Monthly Archives: April 2011

Libya: Qaddafi’s Son Killed in Airstrike


Libyan government spokesman says a NATO missile struck the house of Libya leader Muammar al-Qaddafi — killing his youngest son and three grandsons — but Qaddafi escaped unharmed.

Show Me Your Papers-Racism in America-Gold Taylor


Jack Cashill on Obama’s Social Security Number Problem


Deconstructing Obama-Jack Cashill


Gaddafi: No one can force me to leave Libya


30 Apr 2011

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has said that he will not leave Libya and that he is still prepared to enter a ceasefire but only if all sides are involved.

“I’m not leaving my country,” he said in a live address on state television in the early hours of Saturday morning.

“No one can force me to leave my country and no one can tell me not to fight for my country.”
Gaddafi said that he was still ready to enter a ceasefire but that all sides must be involved and not only his own forces fighting against rebels in the east.

“[Libya] is ready until now to enter a ceasefire … but a ceasefire cannot be from one side,” he said in his live speech.

“We were the first to welcome a ceasefire and we were the first to accept a ceasefire … but the crusader NATO attack has not stopped.”

The Libyan leader also called for negotiations with NATO powers to end the air strikes on Libya.
“We did not attack them or cross the sea … why are they attacking us? Let us negotiate with you, the countries that attack us. Let us negotiate.”

Gaddafi added that if it was oil the coalition countries were after there was no problem in negotiating contracts.

If NATO powers were not interested in talks, however, the Libyan people would not surrender and were willing to die resisting what he called its “terrorist” attacks.

He warned NATO that its forces would die if it invaded by land.

“Either freedom or death. No surrender. No fear. No departure,” he said.

Gaddafi said the NATO airstrikes and naval patrols went beyond the United Nations mandate and urged Russia, China and friendly African and Latin American countries to press the Security Council to take a fresh look at the resolution. 

Conciliatory note

In a marked contrast to previous speeches, where he called the rebels “rats” and promised to track the down house by house, Gaddafi urged the rebels to lay down their weapons and said Libyans should not be fighting each other.

He blamed the rebellion on mercenaries and foreigners.

“We cannot fight each other,” he said. “We are one family.”

Gaddafi denied mass attacks on civilians and challenged NATO to find him 1,000 people who had been killed in the conflict.

“We did not attack them or cross the sea … why are they attacking us?” asked Gaddafi, referring to European countries involved in the air strikes. “Let us negotiate with you, the countries that attack us. Let us negotiate.”

After the broadcast, state television said NATO warplanes had bombed a site in the Libyan capital Tripoli next to the television building during Gaddafi’s address.

“A building adjacent to the Jamahiriya building was bombed during the broadcast of Muammar Gaddafi’s speech and that implies a target on the leader of the revolution himself,” the television said after Gaddafi had finished speaking.

The Divided States of America


By ANDREW OSBORN

MOSCOW — For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument — that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. — very seriously. Now he’s found an eager audience: Russian state media.

In recent weeks, he’s been interviewed as much as twice a day about his predictions. “It’s a record,” says Prof. Panarin. “But I think the attention is going to grow even stronger.”

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats. He is invited to Kremlin receptions, lectures students, publishes books, and appears in the media as an expert on U.S.-Russia relations.

But it’s his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin’s views also fit neatly with the Kremlin’s narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

“There’s a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur,” he says. “One could rejoice in that process,” he adds, poker-faced. “But if we’re talking reasonably, it’s not the best scenario — for Russia.” Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces — with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

In addition to increasing coverage in state media, which are tightly controlled by the Kremlin, Mr. Panarin’s ideas are now being widely discussed among local experts. He presented his theory at a recent roundtable discussion at the Foreign Ministry. The country’s top international relations school has hosted him as a keynote speaker. During an appearance on the state TV channel Rossiya, the station cut between his comments and TV footage of lines at soup kitchens and crowds of homeless people in the U.S. The professor has also been featured on the Kremlin’s English-language propaganda channel, Russia Today.

Mr. Panarin’s apocalyptic vision “reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today,” says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. “It’s much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union.”

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin’s predictions. “Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people,” says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin’s theories don’t hold water.

Mr. Panarin’s résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB’s successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are “classified.”

In September 1998, he attended a conference in Linz, Austria, devoted to information warfare, the use of data to get an edge over a rival. It was there, in front of 400 fellow delegates, that he first presented his theory about the collapse of the U.S. in 2010.

“When I pushed the button on my computer and the map of the United States disintegrated, hundreds of people cried out in surprise,” he remembers. He says most in the audience were skeptical. “They didn’t believe me.”

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

California will form the nucleus of what he calls “The Californian Republic,” and will be part of China or under Chinese influence. Texas will be the heart of “The Texas Republic,” a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence. Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an “Atlantic America” that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls “The Central North American Republic.” Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

“It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time.” A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. “It’s not there for no reason,” he says with a sly grin.

Interest in his forecast revived this fall when he published an article in Izvestia, one of Russia’s biggest national dailies. In it, he reiterated his theory, called U.S. foreign debt “a pyramid scheme,” and predicted China and Russia would usurp Washington’s role as a global financial regulator.

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama “can work miracles,” he wrote. “But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles.”

The article prompted a question about the White House’s reaction to Prof. Panarin’s forecast at a December news conference. “I’ll have to decline to comment,” spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino’s response was significant. “The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully,” he says.

The professor says he’s convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union — 15 years beforehand. “When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him,” says Prof. Panarin.

Hal Lindsey – EMP Threat Growing


Allen West Discusses Red China Threat


Looking Backward 123 Years Later


Written by Sam Blumenfeld
Monday, 25 April 2011 11:24The year 2011 marks the 123rd year since the publication of Edward Bellamy’s famous utopian novel, Looking Backward, in which the author depicted a happy, socialist America in the year 2000. In Bellamy’s optimistic fantasy, greed and material want ceased to exist, brotherly harmony prevailed, the arts and sciences flourished, and an all-powerful and pervasive government and bureaucracy were efficient and fair.

The book became enormously popular, selling 371,000 copies in its first two years and a million copies by 1900. Its influence on American progressive educators and intellectuals was enormous. In fact, it became their vision of a future American paradise in which human moral perfectibility could at last be attained.

The extent of the book’s influence can be measured by the fact that in 1935, when Columbia University asked philosopher-educator John Dewey, historian Charles Beard, and Atlantic Monthly editor Edward Weeks to prepare independently lists of the 25 most influential books since 1885, Looking Backward ranked as second on each list after Marx’s Das Kapital. In other words, Looking Backward was considered the most influential American book in that 50-year period.

John Dewey characterized the book as “one of the greatest modern syntheses of humane values.” Even after the rise of Hitler’s National Socialism in Germany and Marxist-Leninist communism in Russia, Dewey still clung to Bellamy’s vision of a socialist America. In his 1934 essay, “The Great American Prophet,” Dewey wrote:

I wish that those who conceive that the abolition of private capital and of energy expended for profit signify complete regimenting of life and the abolition of all personal choice and all emulation, would read with an open mind Bellamy’s picture of a socialized economy. It is not merely that he exposes with extraordinary vigor and clarity the restriction upon liberty that the present system imposes but that he pictures how socialized industry and finance would release and further all of those personal and private types of occupation and use of leisure that men and women actually most prize today….

It is an American communism that he depicts, and his appeal comes largely from the fact that he sees in it the necessary means of realizing the democratic ideal….

The worth of Bellamy’s book in effecting a translation of the ideas of democracy into economic terms is incalculable. What Uncle Tom’s Cabin was to the anti-slavery movement Bellamy’s book may well be to the shaping of popular opinion for a new social order.

Bellamy envisaged America becoming socialist by way of consensus rather than revolution. In turn, Dewey, who spent his professional life trying to transform Bellamy’s vision into American reality, saw education as the principle means by which this transformation could be achieved. He spent the years 1894 to 1904 at the University of Chicago in his Laboratory School seeking to devise a new curriculum for the public schools that would produce the kind of socialized youngsters who would bring about the new socialist millenium.

The result, of course, is the education we have today — a minimal interest in the development of intellectual, scientific, and literacy skills and a maximal effort to produce socialized, politically correct, individuals who can barely read.

Today, many years later, the University of Chicago stands as an island of academic tranquility in Chicago’s Southside, surrounded by a sea of social and urban devastation caused by the philosophical emanations from Dewey’s laboratory and other departments. Charles Judd, the university’s Wundtian professor of educational psychology, labored mightily to organize the radical reform of the public school curriculum to conform with Dewey’s socialist plan.

According to Dewey, the philosophical underpinning of capitalism is individualism sustained by an education that stressed the development of literacy skills. High literacy encourages intellectual independence which produces strong individualism. It was Dewey’s exhaustive analysis of individualism that led him to believe that the socialized individual could only be produced by first getting rid of the traditional emphasis on language and literacy in the primary grades and turning the children toward socialized activities and behavior.

In 1898, he wrote a devastating critique of traditional Three R’s education, entitled “The Primary-Education Fetich (sic),” in which he took to task the entire centuries-old emphasis on literacy. He wrote:

“The plea for the predominance of learning to read in early school life because of the great importance attaching to literature seems to me a perversion.”

He then mapped out a long-range, comprehensive strategy that would reorganize primary education to serve the needs of socialization. “Change must come gradually,” he wrote. “To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction.”

If what he was advocating was so beneficial, why would it favor a violent reaction?
The simple fact is that when parents send their children to school they want them to become good readers. They don’t send them to school to become socialists.

Obviously, Dewey had learned a lot from the Fabian socialists in England whose motto was Festina lente — ”Make haste slowly.”

Part of the new primary curriculum was a new method of teaching reading, an ideographic method that teaches children to read English as if it were Chinese, by simple word recognition, as if each word were like a Chinese character. It was called the “look-say” or “sight” method. In fact, it was at the University of Chicago that Charles Judd’s protégé, William Scott Gray, developed the Dick and Jane reading program, which in the 1930s became the standard method of teaching reading in American schools and has caused the devastating epidemic of functional illiteracy in America.

By 1955, the reading problem had become so severe that Rudolf Flesch felt compelled to write a book about it, Why Johnny Can’t Read. But it didn’t move the educators to change anything. They were firmly committed to Dewey’s plan to create a socialist America. Indeed, in 2007, the National Endowment for the Arts released a somber report on the state of American literacy. Its chairman, Dana Gioia, stated: “This is a massive social problem. We are losing the majority of the new generation. They will not achieve anything close to their potential because of poor reading.”

False doctrines lead to tragic consequences. Chicago’s Southside, New York’s Harlem and East Bronx, Boston’s Roxbury, and other such third-world type enclaves in American cities, peopled by the new American underclass, all of whom have attended American government schools, are the making of the arrogant eugenicist doctrines, policies, and strategies of the progressive movement. Progressives, of course, will never admit responsibility for the human wreckage they have created. In fact, they have deified Dewey, attributing the failures of progressive education to everything but Dewey.

Meanwhile, Bellamy’s consensus utopia is far more remote today than it was in 1888. The present economic mess created by the socialists in Washington–with, unfortunately, some help from the Bush Administration–cannot possibly evolve into anything Bellamy would have recognized. At least back then many intelligent people entertained the delusion of human perfectibility and that utopia was possible.

Today, after the horrible events of the 20th century, we know that Bellamy’s basic analysis of capitalism and human nature was false. But the fact that diehard socialists still exist in America and occupy the highest ranks of power in Washington is proof that man is indeed a fallen creature and capable of the kind of evil that destroys nations. We survived John Dewey and Edward Bellamy. But will we survive Obama?

Black Chamber of Commerce President Blasts ‘Marxist,’ ‘Brownshirt’ Obama…


Today on The Laura Ingraham Show, Harry Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, blasted President Obama’s anti-business administration in an explosive interview. Alford, a 2008 Obama supporter, labeled the administration “Marxist” and “fanatical.” “They might as well put on the brown shirts and swastikas,” he said.