Responding to the Mullahs’ Jihad in America

Responding to the Mullahs’ Jihad in America

Posted By Lisa Daftari On October 12, 2011 @ 12:41 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 1 Comment

 

After recovering from the shock of the foiled Iranian terror plot, the real questions emerge:

(1) How prepared are we for future attacks?

(2) How likely is it that more attacks will be launched?

And most importantly:

(3) How will the U.S. now respond?

The plot clearly demonstrates the Iranian regime’s disposition toward the United States. Had the Iranians been successful in their planned executions, it would have been a large-scale terror attack on U.S. soil. They might not have succeeded this time, but now we must worry about their next plan — and whether it will be carried out by Iranians or by copycat terrorists.

If the Iranian regime’s sole goal was to knock out the Saudi ambassador, Adel Al-Jubeir, they could have done so in an easier place with less security, vigilance and national intelligence. They could have followed him to an obscure venue. Yet they chose to make a point. They chose to carry out the attack on U.S. soil, to bomb the Israeli Embassy and to kill some American citizens while they were at it.

Even if the U.S. calls this an act of war, the American government cannot respond as such. In the case of Iran, the U.S. still maintains that “all options” are on the table, which acknowledges the option of a military attack.  But it would help us to focus more on the other options, namely, non-militaristic aggression, even though many believe sanctions have not been effective in combating the Iranian government. There is evidence to prove that sanctions have in fact choked off the regime in various ways. However, in order to truly benefit from sanctions, the U.S. would have to better enforce them, apply them more strategically in areas such as banking and travel and to freeze assets.

The U.S. could also employ the help of other nations who have ducked out of the responsibility of punishing this global enemy.  Lastly, and most importantly, the U.S. should not forget the easiest and most powerful tool in combating the Iranian regime: its 70 million disenchanted people.  While the Mullahs’ regime in Tehran may have deep support, both financially and through an extensive network of clergy and Revolutionary Guardsmen, the people of Iran and their desire to break free from this tyrannical regime is far more widespread across a large and vibrant population.

Manssor Arbabsiar, one of the two men charged in the “international murder-for-hire scheme,”  was a man who lived in Texas for decades. He sold used cars and was part of a community. Further investigations will have to look closely at Iran’s tentacles working in the U.S. Currently, there are hundreds of known former IRGC generals and officers living in this country with green cards and citizenship status, in addition to thousands of their close relatives, many of whom send their children to attend this country’s best universities.  They are the eyes and ears of the Iranian government and in this case the enabler of a convoluted terror plot. The question then arises: Why and how does the U.S. allow these individuals to enter and live in this country when it is well known that the average person currently has trouble getting even a tourist’s visa to come visit family here in the States?

A more recent entanglement that was brought to light is Iran’s presence in South and Central America and more frighteningly, its involvement with some of the world’s most dangerous drug cartels.  An anonymous source has explained that there is a huge network of Iranian intelligence and IRGC forces in Mexico close to the border with the U.S. The job of these networks is to gather intelligence, smuggle agents into the U.S., launder money for the cartels, and even bribe Mexican politicians to affect elections in Mexico.  Aside from the terror cells that we now know exist, we must take into consideration the military implications of having the IRGC present on the U.S./Mexico border.

We are in a situation in which this attempted terror attack can be seen as an act of war. We have tried the path of negotiation with Iran’s government, but that has been rejected numerous times. Over  time and by remaining inactive, we have become soft and irrelevant in  the eyes of the Iranian regime, which is carrying on with its nuclear  program and cracking down on protesters who dare voice their hunger for freedom. We waited and let them corner us, and we allowed them to take the first  shot. Remaining idle at this point would set us back farther and will  allow Iran to boldly continue with its nuclear and terrorist ambitions.   What the U.S. does right now in retaliation will be crucial in defining  the ties between Iran and the U.S.

Pampered Protesters

Michael Reagan,FloydReports.com

The hordes of so-called “protesters”now polluting the streets of several U.S.
cities,including New York,are sending confused messages about their
grievances.

