So how did President Obama manage to win the Nobel Peace Prize? One might ask if this is a consolation prize for his utter failure to secure the Summer Olympics for his hometown. Considering that flop occurred less than two weeks after the announcement of the award, that seems impossible. Perhaps it is due to his election to the presidency. Was the committee allured by his frequent flagellation of his country in front of audiences while overseas? A review of the previous winners reveals much insight into the minds and motivations of the awarders.  

The Nobel Committee certainly has never shown a propensity to hand out the award to someone for simply being elected to the American presidency. Only three other American presidents have received the award; none of them earned it during the first year of their administration. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson received the prize for breaking his promise to keep the United States out of the First World War. Theodore Roosevelt secured the award in 1906 for convincing Japan to stop further routing the decrepit and inept armed forces of czarist Russia. In 2002, Carter took home the acknowledgement more than twenty years after leaving the Oval Office. Apparently, the committee believed his four years of emasculating the American armed forces and intelligence agencies did not suffice. He needed to perform two decades' worth of denigrating later occupants of the White House in their efforts to combat Communist, Fascist and Jihadist forces around the world. Notably, presidents such as Ronald Reagan’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to lead the United States to victory over the Soviet Union and the Axis Powers respectively were never acknowledged by an award from this committee.

The committee may have decided that Obama's nascent efforts to undermine free enterprise and help facilitate the destruction of the Free World's notion of representative democracy have merited the award for him. In the past twenty years, others have been rewarded for merely trying in these endeavors. Renowned Marxist, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachyov received the award as a payment for attempting to delay for as long as possible the inevitable implosion of the Soviet Union in 1990. The 1994 Peace Prize went to Yasir Arafat for a lifetime of overseeing bombings, hijackings and other contributions to the International Jihad. In 2001, Kofi Anan and the United Nations secured the prize for successfully swindling billions of dollars from the Free World to provide a forum for Marxist, Islamic and other totalitarians nations to criticize capitalism, representative democracy and freedom in general. In 2005, Mohamad Elbaradei and his International Atomic Energy Agency won the endowment for paying lip service to halting Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear weapons while foot-dragging long enough for the Islamic regime to continue their program. Former vice-president, Al Gore Jr., took home the accolade in 2007 by touting alarmist predictions of gloom and demanding that the free and technologically advanced societies of the world slow down their economies in order for authoritarian countries to seem less backwards. Granted, the committee nominated Obama less than a month after he was inaugurated. Therefore, one must assume that the committee chose the winner based on potential for furtherance of the statists' goals.

So what has Obama accomplished to deserve this prize? He has curried favor with Islamists and their useful idiots around the world by ordering a halt to effective interrogation of jihadis and the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. He announced that he will soon remove most of the American armed forces in Iraq thus, allowing jihadis an easier possibility of toppling the elected government and replace it with an Islamic regime. Much to the delight of statists envious of American prosperity, he has seized considerable federal governmental control over two of the three largest American automobile manufacturers in addition to several of the nation's largest banks. He has won the approval of such prominent dictators such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Libya's Muamar Kadaffy and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinewhackjob.

In conclusion, this decision foreshadows more lurching toward socialism and more dhimmitude for the United States of America. Obama had the influence of Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers plus his indoctrination in an Indonesian madrassa motivating his decisions. After this announcement, he has to prove to the Nobel Committee that he deserves their confidence and will govern up to their authoritarian standards.

After the first quarter of the National Football League season has been completed, fans can step back and review the early results. I have noticed some developing trends. The following are my observations, broken down by division.

American Football Conference, Eastern Division: Before the quarterback Mark Sanchez finally played like a rookie, Jets' fans were dreaming of a "Subway Super Bowl" against their cross-town nemeses. Regardless of that loss, the Jets still hold a slight advantage over New England, thanks to their win in the second week. As of it appears now, both team are headed to the playoffs.

American Football Conference, Northern Division:No clear front-runner has emerged yet. Baltimore and Cincinnati are tied at 3-1, followed by 2-2 Pittsburgh. One has to wonder if the Bengals can sustain early-season success in view of recent years of failure. Also, are the Steelers simply feeling lingering effects of Super Bowl hangover and will recover in time to compete for the divisional title? Will the Ravens' offense play consistently enough to support their continuance of defensive domination? This muddled picture needs more time to clarify.

 American Football Conference, Southern Division: At first glance, Indianapolis appears to be Boise State and the rest of the division is imitating the rest of the Western Athletic Conference. Granted the Colts are bolting to the head of the AFC, yet Jacksonville is still within striking distance, thanks to its 2-1 record in divisional games. If the Colts stumble down the stretch while Jaguars go on a winning streak, the match-up between these two on the seventeenth of December could decide the divisional title. The Titans' 10-0 start in 2008 seems like ancient history considering their 0-4 start.

American Football Conference, Western Division: At this point, Denver would have to totally collapse to not win the division. Both Oakland and Kansas City are testing their fans' patience and season ticket holders' sanity with their continued putrid performances; neither seems ready to improve on recent years of ineptitude.

