Welcome to the Land of the Great Satan, Smiling Mullah

Welcome to the Land of the Great Satan, Smiling Mullah
September 4th, 2006

Great news! Great news! The deadly confrontation between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran is about to become history. The dove of peace is here in the person of the Smiling Mullah Khatami. Just look at his serene face with and ever-present reassuring little smile. It makes you forget all your troubles, doesn’t it?

If by looking at him you are not comforted, it may be the way he is dressed that seems alien—the turban, the cloak and all. Fine. Then let us listen to what he preaches. After all he is a man of the cloth and preaching is his line.

As the past President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, he is fully privy to what goes on in that land, what his co-turbaned colleagues are up to, and what they want from the world. Ever since he ascended to the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, he has portrayed himself as an advocate of moderation, upholder of the rule of law and promoter of the “Dialogue of Civilizations.”

For eight years, the long-suffering people of Iran and the world held their breath to see what he would do about the ideals he professed. Unfortunately, the Smiling Mullah turned out to be a genuine mullah—fake to his bones. More importantly, he is a genocidal criminal who should be tried in a court of law, rather than being received as a high-ranking dignitary. Here is a partial indictment.

During the Smiling Mullah’s Presidency, the rule of law was flaunted blatantly from day one.

1. Thousands of dissident students, intellectuals and journalists were systematically arrested, imprisoned and tortured for the sole crime of speaking up against the repressive rule of the mullahs. Many are still languishing in prisons, some have died, and some have simply vanished with no records of what happened to them.

2. During this turbaned fascist’s watch, many students’ lives were extinguished for daring to express their opposition to the stone-age regime. Shamelessly, during the 9 July of 1999 students demonstration, for instance, this man called the Tehran university students “A bunch of hooligans,” while his storm-trooper hooligans, with police support, brutally attacked students in their dormitories throwing some students out of the windows of the dorm’s third floor. Now, he is welcomed at Harvard University to lecture its “hooligans” and faculty on practicing tolerance.

3. Arrested dissidents were denied the due process of law. Those who were granted perfunctory hearings before receiving the guilty verdict were not allowed legal counsel. The few who were granted legal counsel saw even their attorneys imprisoned for defending them.

4. Prisoners of conscience were routinely tortured to extract confessions about the crimes they did not commit. Some of the victims were permanently incapacitated while others died under the brutal torture.

5. No human rights organizations were allowed to inspect the prisons.

6. Women prisoners were often subjected to even greater indignities than men by being raped before being executed, under the cover of marriage. A prison mullah performed the forced marriage ceremony to make it conform to the Islamic ethos.

7. Stealth work on the nuclear program, in clear violation of the non-proliferation treaty to which the IRI is a signatory, proceeded ahead at full speed and with generous funding.

8. Persecution of religious minorities continued apace. Most notably, his government targeted Iran’s Baha’is—Iran’s largest religious minority—recognized universally as peaceful and law-abiding people. Baha’is, solely for their belief, were fired from their jobs, with many forced to pay back the salaries they had received for years of service. Youth were coerced to convert to Islam in order to continue their education beyond high school. Properties and businesses were confiscated, elected officers of the Baha’i communities imprisoned and some executed, their holy places, even their cemeteries were leveled; and, much, much more.

9. Support for terrorism constituted a high priority. It extended not only to the neighboring countries, but as far away as Latin America. Hezbollah in Lebanon was nurtured with funds, weapons and training. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad were assisted in numerous ways, and a professional army of Shiite Iraqis was trained and armed to be used in the present Iraqi theatre. Separately, Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia thugs—the Mahdi Army—is directly funded, armed and controlled by the present Islamic regime, a gift of the Smiling Mullah to his successor—the rabid Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

10. In his devious attempt to lull the world into a false sense of security, the Smiling Mullah floated the notion of “Dialogue of Civilization,” to appear as a man of reason who is willing to reconcile the differences between and among various civilizations through dialogue. This clever ploy was exposed as nothing more than an Islamofascist propaganda tool. In actuality, his side’s dialogue proved to be a diatribe against civilization.

The Smiling Mullah is no less a criminal than other Islamofascists such as his own predecessor, Akbar Refsanjani, Zarqawi, and Osama bin Laden.

