General Electric, make $14.2 billion in profits this year but avoid paying any federal corporate taxes. GE’s president, Jeffrey Immelt, heads Obama’s outside panel of economic advisers. As The New York Times reported, “Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting.”

    It was Democrats that GE successfully lobbying for tax breaks over the last couple of years. Ryan’s approach is quite different. He proposes a revenue-neutral approach that would replace deductions and loopholes with a lower rate that puts all companies on the same playing field.

    Despite Obama’s repeated promises to cut the deficit, the CBO estimates that the claimed $1.1 trillion cut in the deficit actually amounts to a $1.2 trillion increase. Obama simply ignores the cost of existing programs and underestimates how expensive his new proposed programs will be.

    But his current promises have been no more dependable than his past ones. In the first presidential debate, Mr. Obama attacked Republicans for an “orgy of spending and enormous deficits,” promising that he was actually going to eliminate the deficit by reducing spending. He repeated that promise to cut overall spending in both the second and third debates.

    Ironically, if Obama really believed that 2008 marked an “orgy of spending,” solving the deficit would be easy. Cutting government spending back to just 2007 levels would reduce next year’s deficit to just $100 billion. Cutting spending back to 2006 levels would eliminate it. Indeed, these cuts are much bigger than the cuts that Representative Ryan proposes today, yet Obama’s statements were never labeled as “extreme.”

    Democrats respond that government spending can’t be cut because it would eliminate jobs. Just the proposed $61 billion cuts by House Republicans in the current budget is said to “amount to a loss of 700,000 jobs.” The claim only counts the jobs funded by the government and assumes that this spending isn’t offset by the loss of private sector jobs. The notion is that if the government doesn’t spend the money, it never really exists.

    Obama’s massive budget increases over the last couple of years were promised to just be temporary. Now Democrats argue that they can’t be touched. Americans simply can’t afford another decade of deficits that add up to $134,000 for a family of four. Paul Ryan’s proposal is actually fairly modest, adding just another $77,000 to the total debt for a family of four.

    Government spending is simply out of control. Despite facing what will surely be vicious attacks, Ryan’s proposal makes a real start at digging us out of this mess.

    John R. Lott, Jr is a FoxNews contributor. He is an economist

    Read more:

  23. I am VERY curious what the Ayn Randers think about this piece from 60 Minutes this past week. Seriously:

    • Charlie,

      Why tie this to Ayn? None of us defend unethical business.
      I think there is another side to this, not all or most are what I consider innocent victims. If you borrow more than you can afford, I don’t blame the bank. If the bank defrauds you, I do blame them. Video only played for a little, then went black.

      from their comments:

      One of our attorneys have in fact taken two homeowners cases to the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts. And a landmark decision was handed down, stating that if the lender cannot produce the original closing documents you signed at closing they are not permitted to foreclose nor collect on your loan. This in fact should possibly void the loan entirely. Leaving the home owner with a home free and clear, never, ever having to pay another mortgage payment again.

      • That would be a beautiful thing except it’s not what’s going to happen. You’ll have to go to 60 minutes site to see it, I guess. Thought the link would work. But why aren’t you outraged that a bank would defraud thousands out of their homes? (they’re already out and have lost their homes). Why point to those who took loans they couldn’t afford? This is with regulation. Imagine without it?

        • Charile,

          you outraged that a bank would defraud thousands out of their homes? (they’re already out and have lost their homes). Why point to those who took loans they couldn’t afford? This is with regulation. Imagine without it?

          It is outrageous.

          But why demand more of problem as a solution to the problem?

          First, it was government the REQUIRED the banks to lend to people who cannot repay. Prez. Carter forced this.

          Second, if someone is throwing money at you, do you believe the People are stupid to pick it up? 20/20 we can say “Dummy, you shouldn’t get a loan you can’t repay”, but can you truly blame them? They were lied to by the government

          The solution is not to continually raise the barriers of entry into the market by increasing more and more regulation, but to do the opposite.

          More regulation does not interfere with the big banks. They have more than enough brilliant men who figure out all the ins and outs so to do whatever they want anyway. You cannot stop this.

          More regulation does interfere with the little guys. They do not have the excess cash flow to deal with the 70,000 new laws made every year.

          To solve this problem, you need to assault the big boys with the millions of little guys – open competition. That is why there is regulation. The big guys know they cannot defeat the multitude of little guys who are faster, leaner, and more locally focused.

          Do not call for more regulation.

          Demand NO regulation, and let the market forces eat the big guys away, like a sand blower, where millions of little sand particles that can cut through steel.

    • I like this one pointing out Dodd-Franks. Big government stepped in and made exceptions, changed rules to profit their cronies. I do not defend the business, but think they could not have done this without government(Democrats)
      assisting them.

      by FHA_Mtg April 5, 2011 1:04 PM EDT
      The best part of all of this is the Dodd-Frank Act is actually going to REWARD these very same banks by pushing mortgage brokers out of business.
      Do a Google search on loan officer compensation rule or go to or

      • Dodd should be strung up by his nutsack, that piece of garbage. He was complicit in so much fraud in D.C., now he’s Hollywood’s main lobbyist. No mercy here for Dodd or any Democrat. You should know where I stand (shoot them all, starting with Republicans and going right through the Dems).

  24. gmanfortruth says:
%d bloggers like this: