Daniel Pipes, one of America's premiere Islamophobes, has a soft spot for one deadly deadly Islamic terrorist organization.

The author's first error is in describing Daniel Pipes an islamophobe, which is a classic leftist and Islamist thing to do to someone who exposes radical Islam. Mr. Pipes actually favors the term ''moderate Islam." You figure that when Daniel Postel here says "one deadly Islamic terrorist organization'' [as shown above Daniel here said deadly twice] that he means the MEK [Mujahideen-e-Khalq] and the NCRI [National Council on Resistance in Iran]. The MEK is the main group in the NCRI. As I'll show later, Daniel considers NCRI to be an alias for MEK. By the way, neither the NCRI or MEK, it's main group, are a "deadly Islamic terrorist group." The MEK and NCRI seeks to liberate Iran from the Islamo-fascist regime in Iran. "One deadly Islamic terrorist organization" is the Iranian revolutionary Guards, which is commanded by Supreme leader Ali Khamenei and Supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini before him. The Iranian revolutionary Guards is one of the groups that carries out Iran's state terrorism at home and abroad and helps Iran export its Islamo-fascist revolution around the world. It was the terrorist government in Iran that carried out a terrorist on the Asociacion Mutual Israel Argentina [AMIA], a Jewish community center in Argentina.  According to Hezbollah deputy, Naim Qassem, Hezbollah, Iran's proxy, only carries out its terrorist attacks with apporval from Iran. Hezbollah did kill the most Americans before al Quada and started a war with Israel in 2006 by kidnapping and killing IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldiers and launching rockets at Israeli cities. So, Daniel, want to talk to me about who's  "one deadly Islamic terrorist organization?"  If Daniel Pipes has "a soft spot for one deadly Islamic terrorist group," how does that make him Islamophobic?Daniel Postel claims:

During the week of October 22-26, an official announcement effuses, "The nation will be rocked by the biggest conservative campus protest ever - Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, a wake-up call for Americans on 200 university and college campuses." Ringmastered by David Horowitz, this circus will be performing under the tent of something called the "Terrorism Awareness Project."

The purpose of this ballyhoolooza, we are told, is to confront the "Big Lies" of the Left regarding terrorism and militant Islam. Worthy subjects, to be sure. Indeed I would like to help the sponsors of the "wake-up call" promote awareness of them. Toward this end, let's consider the American Right's "special relationship" with one group of terrorists.

Correction, let's consider the right's relationship with one group of freedom fighters. This is a pethetic attempt to distract people so they won't see the left's relationship with terrorists by throwing mud at the right [including Islamo-fascism Awareness Week] and the Iranian freedom fighters, who want to free their country. What about the Muslim Association of Britain [MAB], the British wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The MAB is also a member group of Stop the War coalition. What about George Galloway's [Galloway is a vice president of Stop the War coalition] praise for Hezbollah and the International Solidarity Movement's [ISM] inclusion in the United with Peace and Justice, another extreme leftist anti-war movement. I documented in my last article ISM, peace group or terrorist front, that it is a front for Palestinian terrorists and takes part in the secret covert terrorist war on Israel, which is war that was launched to destroy Israel. Not all of the left supports terrorists. But too much of it does. Even most of the ones in the left who don't support terrorism whitewash or deny the Islamo-fascist threat. To be fair, I do admit that some leftists do understand the Islamo-fascist terrorist threat. I showed much of the left's support for terrorists. Islamo-fascism awareness week is a heroic group. It seeks to fight Islamist infiltration, supports victims of Islamism and supports democracy and freedom in the Middle East.Daniel claims:

The U.S. State Department officially considers the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) a Foreign Terrorist Organization. While those honors date back to 1994, they've been renewed during the Bush years. Indeed in 2003 Foggy Bottom went further, including the National Council of Resistance of Iran -- an MEK alias -- under the terrorist designation. (The MEK is also known as the People's Mujahedeen.)

Yes, they were put on the State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations to appease the terrorist regime in Iran. But guess what? The US gets its information on Iran from those groups.  They get good intelligence information on Iran and were the ones who revealed Iran's nuclear weapons program. American soldiers in Iraq are also starting to consider  Daniel claims:

To make a long and bizarre story short, the MEK got its start in early 1960s Iran, helped overthrow the Shah in 1979, but quickly turned on the revolutionary government it helped bring to power. Employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism, the tactics of a paramilitary guerilla faction, and the organizational structure of a cult, the group went into exile, eventually making their home in Iraq in the mid-1980s. Not only did Saddam give the organization cover: he armed, funded, and utilized them for a variety of ends over two decades.

Yes, the MEK may [or may not] have started off as radical. But now, the NCRI and its main group MEK seek to free Iran and democratize it. He claims that MEK helped the revolutionary government come to power. MEK has reformed. However, according to Alireza Jafarzadeh, MEK was the only organization that knew Khomeini's true colors, meaning that they didn't collude with the Islamists in Iran. Anyway, many democrats collaborated with totalitarian movements and discovered they were duped. Many democrats in the Fidel Castro's July 26th movement discovered that Castro was a dictator and were executed by Ernesto [Che] Guevara in La Cabana. Daniel claims that the MEK was "employing an ideological blend of Stalinism and Islamism.'' They weren't. They sought to free Iran from the terrorist government in Iran. He complains that Saddam gave them support. Saddam only allowed the MEK to have bases in Iraq. He didn't arm them or give them any other kind of material support. But guess what? During the 1980's, the US supported Iraq against Iran. America's alienation of MEK as a concession to the terrorist regime was what brought them closer to Saddam. By the way, Saddam was overthrown in 2003 and executed three years later. Iran was a bigger threat than Saddam's Iraq. I'm no defender of Saddam. He was a mass-murderer. I defended the Iraqi government's right to execute him in my article ''liberal's blind hatred of Bush'', saying that the Iraqi government has the right to execute of imprison him because he committed his crimes in Iraq.  Also, many liberals deny that Saddam supported terrorists, while this liberal contradicts them in faslely calling the MEK a terrorist group and saying that Saddam supported them. Saddam did support terrorist groups such as the Abu Nidal group, Hamas, the Palestine Liberation Front [PLF] and other terrorist groups. Also, Saddam gave at first then thousands dollars and then twenty five thousand dollars to families of suicide bombers.

Daniel claims:

The group's wicked political brew was on spectacular display on theold MEK flag (since abandoned), with its sickle and Kalashnikov positioned beneath a Koranic verse. (Not -- to state the obvious -- that the mere presence of a Koranic verse in and of itself implies Islamist political commitments, but in this case the shoe very much fits.)

Since abandoned said Daniel. If it's abandoned, what's the point of including what's on the MEK flag? Daniel goes on:

Here you have virtually everything the Right claims to oppose all rolled into one: Islamism, Marxism, terrorism, and Saddam. Naturally, then, neoconservatives would utterly deplore the MEK and everything it stands for, right? The MEK would in fact make an ideal target for Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week and Terrorism Awareness efforts, no?

MEK is not a Marxist group. As I said, it seeks to democratize Iran and free Iran. It seeks to free the world from the threat from Iran. The MEK is targeted military forces from the terrorist regime in Iran. Is that terrorism? No. Daniel, the MEK is fighting an Islamist government, the one in Iran. The MEK is not Islamist. Didn't the ANC [African National Congress] freedom fighters use violence on the apartheid regime in South Africa to win rights for the black majoirty? Yet they're rightly considered freeodm fighters for that. The MEK is fighting  regime far worse than the Apartheid regimes, a regime that exports terror to impose their backwards interpretation of Islam. The MEK stopped using violence since 2001.

Daniel claims:

Well, no. At least one of the carnival's acts, it turns out, is rather fond of the Islamo-Stalinist-terrorist cult group, and has repeatedly argued for the removal of the MEK from the State Department's list of terrorist groups and indeed urged the U.S. government to embrace it. Daniel Pipes, who will be speaking at Tufts on October 24th as part of the Horowitz high jinks, has made the MEK a recurring theme in his writings going back several years: here,here, and here.

The MEK is not an Islamo-Stalinist group. The MEK's "crime" right now is fighting the Islamo-fascist Nazified terrorist regime in Iran. Daniel claims:

Pipes has also gone to bat for the MEK right in the pages of Horowitz'shouse organ.
But Pipes is far from alone on the Right in championing the MEK. He co-authored the first piece linked to above with Patrick Clawson of the right-wing Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Right-wing commentator Max Boot has argued not merely for the removal of the MEK from the terrorist list but for funding and unleashing it to do battle with Iranian forces -- this while casually acknowledging that it is a "political cult." (More on Boot's disfigured views here.)

Daniel here complains about Mr. Pipes and a lot on the right championing the MEK. We champion the MEK because it is the main opposition group to the terrorist regime in Iran and is fighting to democratize Iran. Funding MEK to do battles with the Iranian terorrist regime is something I agree with. The MEK being a cult is a myth from the Iranian regime and those who fall for that claim.Daniel claims:

In some cases the MEK plays a stealth role in the media machinery of the American Right. What the FOX News Channel tells viewers aboutAlireza Jafarzadeh when he appears on its airwaves is that he is an "FNC Foreign Affairs Analyst." What you have to go to the FOX Newswebsite to discover, however, is that Jafarzadeh served "for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran's parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran." But it is scarcely known that the sonorous-sounding National Council of Resistance of Iran is in fact a front name for the MEK.

Alireza Jafarzadeh himself admits he was the spokesman for MEK. He is one of the biggest heroes in the struggle to free Iran from the terrorist regime. In fact, it was Alireza Jafazadeh himself, who, in 2002, exposed Iran's nuclear weapons program, using MEK sources to do it.Daniel claims:

Now, it's true that Jafarzadeh discontinued his post with the National Council of Resistance of Iran--but only when (and only because) its Washington office was forced to close in 2003 as a result of the State Department decision about it being a front for the MEK. It's not like he had a change of heart.

By change of heart, does Daniel mean what he calls "Islamo-Stalinist?" Yes, I agree Alireza Jafarzadeh hasn't changed his heart. He did, and still does, want to free Iran from the Islamo-fascist regime in Iran. But no, Jafarzadeh is not an "Islamo-Stalinist."Daniel said:

If you attend an "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" event, you might want to ask the speakers about this terrorist cult and whether they condemn it. Some of them might -- not all neoconservatives agree on the MEK. (See here and here for examples of right-wing criticism of the outfit -- though the lines of argumentation are sometimes bizarrely convoluted.)

Maybe, you do want to ask them. But still, why should they condemn a movement that seeks to remove the threat from Iran and free the Iranian people? MEK and NCRI represent the Iranian people's desire to be free from the Islamo-fascist regime. Mr. Postel admits that many conservatives condemn the MEK, but the next paragraph will show that he says that the fact that prominent conservatives embrace it puts questions as to the "right's bedfellows." I may not agree with MEK on every issue. But they are fighting to free Iran form the Islamo-Nazi regime in Iran. For that, they, along with the NCRI, should be praised.Daniel said:

But the fact that several prominent American conservatives have cozied up to an Islamist-Stalinist cult that was on Saddam's payroll and the State Department considers a terrorist organization -- this raises serious questions (to put it mildly) about the Right's bedfellows and the calculus that determines them.
It suggests the need for a little more terrorism awareness.

I get it. We need "more terrorism awareness" from this leftist propagandist while many of his fellow leftists truly do support terrorists, including Islamo-fascists, and do support America totalitarian enemies, including Castro and Chavez. Daniel wants to cite the State Department foreign terrorist organization list. Guess what, Cuba, that's right, where the regime is embraced by many leftists, is on the US State department list of states that sponsor terrorism [using Daniel's termonology there, "If the show fits,'' because Cuba really does support international terrorism].This article is another desperate attempt from the left to make us in the right seem hypocritical. This article debunks Daniel's distorted article.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), countries have a right to enrich its own fuel to a level appropriate for nuclear power and not any higher to a level needed for a nuclear weapon, under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran argues that it is merely doing what it is allowed to do and that they have no intention of making a bomb. However not only is Iran seen to the West as an untrustworthy ally Mr. Ahmadinejad himself has not helped the situation. Known for his hard-line beliefs, strict dress code for women and human rights violations, most recently reported Iranian student Ahmed Batebi, who escaped from horrendous torture in Iran due to his activities in public protesting. Mr. Ahmadinejad has not helped matters. Moreover his government has been in breach of sanctions imposed by the UN security council and been riddled with scandal, most recently the Royal Navy interception of over £800m worth of smuggled narcotics coming out of Iranian ports. Nonetheless despite all of this the big event that was sure to reach headlines was the recent power-play between the two opponent countries, Israel and Iran. In July Iran televised the test-firing of missiles as a response to the Israeli demonstration in June, whereby 100 Israeli jets appeared to be rehearsing the bombing of distant targets. The Iranian reaction is what hit the headlines, a reaction which illustrated that Iran was not scarred from any threat and would not be bullied. This very reaction created a massive stir within the Western press. The public "tit-for-tat" game play between Iran and Israel and Iran's consistent declining of deals, such as the freeze-freeze programme or suspension of the enrichment programme for negotiation, has consequently created international hysteria. This has prompted intellectuals, professors and analysts from leading think tanks to illustrate their views on how to deal with the Iran crisis.

Evidently there seems to be a variety of trends within the Western media suggesting what is the best strategy to solve rising tempers. The three main camps appear to be those who have vetoed the diplomatic track and are now calling for direct military action. Those who believe that we should continue diplomatic procedures, whether that been harsher sanctions or negotiations without Iran suspending its uranium enrichment programme. And those who believe the best solution to deal with this international crisis is to engage in dialogue with Iran via an agency or consortium to curb previous cultural and nationalistic ignorance's.

Supporters of Military action

Those who have joined the pro-military action camp are the likes of John R. Bolton, author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations,” wrote for the Wall street Journal, explicitly arguing that the continuation of diplomacy is no longer effective. He suggests that stronger incentives will not entice Iran to abandon its pursuit of "nuclear weapons" and therefore we should be discussing what cooperation the U.S will extend to Israel. By enforcing further sanctions, “The regime is buying the short additional period of time it needs to produce deliverable nuclear weapons, the strategic objective it has been pursuing clandestinely for 20 years,” wrote Bolton. He even goes as far to agree with Presidential nominee John McCain who stressed the need for a missile defence system which would defend the United States against attacks made by Iran and North Korea. Bolton went on to say in an interview that the Arab World would be “pleased” by Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. (tel 24/6) Understandably this comment has substantial ground due to years of hostility between the two opposing countries, however the ramifications of an Israeli attack on Iran could affect the Arab world in a number of ways. Thus any attack on the Persian State would be far from the Arab World being "positive privately". Bolton's zero diplomatic stance believing that, "the U.S should place no obstacles in Israel"s path, and facilitate its efforts where it can,' puts him firmly in this camp.

Editor Simon Jenkins for the Sunday Times interestingly argues against sanctions altogether. "Sanctions are a war waged by cowards…[they] are an ineffective, or worse a counterproductive weapon of interstate aggression," he wrote. Thus under this thinking Tehran under sanctions loses nothing by carrying on with its nuclear programme. For Jenkins sanctions merely strengthen administrations, “Sanctions made Saddam Hussein the sixth richest man in the world,” he said. As a result if not sanctions, what? Jenkins argues if you want to overthrow a regime you should just do it. So in the Iranian case the government is in breach of the sanctions given therefore for Jenkins military action is inevitable.

The diplomatic camp

The diplomatic camp has been given a great deal of support from academics such as John Thomson, who wrote for the Sunday Independent. He argues that despite Iran's refusal to accept current deals the US president should agree to hold talks without pre-conditions. “Let negotiations begin without pre-conditions. Now, President Bush, to propose that yourself would be truly statesmanlike,” he wrote. Moreover Thomson believes that the whole Israeli talk about pre-emptive military action is a consequence of an "irrational fantasy" that Iran intends to attack them. There reaction possibly signalled due to their shock of failing to win the 34-day war against Hizbollah and the current ongoing corruption allegations swarming around the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Negotiations with suspension in Thomson's view is unlikely, he writes, “the change in Iranian tone and intentions is due to increasing confidence that its influence in the Middle East is equal to that of the US. Hence negotiations, it supposes, will be based on mutual respect.”

Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, has also supported the need for a diplomatic stance suggesting that there is a need to change US policy to one of dialogue, along with tougher sanctions and renewed incentives. “Now is the time to work with out friends and allies, and to pursue direct and aggressive diplomacy with the Iranian regime backed by tougher unilateral and multilateral sanctions,” Obama said. By this statement alone he has become Iran's shining candidate, a man leading the way for the more dialogue to domesticate international displeasure.

David Miliband, who wrote for the Herald Times believes solely in the diplomatic track, however does not agree with pre-negotiations. Miliband gives what he believes is a clear choice, “Come into compliance with the UN resolution and be part of the international community, or remain in breach and suffer growing political and economic isolation.” The fact that there is a massive prize on offer if Iran behaves appropriately accepting the "freeze-for-freeze" negotiation, merely illustrates the consistent ignorance of the West, unaware that behaving dissimilarly to the US does not necessarily mean it is bad.

Diplomacy via agency

The third camp relates to the idea that diplomatic negotiations should be furthered under UN agencies or a new consortium for that matter. Latest headlines have reported that President George Bush has approved to send diplomat William Burns, the state department's third ranking official, to talks with Iran in Geneva this weekend over its disputed nuclear programme. This has added to the media frenzy of the last 2-3weeks and it is clear that the majority of the Western Press, The financial Times in particular, are proposing that the package of international economic support, security guarantees and assistance with its civilian nuclear programme, is one that Iran should firmly take hold of.

America's decision to negotiate shows a more wiser approach than to previous crisis' they have dealt with. Having Mr Burns attending the Geneva meeting with the EU's top foreign policy official, Javier Solana and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, is a step towards the right direction. However this "symbolic gesture" does not intentionally mean a shift in U.S policy. The key symbolic move lies in the creation of a US interests section and if anyone has hit the right notes its secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. Rice has been seeking President Bush's approval to establish a "United States Interests Section" in the Iranian Capital, Tehran. The key advantage of having this sort of agency is that America would be able to send diplomats to Iran to simplify travel visas for Iranians to come to the U.S. This allows for better relations and a more-likely pro-American feel among the Iranian people. Furthermore such an agency would be less like an intrusive intelligence operation and more like a research opportunity to observe the countries politics directly.