Many analysts are rightfully concerned about the danger of Islamic sleeper cells in the United States. They fear that these sleeper cells can be activated at any moment upon receiving orders from their controllers in Iran and Lebanon. Yet, the fact is that the Islamofascists’ greatest assets are the legions of American “Useful Idiots” already actively tearing at the very fabric of our society.

Many universities in the U.S. are bastions and incubators of Useful Idiots. Far left professors do more than teach their subjects of specialty. They feel that they have license to pontificate on any and all matters. That is why they are called “professors.” These self-appointed prima donnas cover themselves with the shield of academic freedom. Academic freedom is like liberty—it can be abused and is abused greatly. That is the price of freedom. Yet, these abusers of freedom, the far left Useful Idiots, will be among the first to be buried under the rubble of the free society’s collapse they work so doggedly to bring about.

The mullahs don’t have to even allocate the money from a single barrel of oil to have these Useful Idiots work around the clock to implode this country from within. They read the papers, they watch the television reporters and they are just happy to bide their time for the New Rome to collapse on itself.

If the implosion does not happen, that’s no problem. They will continue on with their work to acquire the nuclear weapons and make it happen.

Is this being alarmist or paranoid? Not at all. Besides, one good thing about the being paranoid that the Useful Idiot cannot claim: The paranoid is a survivor. And, we know the mullahs up-close and just too well. Some of our very own brothers, sisters, parents, children and friends have been murdered brutally and without the least mercy by these modern day soldiers of Allah. They are the most vicious fascist killers and we do not—I repeat, we do not—intend to go down passively as their next victims.

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website.

Amil Imani

Hezbollah as a strategic arm of Iran click on the HTML or PDF to read the report

Hezbollah as a strategic arm of Iran
This Bulletin deals with Hezbollahs place in Iranian strategy and the vast amounts of aid and support Iran has given the organization since its founding 24 years ago. Hezbollah, and the Lebanese Shiite community among whom it took root, are actually the only successful example of exporting the Islamic revolution. Hezbollah …
HTML English   PDF English


Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

 By Richard Cowan and Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Amid an election-year debate over who can best defend America, U.S. congressional Democrats urged ABC on Thursday to cancel a TV miniseries about the September 11 attacks that is critical of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and his top aides.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada denounced the five-hour television movie, set to air in two parts on Sunday and Monday nights, as “a work of fiction.”

Reid and other leading Senate Democrats wrote to Robert Iger, president and CEO of ABC’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., urging him to “cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.”

Chronicling events leading to the September 11 attacks, the movie suggests the Clinton administration was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal to deal properly with the gathering threat posed by Islamic militants.

The furor comes as Democrats and Republicans jockey for political position in advance of the November 7 congressional elections over who can best secure the United States from another attack.

Democrats have chided Republicans for failing to implement security recommendations by the 9/11 commission, and Republicans have portrayed Democrats as soft on terrorism.

In recent days, former members of the Clinton administration also lodged complaints with Iger, urging ABC and Disney to fix or eliminate what they called errors and fabrications.

ABC issued a statement saying the production, “The Path to 9/11,” was still being edited and that criticism of the film’s specifics were thus “premature and irresponsible.”


Executive Producer Marc Platt acknowledged that “there is dramatic license taken” in the docudrama to “render the program effective and accessible for viewers.”

“But we do try within the boundaries of what is fair and reasonable to communicate the essence of what occurred (and) the intentions of those individuals involved,” he told Reuters in a telephone interview from London. “We have no intention or desire to be political, to intentionally distort.”

Platt also said one scene singled out for criticism by Democrats — depicting CIA operatives and Afghan fighters coming close to capturing Osama bin Laden in the 1990s, only for then-national security advisor Samuel Berger to refuse authorization of the mission — was a “conflation of events.”

Berger said in a letter to Iger earlier this week that “no such episode ever occurred, nor did anything like it.”

The September 11 attacks occurred about eight months after Clinton turned over the presidency in January 2001 to Republican George W. Bush.

For several years, Democrats have complained the Bush administration failed to capture or kill bin Laden when he reportedly was cornered in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora region in late 2001. They also argue the war in Iraq later took away resources for tracking down bin Laden.

ABC said its movie was not a documentary but a dramatization drawn from the official 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other materials.

“As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the film contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression,” ABC said.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican who chaired the 9/11 commission and served as a consultant for the ABC miniseries, defended the production as politically balanced.