The unemployed among them complain that the jobs available to them are
beneath them. I guess that cancels out the old concept of starting in the
mailroom and advancing step-by-step to the boardroom. It used to be the norm
that one started at the bottom and worked his way up. This bunch seems to be
living under the delusion that simply by virtue of having been born they are
entitled to immediate arrival at the boardroom level with appropriate
compensation.

Viewing these unruly mob scenes,featuring numerous public sexual activities
posing as protests,I am reminded of the manner in which my dad dealt with such
malcontents. If they were government employees he simply fired them. It worked.
The remaining ones slinked back to work.

And I recall how he dealt with his son (me) back in 1965,when I dropped out
of Arizona State University and thought that I was simply going home to live
with —and off —either my mom or dad,who were then divorced. When I got home I
found that their doors were locked to college dropouts.

Nancy,my ever-loving stepmom,was busy calling all branches of the military to
let them know I was a college dropout and thus now eligible to be drafted. Don’t
you just love such devoted stepmothers,eager to help their stepsons make their
way in the world by locking the doors to keep them out?

When I finally was able to speak to my parents,they simply told me to find
another place to live and to get a job. I did both. I moved in with some friends
and got a job working at Asbury Transportation Company in Los Angeles loading
oil-well freight from 5:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.,Monday through Friday. That’s where
I was working when my father was elected governor of California.

Did I complain that my lowly job was beneath my new station in life as the
son of the governor of California? How could I? I was the one who set that bar
low when I dropped out of college. So,to all you spoiled
brats
marching and wanting better pay or bigger allowances….

Read more.

The Obama Problem

The Obama Problem

By Monty
Pelerin

The Obama Problem is simple to explain but impossible
to solve.  The problem is Obama himself, and most people not named Barack or
Michelle understand that.

President Obama’s political career is in free-fall.
He will not be reelected.  Many Democrats and media personalities now understand
what appeared impossible even mere months ago.

Mr. Obama burst onto the political scene as a
relatively unknown wunderkind.  He could read a mean teleprompter and did so
with fanfare at the 2004 Democrat Convention.  He had good speechwriters, an
intelligent and disciplined campaign strategy, a carefully crafted biography,
and a highly compliant media.  He was charismatic and eloquent.  Joe Biden
awkwardly described him as “the first mainstream African-American who is
articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

The Perfect Storm

The 2008 election was the political equivalent of a
perfect storm.”  Two factors were key to Obama’s election:

  1. Americans were disgusted with Washington, and
    especially with George Bush.  The media anointed Obama as their man.  They
    publicized his strengths and hid his weaknesses.  They painted him as an
    outsider, someone who could bridge the gap between political parties and make
    Washington function.  The media engineered Obama into the nomination and threw
    Hillary Clinton overboard in the primary process.
  2. The Republicans chose a sure loser to run — shopworn
    Washington-establishment figure Senator John McCain.  McCain offered nothing
    that had not already been rejected by the public.  He was little more than an
    elderly George W. Bush who carried the additional baggage of a Washington
    insider.  It is likely that any Democrat would have easily beaten
    McCain.

When the perfect storm cleared, Obama was president.

No president in recent history began his term with
higher expectations and goodwill than Barack Obama, but the promise and
exhilaration that accompanied his election was short-lived.  In less than three
years, Obama plummeted from the heights (his “Messiah” entry) to the depths (a
“worse than Jimmy Carter” figure).

The turnaround was astonishing in its speed and
magnitude.  To put matters in perspective, it took George Bush almost eight
years to hit bottom.  And Bush always had little support from the media, a force
that continues to protect Obama.

How Things Went So Wrong So
Quickly

To understand Obama’s loss in popularity, it is
necessary to recognize that Barack Obama was a fluke.  He was an unlikely
candidate, pushed to his party’s nomination as a result of the media.  His
election was another quirk, more aberration than achievement.  The perfect storm
virtually ensured that the Democrat candidate would win in 2008.  It is not a
strain to conclude that the mainstream media, rather than the electorate, put
Obama into the highest office in the land.