This approach is what Iran wants, more dialogue and less military threat. The missile firing tests were we must remember a response to Israel, Iran was never the one to have started the powerplay. As Richard Dalton, an analyst from the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had said, “When you get threatened explicitly and repeatedly, you want to show you have the capability of hitting back.” (stimes 13/7)

Professor James P. Rubin supports the idea of opening a diplomatic post seeing it as a, “wise policy and should be judged on its own merit.” However he interestingly proposes a different tact of diplomatic procedure. He calls for U.S policy to build on the pro-American feel market phenomenon and allow more Iranians to see the "real America" rather than the propaganda version it is so frequently exposed to. Regardless of the fact that the government may see America as an adversary, the Iranian people see America as a country of "freedom and moderation." Thus by having more US diplomats come into the country, they would be able to simplify travel for Iranians to the US and subsequently improve relations. However Rubin believes this strategy will have to await a new, possibly Obama, administration before a new more powerful mix of incentives and disincentives are presented to Iran. Capitalizing on this visas initiative does seem like an effective way to deal with this International crisis, US interests in the country at the moment are looked after by the Swiss embassy. Therefore the creation of a US interests section would mean that diplomats can be stationed in Tehran marking the first time since the hostage crisis of 1979.

The jury is out which camps wins?

It would seem with the latest news of Geneva talks, the diplomacy tract without suspension has come out on top along with negotiations over a US interests consortium. The Media frenzy which has triggered the ideas and strategy solutions of leading academics and analysts is no doubt partly responsible for this most recent activity.

At the end of the day Iran does not have to pander to such international pressure because unlike Iraq, Iran has ample strategic defense plans, for example closing the Strait of Hormuz which allows passage of approximately 40% of the world traded oil. It could strike at neighboring countries, causing great rifts in Iraq and allies Hizbullah could create trouble on Israel's northern boarder. Military action would therefore be catastrophic to the global oil markets and the price of petrol, it would destroy any progression of the US military effort in Iraq and ultimately destabilize the region.

The ball at this point in time is firmly in Iran's court, however if negotiations do not go down well the ramifications of war would be disastrous as mentioned. You don't have to walk too far down memory lane to know that Iraq was a terrible war and is still suffering along with the US economy. Should I remind you and the US there is very little ground for arguing that the Iraq war was a successful one, or even Afghanistan for that matter. Over 50 thousand Iraqi's have been killed, over 5m have had to uproot from the state and the country is still riddled by insurgency. The US economy spent well over $300b for the war and with Prime Minister Nuri Al-MALIKI suggesting that US forces should start to leave in bigger brigades, Bush should take up his offer. But again it is Obama who seems to be the only politician who is on the right track to fill the gaping whole in the US economy.

Iraq is an example to the US and Israel not to use military action, war has not solved anything there so why would it solve the Iranian crisis. Going in all guns blazing like they did in Iraq, will only destroy any relations the US has made. However if dialogue does not start soon with Iran, not only will Israel move closer to engaging in military force, but also further foreign investment will be severely constrained as we have seen already with the loss of TOTAL of France, which recently decided to remove itself from investing in the Iran's huge South Pars gas field. Chief executive of Total, Christophe de Margerie said the standoff was due to the, “extremely delicate political environment.” The energy minister of Iran, Gholamhossin Nozari said, “This is our message: we will proceed with development with or without them.”

Negotiation without suspension is the right way to go. An international body/ consortium, for research to reduce cultural and nationalist ignorance of the intervening state is the best way in dealing with countries like Iran. Depending on how well the Geneva talks go the fact that the US have made the first move to negotiate and that for the first time Iran has agreed and not backed away at such a revolutionary prospect allows for a glimmer of light to shine through the gridlock.

He would be considered a harmless despot were it not for the fact that he does have the means to carry out his threats. Iran's present long-range missiles can hit Egypt, Kazakhstan, and India. So, right now Ahmadinejad can carry out a regional war. And, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Iran is currently developing the Shahab-5 and Shabab-6. These missiles will be able to hit the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Billions of people worldwide will be endangered if these missiles are equipped with nuclear warheads. Most international political experts believe Iran is developing atomic bombs. On top of that, Ahmadinejad has acquired the BM-25 missile which is specifically built to carry nuclear weapons.

So, we may be dealing with a mad man who can back up his talk with action. He can first destroy Israel and then dominate the Middle East with his military might. Ahmadinejad's next logical target would be the United States. This is somebody who apparently believes he can bring back the twelfth Imam by causing the destruction of one third of the world's population.

Iran's development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles must be stopped without the United States becoming involved in another ground war in the Middle East. But an air and missile strike by Israel and/or the U.S. is definitely called for. We cannot afford to ignore Ahmadinejad's threats.

The Bush Administration will soon be out of the Whitehouse and these next few months are their last opportunity to strike out at Americas' enemies. Israel as well may see this as a last opportunity to shut down the Iranian Nuclear program while; there is still a warlike administration sympathetic to such actions. Russian naval deployments therefore may be seen as a way to dissuade the U.S. and Israel from any eleventh hour military actions against Russian informal allies, such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela.

Russian fleet deployment off Syria, positions the Russians to ward off Israel and to a lesser extent possible U.S. strikes on Iran. The deployment is led by Russia's one and only operational aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Operating in the Eastern Mediterranean, could complicate any planned airstrike Israel maybe planning on Iranian Nuclear facilities, as a Russian fleet operating just off the Israel or Syrian coast could observe the launch of an airstrike, aimed at Syria or Iran, providing either of these two countries with early warning of a pending attack. Iran of the two would benefit the most as a Russian warning could give its defenses over an hour to prepare to repel an Israel airstrike, hence forcing the Israel's to surrender the advantage of surprise.

Closer to the U.S. backyard the Russian fleet is sending its powerful Battle Cruiser Peter the Great and one destroyer plus a handful support vessels to conduct joint exercises with Venezuela. Russian fleet deployment to Venezuela could counter any possible US intervention, such as direct military action or indirect CIA coup on the anti-U.S. Chavez government.

Just the presence of these two powerful Russian fleet should be enough to give both the U.S. and Israel pause, before taking any last minuet actions against Russian interest. Both of these Russian fleets could do a great deal of damage in a potential war, before being destroyed by overwhelming U.S. naval power. Still the thought of overall superior U.S. naval power should not be used as and argument that Russia will not intervene militarily. As Russia has shown recently with its brief war with Georgia as testimony that the Russian bear is easily agitated and willing to wage war. While war is highly unlikely, political and military leaders in the U.S. and Israel should take the Russian naval deployments as serious signs that Russia is serious about protecting its perceived interest, for it certainly would not send its best ships if it was not.

The political left hasn't denounced Obama for threatening to invade Pakistan, which to you leftists out there, is just [if not more] as "westernized" and "secular" as Saddam Hussein. Should America bomb Al Quada bases and do its best to prevent an Islamist takeover of Pakistan? Yes. But Barack Obama has no strategy when it comes to Pakistan.

After the assassination of the pro-democracy hero Benizar Bhutto,  Obama said Pakistan should deal with it sown affairs. Yet he'll just send US soldiers to invade Pakistan, bombing Al Quada with no strategy. Democracy in Pakistan is a great thing as long as Islamists don't take over, especially because Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Barack Obama will alienate the Musharraf regime and make him feel threatened by America, which will be bad for our fight with Al Quada. I don't support Musharraf one bit [for I consider Benizar Bhutto, a political opponent of Musharraf] as a hero, but when fighting Al Quada and other Islamists, it is not the time to get on his bad terms. 

Yes, America should support democracy in Pakistan, but also make sure Islamists don't take over because Islamists will not hestate to use nuclear weapons on America, for Islamists don't look at it as simply world conquest, but also form a religious point of view that Muslims, especially those who fight the infidels including the suicide bombers and 9/11 hijackers will go to heaven, while the infidels go to hell. For islamists brag all the time that they value death like how we value life. To believe that they'll be dettered by Mutually Assured Destruction, they won't. Believing they will is beliving that they think from a western perspective. 

Yet Obama calls for the invasion of Pakistan. No complaint from the political left, which is too busy getting useful idiots, who view Obama as a pop-culture figure and scream like little girls when seeing him.  But  he is everything the left claims Saddam is:

-No threat to America

-Doesn't support terrorism

-Is secular and "westernized"

-Didn't attack America

Saddam was a far more brutal dictator than Musharraf. The political left claims Saddam didn't support terrorists. That's simply BS. Saddam gave first $10.000 and then $25.000 checks to familes of suicide bombers during the second intifada. Saddam also sheltered, funded and armed Palestinian terrorist groups including those that killed Americans. Abu Abbas and his PLF [Palestine Liberation Front] was one of the terroris tgroups that recieved aid, trianing and funding from Saddam's Nazi-like regime. guess what? The PLF killed an American [Jew] named Leon Klinghoff while the Italian cruise ship Archille Lauro was hijacked. This is not to defend how we invaded Iraq.

But it shows the hypocrisy of the political left especially of Barack Obama, the biggest liar Washington may ge tto know. Guess what? Obama's speech may get Musharraf to feel threatened and make America lose an important ally in the war on terror. Do you know why Obama may make us lose Musharra fas an ally, evne while Al Quada terrorists are in Pakistan. Because Obama is so d**n ignorant.  The sitution with Pakistan is shakey and now Barack Obama, many of whos fans are useful idiots who scream like little girls when seeing him, especially when he portrays himself as a god like figure, using worlds like "change" and "hope" while spewing out his BS. 

Here's more reasons why Obama is going to be such a bad president. He called for unconditional talks with our totaliatarian enemies such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Notice the last one, Iran, which one of their military journals calls for a nuclear attack on America, carried out missile texts to prepare for a nuclear missile attack on America and Hassan Abasi, an Iranian revolutionary guard said:

Our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader ['Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations. Our motto during the war (in Iraq) was: Karbala, we are coming, Jerusalem, we are coming. And because of Khatami's policies and dialogue between the civilizations, we have been compelled to freeze our plan to liberate the Islamic cities. And now we are [again] about to carry out the program. 