“People in both parties didn’t particularly like the commission report, and I think people in both parties aren’t going to love this one,” he said.

The cast of the film includes Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent and expert on Islamic militants, Donnie Wahlberg as a covert CIA operative, Amy Madigan as a high-ranking CIA analyst, Patricia Heaton as a U.S. diplomat and Stephen Root as White House counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke.

“The Path to 9/11” is not the first historical TV drama to draw a partisan outcry. CBS canceled a miniseries about Ronald and Nancy Reagan after Republicans complained that it unfairly and inaccurately portrayed the former president. “The Reagans” ended up airing on sibling cable channel Showtime.

(Additional reporting by Steve Gorman and Ellen Wulfhorst)


Free speech and the Democrats


he Path to 9/11″ is looking a lot like “The Reagans, Part II.” Bill Clinton loyalists are demanding wholesale changes to the upcoming miniseries — and while ABC is making some snips, the alterations, insiders say, may not please the Dems. But a bombshell decision may happen anyway: Sources close to the project say the network, which has been in a media maelstrom over the pic, is mulling the idea of yanking the mini altogether. As for specific criticisms — and changes — the original mini contained a scene in which then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger declines to give the CIA authority to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, even when CIA operatives know where the al-Qaeda leader is. “This account has been expressly contradicted by Richard Clarke, a high-ranking counterterrorism official in both the Clinton and Bush administrations,” certain lawmakers wrote in a letter to Disney topper Bob Iger. While ABC declined to comment on specific changes, it’s believed that the Berger scene was among those being reworked. Controversy — fueled by screaming headlines on the Drudge Report and treated as a “developing story” by CNN — threatened to obscure the Alphabet’s attempt to offer what execs there firmly believe is a socially important piece of TV filmmaking in the tradition of “The Day After” and “An Early Frost.” But much in the same way right-wing groups mobilized to attack CBS’ “The Reagans” a few years ago, Democratic partisans were doing everything they could to discredit ABC’s “The Path to 9/11.” Network hinted it was still making changes but refused to say whether the edits were due to pressure. The Clinton Foundation issued a statement, broadcast by CNN, calling the mini “factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate,” while the Democratic National Committee sent a mass email to its troops denouncing “The Path to 9/11” as a “despicable, irresponsible fraud” and directing them to a Web site where the party has set up a way to let activists email Disney CEO Bob Iger a form letter. “Does a major national broadcast network want to stain itself by presenting an irresponsible, slanderous, fraudulent, ‘docudrama’ to the American public? Not if you and I have the last word,” begins the email from exec director Tom McMahon. Four senior Democratic lawmakers also joined the chorus of former Clinton administration officials calling for removal of what they claim are “false assertions of blame” and “partisan spin” in the mini. Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), John Dingell (Mich.), Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) and Jane Harman (Calif.) have written to Iger saying they have “serious questions” about the dramatization’s account of counterterrorism actions — or inactions — in the Clinton White House. The alleged inaccuracies are the subject of complaints that former members of the Clinton administration — Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Bruce Lindsey and Douglas Band — raised in letters that they sent earlier to ABC and that were the subject of news reports on Thursday. ABC limited its response to the brouhaha to a single statement arguing its mini “is not a documentary of the events leading to 9/11. It is a dramatization, drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report, other published materials and personal interviews. As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression. “No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete, so criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible,” the statement continued. “The attacks of 9/11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it is fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue. However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.” ABC thought it was limiting controversy by basing its mini on the nonpartisan 9/11 Commission’s report and having commission co-chair Tom Kane serve as a producer on the project. At least one Hollywood producer empathized with ABC, noting the firestorm of criticism is the latest example of partisan groups attempting to use their clout to bully nets and producers into serving up noncontroversial portraits of political and social matters. Even if the Dems are right in their criticism, the producer noted, ABC should be able to air its take. “How many miniseries have there been on the Kennedys? Did anybody complain as they dragged them through the mud?” the producer said. “Starting with ‘The Reagans,’ everything is now political. It’s become so divisive and nasty. It’s very sad.” One thing ABC doesn’t need to worry about: advertiser defections. Net decided to air the five-hour mini sans commercials after failing to find an appropriate sponsor for the project (Daily Variety, Sept. 5). Of course, the controversial nature of the project — even before the left-wing attacks — may have caused many sponsors to shy away from a sponsorship deal. As for the specific scenes, lawmakers said, “The film reportedly contains a scene in which the CIA declines to share information about the 9/11 hijackers with the FBI and ascribes that failure to the so-called wall limiting information-sharing by the Dept. of Justice. … This scene is puzzling at best, inaccurate at worst. “These two examples alone create substantial doubt about the overall accuracy of this program,” they wrote. “Sept. 11 is a day of mourning and remembrance for every American. We do not believe that it is appropriate to be tainted by false assertions of blame or partisan spin.” In their letter, Lindsey and Band rejected any claim of dramatic license. “While ABC is promoting ‘The Path to 9/11’ as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans,” they wrote. Albright alleged a scene involving her was “false and defamatory,” according to the Associated Press, which quoted her letter. The New York Post reported Clinton himself had also written ABC, demanding the show “be pulled” if corrections were not made. Specifically, he sharply disputed the characterization that he was too preoccupied by the Monica Lewinsky scandal to do much about terrorism. Criticism of “The Path to 9/11” carries strong echoes of the barbs hurled at CBS over “The Reagans.” Reagan partisans railed against scenes showing Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologist and Reagan condemning AIDS victims. Conservative drumbeat against “The Reagans” started months before the mini was slated to air and intensified after a copy of the script was leaked. Eye ultimately decided to sell the project to sister company Showtime — a move that, ironically, prompted howls of protest from liberal groups who accused CBS of censorship. Cliff Kincaid, editor of publications for conservative watchdog group Accuracy in Media, said the Democratic outcry is a bit of a surprise. “Usually Democrats can count on the support of big media in Hollywood,” he said. “It’s like things are upside down now.”