In hindsight, a great mistake was made. Even the
fawning media and the Democrat establishment now recognize that, although are
unwilling to publicly admit it.  Their behavior is analogous to refusing to
discuss a friend’s terminal illness in the hope that it will somehow go
away.

The media and the Democratic Party are at risk if the
tragedy they foisted on the nation continues.  Their future is intertwined with
the Obama Problem.  Both sponsored him, and both may ultimately be held
accountable.  The battle so easily won in 2008 may cost them subsequent battles,
if not the war itself.

Both know the risk.  They just have no easy way of
solving the problem.

Opinions regarding the factors responsible for Mr.
Obama’s political demise abound.  A full menu is available — the economy,
broken promises, cronyism, socialism, bailouts, corruption, disillusionment,
inexperience, incompetence, Chicago-style politics, etc.  Pundits have a
target-rich environment from which to approach the failure of the Obama
presidency.

The factors above are relevant but one level removed
from the root cause.  The real problem is that there never was any substance to
Obama.  He was the political equivalent of a Potemkin village.  There was
nothing behind the façade.  There was no “there” there.  All of the problems
arise from this obvious flaw.

President Obama is little more than a run-of-the-mill
Hollywood extra hired to play president of the United States.  A brilliant
marketing campaign coupled with the perfect storm put him in office.  The
marketing campaign was so good that it merits a case study for the Harvard
Business School.

The “man with no past” and a Hollywood veneer turned
out to be a perfect candidate.  “Sizzle” rather than substance was sold.  Little
was known about Obama and his past, allowing David Axelrod to market the
political equivalent of a Rorschach blot.

Voters saw in Obama whatever they desired in a
candidate.  To some, Obama was a breath of fresh air, a man of principles.  To
others he was an outsider, not a crass politician.  Others saw him as a chance
to prove that they were not racists.  Still others saw him as the reincarnation
of Roosevelt or whomever else they admired.

Obama was a blank slate to be imagined or drawn upon
by the voters.  He was their chameleon, and each voter could use his or her
imagination to create the ideal candidate.  Not surprisingly, voters bought this
product that existed only in their minds.  They elected Chauncey Gardiner.
Unfortunately, this fraud did not come with Peter Sellers’ range or abilities.

A brilliant marketing strategy can make a first sale,
but performance and satisfaction are required for the second.  Axelrod’s skill
in marketing had no counterparty in production.  No one seemed to be concerned
about delivering a product that actually worked.

Obama entered office unorganized and unstructured.
Nothing in his background suggested that he knew anything about management,
organization, or leadership.  Nor did anyone see the need for bringing in talent
with these skills.  As a result, the Hollywood mannequin was almost immediately
exposed as nothing but flair, hype, and hot air.  The public had bought a
product that did not perform.

Marketing can do many things, but it cannot sell a
product that people have tried and rejected.  That is Obama’s reelection
problem.  At the risk of being unsophisticated and abusing the concept of
Occam’s Razor, Obama’s reelection problem can be expressed in one simple
sentence: “Now, too many people know him.”

Obama’s only strength was Axelrod’s ability to play on
the imagination of voters.  That strength no longer exists.  People now know the
product and have rejected it.  They did not get even Chauncey Gardiner.
Embarrassed and angry, the public is stuck with Chance the
Gardener.

The irony is that Mr. Obama has not changed.  He is
the same man who was elected.  His problem is not communicating, Republicans,
George Bush, tsunamis, or anything else.  His problem is the man in the mirror.
There is no more there than an image.

Obama was all hype and no substance.  That realization
has dawned on voters, resulting in  horrendous polling.  Richard Nixon was never
liked, but he was at least thought competent.  Obama was liked but never
competent.  Now Obama is living proof of the old adage that familiarity breeds
contempt.  He is neither liked nor competent.

Even the hapless Jimmy Carter did not attain that
status.