Abasi also said:

The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front, by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.

The Iranianr egime will use nuclear weapons on their enemies including America and Israel. I just stated the nature of Islamism, which is the ideology of the Iranian regime. Mr. Obama, wake up. The 9/11 commission report documented the ties between Iran and al Quada. Iran sponsors demonstrations calling for the "death to America" and "Death to Israel," and Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during the conference he hosted called "A world without America and Zionism," he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and of course also called for America's destruction. Yet Obama will have preemptive talks with the apocalyptic terrorist regime in Iran, as well as the totalitarian Communist regimes of North Korea and Cuba, while threatening Pakistan and calling for an invasion of that country. 

Iran has been pursuing nuclear ambitions for years. Starting in the 1950's with help from the United States, the program has progressed from one research reactor installed in 1967 to fifteen possible nuclear research sites including two nuclear reactors, one at Bushehr and the other being constructed at Darkovin. In 1968 Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Up until 1979 the civilian nuclear program was heavily supported by the west and guided by the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution the nuclear program changed gears. From 1985 to 2003 parts of the Iranian nuclear research program were hidden from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and up until 2003 evidence points at an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The United States National Intelligence Estimate stated with, "a high level of confidence," that the Iranian weapons program halted in 2003 and remains inactive.

Recently, Iran has even been cooperating with the international inspectors. However, the United States and Israel still argue that Iran is secretly pursuing nuclear weapon related technologies behind the back of the International Community. The EU-3, consisting of Britain, France, and Germany, also believe that Iran has intentions beyond that of civilian nuclear power. Several exchanges have taken place between the Iranian government and the International Community. Beginning in 2006 with Resolution 1696, the Security Council of the United Nations demanded "Iran suspend uranium enrichment...or face possible economic, diplomatic sanctions." Iran has henceforth refused to stop uranium enrichment. A series of resolutions have since been passed. Resolution 1737 (2006) barred the sale of all nuclear related technology to Iran and seized assets, Resolution 1747 (2007) added an arms embargo, Resolution 1803 (2008) mandated states inspect cargo bound for Iran, and Resolution 1835 (2008) reaffirmed the previous four resolutions. Iran has refused all offers that impede its, "inalienable right," to nuclear technology including offers to enrich its uranium in Russia and face to face talks with the United States if it halts enrichment. Today experts vary in opinion but most think Iran could enrich uranium or plutonium to weapons grade within two years. They are approaching virtual nuclear power status, meaning they have the technology and fissile materials to build a nuclear weapon. The IAEA determined Iran already has enough uranium to make six nuclear bombs if enriched high enough.

The first question to consider in these issues is whether or not Iran has the right to develop nuclear capabilities. The most pertinent document in regards to this is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (1970). Key elements to examine include Article II, Article III, Article IV, and Article X. Article II of the treaty prohibits non-nuclear states from "seeking control over such weapons," and instructs them, "not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons." This provision in and of itself is enough to theoretically outlaw nuclear weapon proliferation. Article III, P. 1 demands non-nuclear states comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency and their safeguard system preventing peaceful nuclear activities from being diverted to nuclear weapons. Article IV, P. 1 affirms the "inalienable right" of all states to develop peaceful nuclear energy sources without discrimination. Lastly, Article X, P. 1 asserts that any state can withdrawal from the treaty, "if it decides that extraordinary events...have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." The only precondition is that it must give notice of the withdrawal three months in advance. According to Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty civilian nuclear development is perfectly legal and is in fact inalienable. If Iran really desired nuclear weapons it could indeed withdrawal from the treaty, and thus it argues that this is evidence that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Why then would the United Nations be so insistent on Iran halting its uranium enrichment? The reason is from 1985-2003 Iran conducted secret nuclear development programs away from the eyes of the IAEA. According to the IAEA November 15, 2004 report titled Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran, "Iran's cooperation up to October 2003 was marked by extensive concealment, misleading information and delays in access to nuclear material and facilities." A 2007 United States National Intelligence Estimate document Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities also stated, "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." These documents clearly show reason for the continued attacks on Iran's civilian nuclear program. According to the IAEA and the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, Iran violated both Article II and III in pursuing nuclear weapons for a time and failing to comply with the IAEA safeguards. Iran also violated the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26, known as the "Pacta Sunt Servanda" clause, in not performing the Non-Proliferation Treaty in good faith. The sanctions imposed in Security Council resolutions 1737, 1747, and 1803 were in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Article 41.

However, from the Iranian point of view sanctions are an effort to deprive Iran of its "inalienable right" to a civilian nuclear program and an effort for the nuclear power states to consolidate control. The argument can be made that Security Council Resolution 1696 violates Article IV, P.1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in discriminating against Iran's enrichment program. Also Resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803, and 1835 could be seen to violate Article IV P. 2 in blocking the sale of technology and materials vital to Iran's civilian nuclear program. The United States and the EU-3 state that Iran gave up these rights when their secret nuclear program came to light in 2002. However, one could argue that Iran has no legal binding obligation to comply with Resolution 1696 because it violates the U.N. Charter. The Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Article 38 makes no reference to the U.N. charter being superior to that of any other treaty. It states, "international conventions ...establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states," as the main source of international law. Under this theory the requests and sanctions put forth under Articles 40 and 41 of the U.N. Charter violate the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and therefore do not have to be followed and are implicitly illegal. Glancing back, Iran does have the right to develop civilian nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, the controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not Iran gave up that right when it violated said treaty to seek a nuclear weapons program that is no longer active.

Another aspect of the problem involves national sovereignty. If the controversy cannot be solved does the concept of collective security trump the national sovereignty of Iran? The west fears Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. If Iran succeeds in enriching uranium to weapons grade it will then be too late to take action against it. Iran knows this; the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is ingrained far too well. Any violation of Iran's national sovereignty to stop its nuclear program would be constituted as intervention. The principles of sovereignty and non intervention goes back to 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia. It is prohibited by several modern treaties and legal documents as well including: Chapter 1, Article 2 of the U.N. Charter; Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States; the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty; the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States; and by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression.

Collective security, on the other hand, draws from all the sources of law outlined in Article 38 of the Statue of the ICJ: multilateral treaties, international custom, the principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and the writings of highly qualified publicists. Collective security usually applies solely to the idea of multilateral political or defense treaties such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or the European Union (EU). Even the United Nations was designed to promote collective security by guaranteeing peace in the world. To the West however, the idea of a nuclear Iran violates the very notion of collective security. To them, Iran is an unpredictable theocracy bent on regional dominance, threatening their interests and the status quo. A nuclear Iran would encourage other members of the Middle East to seek nuclear weapons to balance Iranian power and therefore, turn one of the world's most volatile regions into the new Balkans. To them, Iran's declarations of hate against Israel justify their collective security theory. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pronouncements that Israel will be, "wiped of the map," and that it is, "head[ed] toward annihilation," provide just moral reasoning to the West.

Iran has stressed the principle of non-intervention in its internal affairs, specifically, in regards to a military attack by Israel or the United States. The West, however, often believes it has a moral duty to save the world regardless of certain peremptory norms. It is this international concern that drove the United States to lead the crusade to create the League of Nations and 25 years later the United Nations. Recently it was behind the pronouncement of Iran as a member of the "Axis of Evil" and the War on Terror that has encompassed much of the Middle East. It is this international concern that has led the opposition to the Iranian nuclear program and the view that it is a destabilizing factor in an unstable region. It also goes against the interest of maintaining Western hegemony in that region, which is exactly what Iran desires. Iran is steadily achieving regional dominance. Even becoming a virtual nuclear power would cement Iran in that position, which is clearly its goal. That being said, Iran has publicly stated that nuclear weapons are antithetical to the religion of Islam. It has also proposed the Middle East become a nuclear free zone, but the United States and its allies in Europe and Israel reject this proposal as an empty ploy to lure Israel out. Regardless of why, the fact remain that at least Israel and the United States have not taken the use of force off the table when it comes to Iran.

According to the General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression any use of force outside the police actions of the United Nations or in self defense is illegal. Article 5 of this resolution states, "No consideration of whatever nature...may serve as a justification for aggression." Combining this with Article 2 which states, "The first use of armed force....shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression," any use of force outside a United Nations mandate that is not in retaliation of an attack is illegal. Ideally a peaceful settlement would be found but under Article 42 of the U.N. Charter the Security Council can order the use of force against a member nation to "restore international peace and security." However, this is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. When the Security Council cannot agree to take action in times of international peril should nations under siege just be abandoned? Or, perhaps can they take actions on behalf of themselves and others to secure international peace? Clearly they can. This is precisely what happened in the World Wars with the western European Powers declaring war to defend smaller neighbors. Then, can this principle be extrapolated to defend nations before attack? In the era of nuclear weapons when the complete eradication of a country can happen in minutes the logical answer is yes. This is the theory of anticipatory self defense.

If Iran had the intent to use nuclear weapons then under the theory of anticipatory self defense its nuclear facilities could be attacked to protect international peace and security. However, Iran has not proclaimed this. It would amount to political suicide if it did. Nevertheless, Iranian motives are clear. President Ahmadinejad's ranting against Israel clearly shows he would shed no tears if the Jewish state disappeared, mushroom cloud or not. Their claims about Islam's prohibition of the stockpiling of nuclear weapons could very well be a Machiavellian façade. In this case it would not be considered aggression. There is no legal obligation for suicide. The real question then is whether Iran has intent to develop nuclear weapons, and then whether it has intent to use them.