America love it or leave it

From the VietNow National Magazine

At a high school in Oklahoma, school officials remove “God Bless America” signs from schools in fear that someone might be offended.
At a Long Island, New York television station, management orders flags removed from the newsroom, and red, white, and blue ribbons removed from the lapels of reporters. Why? Management did not want to appear biased, and felt that our nation’s flag might give the appearance that “they lean one way or another.”
Officials in a California city ban U.S. flags from being displayed on city fire trucks because they didn’t want to offend anyone in the community.
In an “act of tolerance,”
the head of the public library at a Florida university ordered all “Proud To Be an American” signs removed so as to not offend international students.

Politically Correct Attacks Against America
I, for one, am quite disturbed by these actions of so-called “American citizens”; and I am tired of this nation worrying about whether or not we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, we have experienced a surge of patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled in New York and Washington, DC when the “politically correct” crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.
I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. In fact, our country’s population is almost entirely comprised of descendants of immigrants; however, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some native-born Americans, need to understand.

If You’re Among the Politically Correct, Here’s What You Need to Know
First of all, it is not our responsibility to continually try not to offend you in any way. This idea of America being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture, called the “American Way” has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. Our forefathers fought, bled, and died at places such as Bunker Hill, Antietam, San Juan Hill, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, for our way of life.
We speak English, not Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn our language!

And Yes, We Do Trust in God
“In God We Trust” is our national motto. This is not some off-the-wall, Christian, right wing, political slogan. It is our national motto. It is engraved in stone in the House of Representatives in our Capitol, and it is printed on our currency. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation; and this is clearly documented throughout our history. If it is appropriate for our motto to be inscribed in the halls of our highest level of government, then it is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.

If God Offends You, Here’s What to Do
God is in our pledge, our National Anthem, nearly every patriotic song, and in our founding documents. We honor His birth, death, and resurrection as holidays, and we turn to Him in prayer in times of crisis. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture, and we are proud to have Him.

It’s Our Heritage
We are proud of our heritage and those who have so honorably defended our freedoms. We celebrate Independence Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Flag Day. We have parades, picnics, and barbecues where we proudly wave our flag. As an American, I have the right to wave my flag, sing my national anthem, quote my national motto, and cite my pledge whenever and wherever I choose. If the Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don’t like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet.

This is Our Culture – If You Don’t Like It You’re Free to Go Elsewhere
The American culture is our way of life, our heritage, and we are proud of it. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. We are Americans. Like it or not, this is our country, our land, and our lifestyle.
Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion about our government, culture, or society, and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other great American freedom, the right to leave!