The use of nuclear weapons in any case whatsoever is prohibited by the General Assembly Resolution on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, Security Council Resolution 984, and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat of Nuclear Weapons. In stating that "the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons should therefore be prohibited," the General Assembly affirms that Iran should not even consider obtaining them. This clause even technically outlaws the policy of deterrence. This means that Iran would have no reason to build nuclear weapons, period. If only the world were perfect. Iran has to think to the balance of power. As long as Israel has nuclear weapons, and as long as Israel is backed by the United States, Iran will be inferior without the threat of nuclear deterrence. The balance of power in the Middle East has long been in the favor of colonial or Western masters. Only recently have the nations of the region even achieved independence. Since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution it has resented the United States' influence in the region, looming like the colonial masters of old. Iran yearns for the glory of the Persian Empire and is striving toward regional dominance to obtain it. Even independent civilian nuclear power would further this goal, giving it the possibility of virtual nuclear power and the influence that comes with it. The West should also fear Iran's connection to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. If Iran enriched nuclear material to weapons grade and then gave it to Hezbollah it could find its way to the hands of Hamas and Al Qaeda and into Western cities such as Washington, New York, London, Paris, or Berlin. Rather than becoming a nuclear suicide state it could use proxies to destroy its enemies. This fear alone could trigger and anticipatory attack. If such an attack occurred, more than likely Iran would retaliate and there would be a large scale conflict.

The legal argument goes as follows. Iran has a right to civilian nuclear power but its history of concealment and failure of compliance with the IAEA makes it questionable to whether it has sacrificed its rights to nuclear technology. Nonetheless, the Non-Proliferation Treaty views civilian nuclear power as an inalienable right, a peremptory norm if you will. This makes it impossible to place restrictions on its peaceful nuclear development. As long as there is no military program and it cooperates with the IAEA it is not currently violating the treaty. However, Iran's past violations do have to be accounted for. Iran's history of concealment makes it seem untrustworthy and the Security Council now needs additional assurances to prove Iran seeks no military program. The fact that Iran has failed to comply with Resolution 1696 proves it is not willing to provide such assurances anymore. It also refuses to withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, trying to seek the protection it grants. If Iran refused to comply with the U.N. resolutions and then it is either subject to the use of force under Article 42 of the U.N. Charter or expulsion from the United Nations under Article 6 of the U.N. Charter. If the General Assembly and/or the Security Council refuse to take such actions, as they probably will, then the ramification of a nuclear Iran and the country's intention toward Israel must be examined. Recalling the holocaust like statements of Iran, a clear threat is identified. If Iran were to achieve efficient civilian nuclear power then it would become a virtual power with the high possibility of creating a weapon in secret. This follows that Israel has a right of anticipatory self defense against Iran in destroying the Iranian nuclear program. By no means should this attack be nuclear in itself, it should be sufficient to protect Israel's interests. The principle of proportionality must be observed. Yet, if Iran were to accede to the demands of the Security Council it would retain its rights and sovereignty. Trust would be regained and a civilian nuclear program could indeed be established. Unfortunately, this is not likely without a change in heart from the Attoyllah and the President.

In consideration of all the bodies of work on nuclear proliferation and related topics one has to conclude that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would cause a drastic change in the balance of power and have possible devastating consequences for Israel and the West. This in turn would disrupt global security and peace which is a violation of the U.N. charter with costly ramifications. Iran should not be allowed to achieve nuclear weapons by any means. If they can generate trust through good faith and actions then they should be allowed to maintain their fully operational civilian nuclear program. The West in turn should accept Iran's actions of good faith if it chooses to present them. If not, then they are trying to play by a double standard and the possible deadly outcomes necessitate a response, even one of force if required. The best possible outcome would be a peaceful one resulting from Iranian acquiesces to the Security Council and the U.N combined with renunciation of inflammatory rhetoric by both sides. If that is unattainable then the world will indeed see violence, the measure of which, while unknown, is surely more than the world can pay.

Recognizing the elements of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which prohibits certain countries from practicing nuclear activities,

Aware of the potential danger of nuclear activity in Iran, including the safety of neighboring nations,

Recalling Article II of the treaty which states, “Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices,”

Reaffirming the right of nations to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes,

The General Assembly:

1. Requests that Iran allow inspectors to examine their nuclear program activities;
2. Notes that the security of neighboring countries is in jeopardy;
3. Further notes that Iran has a recent history of war;
4. Reaffirms that nuclear activity should only be used for peaceful purposes;
5. Reminds the members of the United Nations that the IAEA has the right to prove that countries follow terms of the treaty;
6. Urges all states to strengthen sanctions which will force Iran to stop developing their nuclear weapons program.

Liberals have figured,''Hey, if America has WNDs, why can't Iran have WMDs?" But guess what, unlike Iran, America doesn't have an apocalyptic regime with a military journal calling for a nuclear attack on a foreign country. How could you expect the US to negotiate with the Iranian regime if they find an Iranian military journal calling for a nuclear attack on America. Hishemi Rafsanjani, the so-called moderate, even called for a nuclear attack on Israel. 

Iran will use WMDs on America, Israel and their enemies. Head of the doctrinal analysis of the revolutionary guards [I know that I said that Abasi is theoretician of the Iranian revolutionary Guards intelligence, but for the record, he's both] said:

Our missiles are now ready to strike at their civilization, and as soon as the instructions arrive from Leader [Ali Khamenei], we will launch our missiles at their cities and installations. Our motto during the war (in Iraq) was: Karbala, we are coming, Jerusalem, we are coming. And because of Khatami's policies and dialogue between the civilizations, we have been compelled to freeze our plan to liberate the Islamic cities... And now we are [again] about to carry out the program.

Iran sponsors demonstrations calling for the "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Many liberals and other naive people and useful idiots claim Iran is a democracy. No it's not. Not one bit. The supreme leader controls everything in Iran. The Guardian Council, one of the things controlled by the Supreme Leader, decides who can or can't run in the elections. Iran carried out execution on homosexuals and arrested people for leaving Islam, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran, has a bill calling for the death of those who leave Islam. In iran, those who leave Islam are arrested.

Radical Islam controls every aspect of life in Iran. Women are forced to dress like a religious Muslim including wearing the veil. Iran persecutions women and non-Muslims and considers women to be half as much as a man. Many opponenets of the regime are killed or tortured, with no fair trial and haven't done anything. Rashid Soodman's father was hung in Iran for converting to Christianity.

The Islam that controls every aspect of life in Iran is claled Islamism, which is really a fascist Nazi brand of Islam. Islamism including the Iranian regime seeks to impose their form of Islam everywhere. 

Liberals and the MEK

Though liberals and the MEK may come to some points where they agree, right now, they're attempts to whitewash the fascist Mullahs in Iran includes demonizing the MEK freedom fighters.

One liberal who made an anti-MEK propaganda piece was Daniel Postel.

He complains about Conservatives who support the MEK, claiming it's an "Islamist-Stalinist cult," all three of which is wrong. The MEK has repeatedly criticized Communism and Islamism. The MEK is fighting for a democracy in Iran and for separation of religion and state and equal rights for the equality of all Iranians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. That's not Islamism one bit. In fact, the NCRI, which the MEK is the main group in, even stated that they favor capitalism. Some liberals even say that the US relies on terrorist for intelligence on Iran's nuclear program. Newshounds even attacks the MEK and Fox's decision in rightly choose the Iranian freedom fighter Alireza Jafarzadeh, as their Iran analyst, slandering Mr. Jafarzadeh as a former terrorist. Newshounds is an anti-Fox news liberal propaganda group, claiming that, "We watch Fox so you don't have to." newshounds is following the liberal line that Fox is always wrong no matter what, no matte rhow much proof backs their claims. While some right-wing commentators attack the MEK, they mostly come from the left.

What's so ironic is that liberals claim to be for gay marriage, yet they'll argue against overthrowing the fascist regime in Iran. the Islamic Republic of Iran is the Nazi power of the day. The MEK is really the Churchill of Ira, fighting to free their people and eliminate the global threat from Iran, just as Churchill wanted to free Germany and eliminate the global threat from the Nazis. I am proud to compare the MEK favorably to the Allies in WWII. I'll never hide that from anybody.  

It seems that some folks think if you can't win on merits then it's fine to lie, slam the other guy and slander his character.

It's interesting to me that so many pro life, Christan Republican supporters also seem to support these lies, slanders, hate and fear campaign tactics along with the candidates themselves.

I've asked a few of my republican family members and friends why they support McCain and Palin and have been amazed and amused by the answers. It seems that they have the idea that if you are a republican you are somehow more right with GOD, a better Christian, more in tune with what GOD wants.

Here's my take on it.

Being a republican doesn't make you right, it doesn't make you more GOD fearing, GOD loving or a better friend of America.

Being a democrat doesn't make one a Muslim, a friend of terrorists, or an enemy of America.

I'm an American first and foremost. My support for a candidate isn't based on party, it's based on the person's vision for this nation that I love so much. I support a person who will work with all other Americans to keep this nation great, free and fair for all it's citizens.

I realize that many people feel afraid now what with the economy and all the lies the fear machine is putting out there. I was shocked to see on the news that the republicans are sending out fliers that are racists and hateful. Is there a place for this in our wonderful nation? What does this mean in the bigger picture?

Everything we see is a reflection of ourself. We are surrounded by shadow images of who we are inside. There is a whole lot of Me Me Me in politics. Each voter picks a candidate who supports his or her pet project, belief and in some cases espouses their greatest fear.

Is this really the best way to pick a president for our nation? Is finding a candidate who agrees with you on one issue the jumping off point for electing him or would it be wiser to listen to everything each candidate stands for and choose from that?

Ear Marks and Pork on a personal scale represent one small aspect of what this nation is about. It's gotta be about more that raising taxes for the rich vs poor, pro life or pro choice.

There is just too much going on right now to vote with blinders on.

If you really care about what type of America we are creating for our children and grandchildren, take a good, long, hard look at why you are voting and for whom.

Is your choice based on fear and prejudice? Are you thinking for yourself or just following the party/church/family/friend line?

It's always important who we elect as president, but this year it's even more vital that we choose based on what we want our world to be like, what we really desire America to stand for.

We have the economy acting like a roller coaster, war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and looming on the horizon perhaps Iran. Russia is acting up, North Korea is, well.... North Korea.

Many of our citizens don't have health care and many live in poverty. This is America folks.. the land of the free and the brave. Do we really want to become a nation of fear, hatred and prejudice?

Our nation, just like our world is a reflection of us. We create it, we bring it into being with our thoughts, our beliefs, and yes, our votes.

Get the facts, check the candidates out for yourself. Use www.factcheck.org to find out what each person really stands for, how they've voted and will most likely vote again.

We've got to work together and build an America that once again is looked up to as the bright shining light of liberty and justice.

He goes around calling his opponents fascist and is applauded by sites including wikipedia as an "investigative journalist." The wikipedia list of investigative journalists includes this fringe conspiracy theorist Alex Constantne. Alex said:

Once again, the Conservative Voice, a mine of ringing right-wing propaganda, is taking me to task for debunking the "Islamo-fascism" red herring.

I'm debunking you, Alex and am showing the world that you're not at all an "investigative journalist" as sites like wikipedia claim. When it comes to investigative journalism, Alex is a fraud. He gives no proof that Islamo-fascism is a hoax, while I give piles of proof. I quoted Hassan Al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. I quoted Mustafa Saied, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, from 1994-1998. Unlike Alex, instead of basless name calling, I give proof. Alex, you claim it's a hoax. Sites like United Copts for Great Britain have a section called radical Islam watch and a list of hardships and list of atrocities on Copts. Yet Alex will dismiss it as a fascist site because it gives facts instead of Alex's weird conspiracy theories. 
Alex claims:

Paul Krugman is correct: "There isn't actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it's not an ideology; it's a figment of the neocon imagination."
http://neveryetmelted.com/index.php/no-islamofascism/

Paul is not right one bit. Yea, Alex needs a quote, which is no match for my piles of proof that Islamo-fascism is real.

Alex may dismiss another Coptic writer Magdi Khalil as a fascist for exposing the Islamist threat. Magdi Khalil exposes the Muslim Brotherhood as part of the Islamo-fascist threat. Go read one of his articles ''The Muslim Brotherhood and the Copts.'' He is a courageous Arab fighting Islamo-fascism and opposes the terrorism that the Islamic world exports. An Islamic site Islamdaily has pasted a previous version of one of my articles the real war with Islam, which states that radical Islamists [also islamo-fascists] are fighting the real war on Islam. Islamo-fascism is also a revival movement that want to return to the days of the Islamic caliphate and impose it on the whole world [though the caliphate the Islamists seek to impose on the world would be even worse than the previous ones ].

 Coptic sites actually take articles exposing radical Islam, which the same thing as Islamo-fascism, something which Alex doesn't believe in.

Alex continues:

Neocons parroting Bush, badly in need of a dictionary, promote the "islamo-fascism" line, eg. Raymond Ibrahim, editor of the Al Qaeda Reader, an omelet of texts written by Islamic extremists, and compares the words of Al Qaeda to Mein Kampf. 

Ibrahim performs this service at David Horowitz's FrontPage site.
It's fairly well-known that Horowitz receives generous funding fromIt's fairly well-known that Horowitz receives generous funding from Richard Mellon Scaife - a CIA propagandist since the early days of the cold war. (The intelligence connection runs in the family: "During World War II, while Richard and Cordelia's father, Alan Scaife, served in Europe in the OSS, the forerunner to the CIA, the Scaife family lived in Washington."
- http://www.salon.com/news/1998/04/07news.html) - a CIA propagandist since the early days of the cold war. (The intelligence connection runs in the family: "During World War II, while Richard and Cordelia's father, Alan Scaife, served in Europe in the OSS, the forerunner to the CIA, the Scaife family lived in Washington."
- http://www.salon.com/news/1998/04/07news.html)

Alex alleges that Richard Scaife got was a CIA propagandist. I did a little bit of research on him. Alex provides no evidence that Scaife is a "CIA propagandist." He never was in the CIA. He quotes an article form the Salon, which says that his father Alan served in "Europe in the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA, the Scaife fmaily lived in Washington." Alex admits that the Al Quada reader is a list of texts by Islamic extremists.  He attacks Raymond Ibrahim, discrediting him because he "performs his service at Daivd Horowitz's Frontpage site." That's the most pethetic attmept to discredit Raymond Ibrahim that I have ever seen.So his pethetic attempt to discredit Raymond Ibrhahim was that he worked for David Horowtiz's fontpage magazine site and that David Horowitz was funded by Richard Scaife, the so-called CIA propagandist. That doesn't discredit Raymond, but shows more that Alex is makes baseless attacks on his opponenets.

Alex said:
Scaife supports a phalanx of organizations that, like the FrontPage site, distribute fascist propaganda. They all have ties to the CIA:

American Enterprise Institute
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
David Horowitz Freedom Center
Federalist Society
Foundation for Economic Education
Free Congress Foundation (headed by Paul Weyrich)
Freedom House
GOPAC (headed by Newt Gingrich)
Independent Women's Forum
Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which operates the Collegiate Network)
Judicial Watch
Landmark Legal Foundation
Media Research Center (headed by Brent Bozell)
Pacific Legal Foundation
Pittsburgh World Affairs Council
Reason Foundation

http://www.answers.com/topic/richard-scaife

.Here, Alex goes again, accusing organizations he dislikes of being "fascist" organizations connected to the CIA. That's our so-called investigative journalist Alex Constantine at work. By the way Alex, if you're going to pretend to be an investigative journalist, at least talk like one instead of saying that you're opponents are fascists, CIA fronts, CIA agents or CIA propagandists. Alex being an investigative journalist is as ridiculous and as laughable as Che Guevara being a heroic guerilla warrior. Alex said:

Most of these CIA-subsidized propagandists are towing the "Islamo-Fascism" clunker. Krugman: " ... a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren't even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler's panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did. ... "
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/29/krugman-no-such-thing-as-islamofascism/.

Paul Krugman writes a distorted article in the NY Times stating that Islamo-fascism is a hoax. Alex cites it and pastes what Crooks and liars says about the article as well as the excerpt that appeared on it's site. Alex, Crooks and Liars is liberal propaganda. As I stated in my article ''Liberals deny threat from Iran'', it sponsored [though through a hyperlink to another site] that calls for normalizaiton of relations between the US and Iran and has a video arguing that America is the bad guy in Iran, even bringing in the 1953 coup to "prove" it.  Paul writes a distored aritcle, repeating the same liberal propaganda on Islamo-fascism, in the NY Times. It get's cited by Crooks and Liars, which is nototious for its liberal propaganda, and the fringe conspiracy theorist I'm exposing, Alex Constantine. Paul, it's not just neo-conservatives who make these claims. Liberals like to attack these "neo-conservaties," who expose the threat from radical Islam. It wasn't neo-conservaties who exposed the Muslim Brotherhood project, which was completed in 1982. It was exposed by the Swiss in 2001 after raiding the house of Youseff Nada, who was head of the Al-Taqwa bank, which funds radical Islamist terrorists including Al Quada. Nada is another member of the Muslim Brotherhood.Bin-ladin, in his letter to America, which was translated by and appeared in the Guardian, which is no way a Conservative site, called on America to convert to Islam. Bin ladin said:

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. 
(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.
It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.
(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

Yea, just another so-called neo-conservative hoax. Robert Leiken joined in, using the label neo-conservative when the article on the Muslim Brotherhood by him and Steven Brookes on the Foreign Affairs was debunked. Robert Leiken and Steven Brook whitewash the Muslim Brotherhood. It get's worse. The State Department asked Leiken on what US policy should be toward the Muslim Brotherhood. He, along with Steven Brooke, calls for the US to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, which to them, rejects global jihad while embracing "defensive" jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq and against Israel. Leiken believes that attacking the Muslim Brotherhood is an "odd" way to support democracy because it is the main opposition to Hosni Mubarak [I'm no supporter of Mubarak but plenty of totalitarian groups are opposition groups in other dictatorships].

Leiken and brooke believe that the US should seperate radical Islam form the Muslim brotherhood, the father of that movement. By arguing that, they're worse than those who claimed Castro's Cuba wasn't Communist because even though Fidel Castro was a Communist, he wasn't the father of the Communist movment, like the Mulim Brotherhood is the father of the radical Islamist movement.

We have another guy named Paul who attacks these "neo-conservtives" supposedly trying to spread fear and believes that Iran does not want global Islamist domination. Ayatollah Khomeini said,"Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution." He also said, "We will export our revolution throughout the world, and must abandon all idea of not doing so, for not only does Islam refuse to recognize any difference between Muslim countries, it is the champion of all oppressed people." He also said, "We are at war with infidels. Jihad must triumph."

 The Iranian terrorist reigme sponsoring demonstrations that call for the death of America and the death of Israel are real, not just "neo-conservative" propaganda. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's radical Islamist worldview is in a book, which calls for jihad on infidels, called "Al-Jihad," which was one of the books based on Iran's worldview that Hezbollah used as their manuel. Those books were exposed during the 2006 seocnd Lebanon war between Israel and Hezbollah. 

Ali Khamaenei spoke at a demonstration that said:

Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, Allah Akbar, Khamenei is the leader. Death to the opposers of the rule of jurisprudent. Death to America. Death to England. Death to the hypocrites (Mujaheedin-E Khalq) and Saddam. Death to Israel.

Ali Khamenei spoke at that demonstration, saying that saying death to America is like saying that you want refuge from satan. The terrorist regime in Iran views America as the great satan and Israel as the small satan. Ali Khamenei, in 2001, told Jose Maria Aznar that Iran seeks to eliminate Israel and America. According to what Ali khamenei told Aznar, Iran's agenda is "setting Israel in fire."

Ali Khamenei called for spreading  "religious rites and beliefs throughout the world."

The constitution of the Islamic Republic on Iran said that the "Leadership shall continue the revolution of Islam.''

 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on Islam to conquer the mountain tops of the world and that the Islamic revolution is global. Iran is developing nuclear weapons to fight Israel and America and to help impose radical Islamist rule on the whole world. The Iranian regime promotes martyrdom.

The Middle East expert Bernard Lewis said that "Europe will become Islamic by the end of the century."

He also said:

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.
Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.
The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.
A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.*

Supreme Guide of the Muslim brotherhood Mohammad Madhi Akef 

said:

 I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.

Islamonline has two fatwa by the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi [Qaradawi supports the Palestinian suicide bombings and other terror attacks on Israel and the insurgents in Iraq], one of which calls for the killing of apostates and the other calling for Islam to conquer the world. 

Crooks and liars, Paul and Alex, do you want me to go on with my "neo-conservative" facts?

Alex said:

Blogger Steve Benen comments, "The politics of fear might be more effective if it were grounded in reality."

Steve wrote that for the notorious liberal propaganda piece Crooks and liars. Steve, the "politics of fear" Islamo-fascism is "grounded in reality." Islamo-fascism is the biggest threat to the world. All of my proof about it will make this article a very long one, as I stated a lot of documented cases from above. Alex, here can only provide a few columnists who claim that Islamo-fascism is a hoax, without using actual evidence.

Alex said:

Why point the finger at the Middle East, when actual fascism is corporate and would probably not exist without the capitalistic impetus that flows internationally from the United States? 

Because the Middle East is full of totalitarian fascists such as Arab nationalists and radical Islamists, both of whom collaborated with the nazis.

The documentary ''Saddam and the Third Reich'' documents the Nazi influence of the Baath party, which is really a fascist party. One book you should read is ''The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism'' by Chuck Morris. Islamists and Arab nationalists use the Nazi salute, while people who Alex calls fascist doesn't use the Nazi salute. There is no evidene that they're fascist. The "capitalist impus" in America is not fascist one bit. Alex claims:

Fascism is unbridled capitalism - it is a feature of American life. It elevates thugs and criminals to positions of power. It is inherently conspiratorial and engages in acts of destruction to advance itself. Scapegoating "Islamo-fascists" - when American corporations in league with their corallaries in Germany, Japan, Italy, etc., make fascism possible and feed the geo-genocidal beast. The Arabs may have had Nazi collaborators, as did America itself, many more, but make no mistake about it, the U.S. is the beating heart of it all. 

• IBM counted the Jews at Auschwitz - not shieks from Araby.

• GM mechanized the Blitzkrieg - not desert camel drivers.

• Standard Oil had a secret pact with the Reich - not fig farmers in Iraq.

• Coca-Cola had Nazi contracts - not the water-carrier out on the oasis.

The Arabs may have had Nazi connections claims Alex Constantine. Palestinian leader Al-Husseini commanded two Bosnian SS. divisions. There was never a pro-Nazi coup in America. Fascism is all American claims Alex. Then I guess the Nazis were not fascists because last time I checked, they were German. This "expert" on fascism Alex Constantine has never provided a definition for fascism. I read a lot [though not all] of the article that alleges that Coca-cola collaborates with Nazi Germany. All it mainly talked about was Coca-cola doing some advertising and selling cokes in Germany. That article claims that coke is ''useless.'' If coca-cola collbaorated with Nazi Germany, they would've done more. The Islamo-fascists and Arab fascists collaboration with the Nazis was actually fighting alongside them, having a pro-Nazi coup [in Iraq] and commanding two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions [the two Bosnian Muslim SS divisons were commanded by Al-Husseini], not simply selling cokes. As the article admits, coco-cola sold coke to America. Yea, the Nazis really needed their coke to achieve their totalitarian and genocidal goals. Coca Cola was selling coke in Nazi Germany. The nazis won't become more powerful because of a Coca Cola. Alex, the head of the "fascist" Coca Cola Max Keith kept rejecting offers to become a Nazi. The Nazis gave him a hard time for his refusal.Compare that to Arab nationalist and Islamist collaboration with Nazi Germany. The anti-Semitism in the Arab and Muslim world and in radical Islam has many features of Nazi anti-semitism. For example, the anti-Semitic cartoons in Arab and Middle Eastern newspapers are similar to the ones in Nazi Germany. Obsession shows the similarities [to see that part and the nazi influence in radical islam in the Obsession movie go to http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FZOn7WYxxxc]. between Islamism and Nazism.The Arab nationalists and Islamo-fascists got the Nazi salute from the Nazis. The History Channel documentary ''Saddam and the Third Reich'' documents that the Baath party got many practices from the Nazis. Mein Kompf is a best-seller in the Arab world, not in any of these corporations that Alex alleges to have collaborated with Nazi Germany. Holocaust denial is powerful in the Arab and Muslim world. Akef said, "Western democracies have denounced all those who don't see eye to eye with the Zionists regarding the myth of the Holocaust."  The terror war on Israel is really a Nazified fascist  totalitarian war on Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a true friend to America.Alex accuses other companies of also collaborating with Nazi Germany.  One of them is the IBM. Though there was a book called IBM and the Holocaust [it was by Edwin Black who knows well about Arab collaboration with the Nazis and called the Baath party on the History Channel documentary Saddam and the Third Reich "a fascist party"], IBM denied it and said that the one in Germany was under Nazi control. IBM said:

IBM and its employees around the world find the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime abhorrent and categorically condemn any actions which aided their unspeakable acts.
It has been known for decades that the Nazis used Hollerith equipment and that IBM's German subsidiary during the 1930s -- Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen GmbH (Dehomag) -- supplied Hollerith equipment. As with hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time, Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II. It is also widely known that Thomas J. Watson, Sr., received and subsequently repudiated and returned a medal presented to him by the German government for his role in global economic relations. These well-known facts appear to be the primary underpinning for these recent allegations.
IBM does not have much information about this period or the operations of Dehomag. Most documents were destroyed or lost during the war. 

Though if the charges were true, it would've been a horrible thing they did. At least they called  the Nazi atrocities "abhorrent and categorically condemn any action which aided their unspeakable acts." However, compare that to the Nazis in the Arab [and Muslim] world. The Nazis in the Arab world including the Islamo-fascist show the aspects of Nazism that they picked up at least to the Arab and Islamic world. Mein Kompf is a best seller in the Arab world, not in an IBM office. By the way, the Nazis did nationalize private property because they were Socialists.The History Channel documentary "Brotherhood of Terror" talked a little bit about the Muslim Brotherhood's collaboration with the Nazis. "The Nazis early on really sort of influenced that totalitarian impulse, the totalitarian streak in the Muslim Brotherhood, said Mahmoud Fandy, author of "America and the Arab world after 9/11", on that History Channel documentary. That's right, an Arab commentator, Mahmoun Fandy, said that the Nazism influenced the "totalitarian streak" in the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the father of radical Islam. The state controlled Egyptian newspaper Al-Akhbar said:

“Our thanks go the late hitler who wrought, in advance, the 

vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on 
the face of the earth. however, we rebuke hitler for the fact that the 
vengeance was insufficient.” 

 Another company Alex accused of collaborating with the Nazi is GM. It's true that former American GM vice president Graeme K. Howward wrote a book defending the Nazis. Another GM member James D. Mooney got the first class German eagle from Nazi Germany. However, GM then president Willian P. Knudson served as head for the wartime production for the Franklin Roosvelt Administration. The GM supplied enemies of Nazi Germany such as America and Britain. The GM UK division Vauxhall motors supplied the allies. The GM alleges that the German wing [opel] was outside its control during WWII. The GM is a car company, not an ideological, political or religious movement. However, the Arab nationalists, which is a political movement, and radical Islamists, which is a political and religious movement, collaborated with Hitler. Another company Alex attacks as having allegedly had ties with Nazi Germany is standard oil.  Though I did find some sites that accuse that company of supplying the nazis, the Nazis also attacked a Standard oil refinery in Aruba, a Caribbean island.I agree it would be horrible if those companies collaborated with the Nazis. I say that for different reasons, especially because I'm a Jew myself.

Even if these organizations did [it would still be terrible if they did], they viewed it for business reasons. This is not giving them the justification to do it. I'm not saying that they did.But still, the Arab nationalists and radical Islamists did, to fight the Americans, the British and to annihilate the Jews. Al-Husseini said to "kill the jews wherever you find them."Alfons Heck served in the Hitler youth. He is married to a Holocaust surviver. He did research on radical Islam and fully understands that radical Islam is a nazi-like ideology.

"There is no shame in Arab media, in the degree they are ready to cover hate speech and lies, outright lies against the west and Israel," said Nonie Darwish on the movie Obsession. Who is she? She was born in Egypt and raised in the Gaza Strip, back when it was under Egyptian control. Her father Hafez served in the Egyptian intellience and led the Fedayeen, which was controlled by Egyptian then President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The Fedayeen committed terrorist attacks on Israel and sought to eliminate Israel. Eliminating Israel was an obsession of the Nasser regime. The Israeli government assassinated Hafez. She moved back to Cairo, with her family, and then to the US. She is founder of Arabs for Israel, a group of Arabs that want real peace with the Jewish state. Arabs for Israel fights the hate propaganda in the Arab world that spreads misinformation against the west [especially America] and Israel. She seeks to expose the threat of radical Islam and seeks to free the Arab [and Muslim] world form tyranny.She said,"The propaganda of Islam is very similar to the propaganda of Nazism. It's the same hate speech, paranoia and us against them."

  "This is a war propaganda, in which the same techniques of subversion that we saw earlier in the challenge both by Fascism and Nazism, are repeating themselves," said Robert S. Wistrich, head of the Sassoon center for anti-semitism.On the Obsession documentary, Alfons Heck said ,"It is absolutely correct to say if you can't learn from the events of Nazi Germany, you will not be able to grasp the true intent of the danger of the radical Muslim world today. You're simply hiding."Alfons Heck said on that documentary,"The idea that radical Muslims have and that Nazis had is demonize the Jews. You know, they just turn into demons. And this is exactly what happened in Germany. Can you imagine? We were enlightened people and we fell for this. Why wouldn't Muslims fall for this?'' "I watch anti-semitism since I was a young kid. And now, the world is reaping. These eggs are hatching. And what's coming out is literally something that comes out of Nazi Germany,'' said Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist, on the documentary Obsession. Though it is true that that he's an eveangelical Christian and that it was the bible that rid him of his radical Islamist and pro-terrorist views. I, as a secular Jew, disagree with his evangelical Christian positions. Unlike him, I don't believe that Islam is the anti-Christ. I attack the radical Islamist movement, not the Islamic religion.However, he was a former PLO terrorist and did experience first hand what it was like to be an anti-Israel barbarian. Notice how Alex says it, like "not farmers in iraq" or "not water carriers out of the oasis." It's basically to emphasize it was the American corporations, not Arabs, who collaborated with the Nazis [I don't think all Arabs did collaborate with nazis, just the arab nationalists and Islamo-fascists and even some Islamo-fascists who aren't Arab]. After all, it's funny of Alex to include these claims like "not farmers in Iraq" because Alex himself admitted that "the Arabs may have had Nazi collaborators." Seems like my proof of Arab nationalists and Islamist collaboration with Hitler is just too much for Alex to refute. So he says they "may have had Nazi collaborators."Here is just more proof that radical Islam is a Nazi like ideology and that Islamists and Arab nationalists collaborated with the Nazis. Even the shah's father in Iran collaborated with the Nazis and was called on by the Allies to give the throne to his son for collaborating with the Axis. The threat from radical Islam is history repeating itself. The world was silent when Nazis threatened the free world and tried to achieve world domination. They were silent even while the Nazis expressed their anti-Semitic views and put Jews in concentration camps, in a plan to wipe out Jews. Hitler killed six million Jewish people in cold-blood. The same thing is true about radical Islam. Islamists are public [at least in the Arab and Muslim world] about their goals for world domination, their hatred for non-Muslims, homosexuals and apostates, their call to force non-Muslims to pay jizya [Jizya is a tax for non-Muslims in the Islamic world] and their call to force women to be veiled. They publicly show their executions and stoning of their victims. Even the Nazis didn't film and show to the world their killings of the Jewish people. Both the Nazis and Islamists are threatening the world, with their fascist intolerant totalitarian views. Hitler and Nazis sought to place on the whole world a totalitarian Aryan empire, where non-Aryans would be treated as second-class citizens. The radical Islamists seek to impose on the whole world their caliphate where non-Muslims and women would be treated as second-class citizens. Alex said:

• BTW, what kind of shoes do "conservatives" wear at Conservative Voice? What music do they listen to? Could be pertinent ...

 What's your point Alex? Guess what, when you click on his hyperlink, you get some of alex's allegations about the shoe comporaiton's ties to Nazis. Weather any of these corporations collaborated with the nazis or not, that was a long time ago. I agree it would've been terrible if they did. Also, if you click on the hyperlink for music, then you'll see allegations about ABBA singer Frida having a father who was a Nazi officer. That "evidence" is also weak. It doesn't make Frida or her music including Mama Mia Nazi music. If these corporations did, they viewed Nazi Germany as a trading parter [I'm not saying whether their policy to Germany in WWII was justified, in the middle or abohorrant]. The farhud was committed by the Arab nationalists and Al-Husseini in their attempt to impose on Iraq a pro-Nazi regime and not by IBM, coca-cola or any other American corporation. Guess what? Not even by anybody in the Bush family. The two Bosnian Muslim SS divisions were commanded by Al-Husseini, not by an American shoe salesman. Hitler told Al-Husseini, not a Coka-Cola employee, that he seeks to eliminate the Jewish people. The documentary, "Saddam and the Third Reich" documented that Al-Husseini, along with Heimrich Himnler and Joachim von Ribentrof, two notorious Nazis in Hitler's government, stopped Hungary, Romania and Bolgaria from allowing Jews to flee to Palestine, which resulted in those Jews being sent to concentration camps. Saddam and the Third Reich said:

In 1943, the grand mufti learns of plans by Hungary, Romania and Bolgaria, countries allied to Germany, to let thousands of Jews leave for the safety of Palestine. Through his influence with Himner and Von Ribentrof, the mufti immediately has the programs cancelled. Among the planned emigrants are 4,000 children. Their fate in Nazi controlled Europe is almost certain death.

That documentary shows footage of people held at the concentration camps, while at the end of narrating that factual claim. While I bring all of this evidence, my opponent Alex, the "investigative journalist" and "expert" on fascism [who by the way doesn't have a definition of the word] is too occupied with cokes being sold to Nazi Germany and what kind of shoes "'conservatives' wear at the Conservative Voice wear." Alex said:

Fascism is all-American - all-capitalist, corporate. Those who babble about "Islamo-fascism" echo George Bush, who hails from a family with reasonably well-known Nazi financial connections. 

I stated that I don't love President Bush in my articles ''Liberal's Blind Hatred of Bush,'' "Allende was more Guilty than Bush" and in my article "Alex Constantine Returns." I don't "echo" President Bush. Exposing Islamo-Nazism and the nazi influence and ways of Arab nationalism and Islamo-fascism is not echoing President Bush. Alex states that President Bush's family comes from "a family with reasonably well-known Nazi financial connections." As I said, President Bush is no Nazi. Though his grandfather Prescott Bush is accused of having Nazi ties, which is something I won't discuss in this article.Alex said:

The finger-pointers are turned in the wrong direction. America's ruling elite are the fascists, and they are bringing the country to its ragged knees.

 No, Alex, it is you who's pointing fingers in the wrong direction. Who exactly are "America's ruling elite?" The US government is no where close to fascism. The media and corporations are no where close to fascism. I just documented the Nazism in the Arab and Muslim world. The Arab nationalists and Islamists are the real Nazis. The Arab nationalists seek to create a fascist Nazified Arab state all over the Middle East. They set up their dictatorship in the name of the Arab race. The Islamists seek to replace the whole world with their fascist nazified caliphate. The Islamists seek to set up their dictatorship in the name of Islam. The Nazis sought to have an Aryan empire dominate the world.As I said, fascism is a dictatorship that controls every aspect of your life based on a religion, nationality or race. That's what makes the Nazis, Islamists and Arab nationalists fascist.Based on huge piles of proof, we "fingerpointers" are pointing our fingers in the right place. It is Alex who's pointing his finger in the wrong place. The fascists in America are the Islamists who seek to turn America into an Islamic state from terrorism, from within and/or from any other means necessary. Here's what Robert Wistrich also said in the documentary Obsession:

Here is a critical point that is generally overlooked. The anti-Semitism of the Nazis had a great appeal already in the mid 1930's to many Arab nationalists and Islamic Fundamentalists. 

Alex, in your next response to me, what is your definition of fascism? He uses it as simply a derogatory throw away word. Yes, in other words, he's a name-caller. Yet what is the "investigative journalist's" definition of fascism? Something Alex opposes? Because Alex calls his oppoenets including me fascist without evidence because he can't prove that we're fascist. I finished quoting his article and giving my commentary. I will conclude part I with what David Meir Levi said in his publication "The Nazi roots of Palestinian Nationalism and Islamic Jihad":

 Long before the war, al-Banna 
had developed an Islamic religious ideology which previewed hitler’s 
Nazism. Both movements sought world conquest and domination. 
Both were triumphalist and supremacist: in Nazism the Aryan 
must rule, while in al-Banna’s Islam, the muslim religion must hold 
dominion. Both advocated subordination of the individual to a folkish 
central power. Both were explicitly anti-nationalist in the sense that 
they believed in the liquidation of the nation-state in favor of a 
trans-national unifying community: in Islam the umma (community 
of all believers); and in Nazism the herrenvolk (master race). Both 
worshipped the unifying totalitarian figure of the caliph or führer. 
And both rabidly hated the Jews and sought their destruction. [page 7]

*Same article by Bernard Lewis as the one cited in my article Kristof's tough suicide Israel Policy