National Football Conference, Eastern Division: New York is out front early in this race. Assuming the Giants can avoid choking at home versus Oakland, the Week Six showdown with undefeated New Orleans would likely give the winner the tie-breaker for one of the top two playoff seeds. Philadelphia is danger of losing ground during Donovan McNabb's injury. We will find out if their gamble on Michael Vick or their drafting of Kolb will pay off for the Eagles. Fortunately, they have easily winnable games in the next two weeks. The Cowboys and Redskins can still sneak back into the race since they are only two games behind the Giants. However, they are both plagued by meddlesome owners and harsh scrutiny of their huge and impatient fan bases.

 National Football Conference, Northern Division: Minnesota appears to be on the verge of pulling away from the pack despite only one game ahead of the second-place Bears. Two wins within the division already further their cause. However, Chicago and Green Bay have the talent to make this a photo-finish. I suspect this race will be tight with the division not wrapped up until the last week of the season.

 National Football Conference, Southern Division: After only four weeks, half of this division is already looking forward to the draft. New Orleans and Atlanta will duke it out for the title. New Orleans' offense revved in high gear in the first two games as it has since Drew Brees arrived in 2006. The reason behind their 4-0 start is found in the defense which no longer acts as a brake on their momentum. Surprisingly, the Saints' defense allowed no points in Buffalo and outscored their offensive unit versus the Jets. The Falcons find themselves a game and a half behind the Saints but do have one advantage over the Saints at this point: a win within the division.

National Football Conference, Western Division: The Forty-Niners have awakened the fans in San Francisco from their decade-long nightmare of irrelevance. Arizona is slipping back to its perennial loser status after last season’s miraculous run to the Super Bowl. Seattle's performance have appeared nearly as ugly as the fluorescent green jerseys that the Seahawks wore versus Saint Louis  should petition the Canadian Football League for membership then let the Grey Cup winner take the Rams' place in this division. San Francisco will win the NFC West by default.

Of course, the projections are subject to change due to injuries to and arrests of players.

 

The first month of college football has been completed with the trends of the single digit years of twenty-first century continuing.

Southern California decided to perform its annual half-hearted effort leading to a loss in a road game versus an unranked Pacific Ten opponent early this year. That way, USC gave the talking heads at ABC and ESPN more weeks to gush fawningly over the Trojans after routs of the rest of conference. All which is left for the Trojans to accomplish is to finish plowing through the Pacific Ten then run circles around the snail-like adversary from the Big Ten.

Ohio State perpetuated its reputation for crumbling in non-conference games versus non-BCS opponents. The Buckeyes' reputation for folding under the national spotlight has been slightly exacerbated by three consecutive losses in BCS bowls and a 0-4 mark against the Southeastern Conference. In fairness to Ohio State, the Buckeyes have won eleven of the nineteen games with BCS non-conference opponents in the first nine years and one month of the 2000s. They also hold a four win and two loss record against the Big Twelve and a 4-3 tally against the Pacific Ten since 2000.

The media love to mention "BCS Busters" as candidates to upset the template of the national championship game. They relish the potential controversy of someone other than members of the conferences with automatic bids advancing to the BCS title game. Some of these "flies in the ointment", Utah and BYU, have already failed to maintain momentum after upsetting a ranked major conference member in the first week. The advocates for chaos need not fear for lack of Cinderellas. Houston remains undefeated after two wins over Big Twelve members while Boise State has improved on its pre-season top twenty ranking and snuck into the fifth position in the polls.

The Michigan bandwagon has returned with plenty of vacant seats. A sizeable number of riders have bailed out over the past two seasons. Losing the season-opener to Appalachian State two years ago followed by last year's 3-9 mark tarnished the winged helmets in many eyes. The widely predicted shift of power in the Great Lakes State seems to have only been an outlier of 2008. The cross-state nemesis, Michigan State, has stumbled embarrassingly to start the season. Last minute losses to Central Michigan and Notre Dame then an inept performance at Wisconsin bode a heartbreaking backslide for the Spartans. This Saturday's intra-state grudge match serves as the crossroads for both teams. A Spartan victory could start a reclamation of a season with the possibility of a Big Ten title. A Michigan win would further legitimize the return to the status of "Big Three" status for the Wolverines.

This author has been accused of promoting hatred of Mohamadans. I have been criticized for automatically concluding that Islamists are guilty of committing acts of war and terrorism against the Free World. "Never mind that the overwhelming number of bombings across the world, both of the suicidal and homicidal varieties, occur in furtherance of the jihad," say Islamists and their useful idiots. So do they have a point that the goons holding a Koran in one hand while torching churches and the Christians inside them or while vandalizing Jewish-owned business or cemeteries did not constitute a concerted effort by Islamists to attack infidels? In an attempt at cultural sensitivity, conflict resolution and reconciliation with Mohamadans, I will serve as the defense attorney in the court of public opinion for Najibullah Zazi, the Mohamadan in the United States recently arrested for involvement with a terrorist plot targeting New York. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/18/national/main5321252.shtml?tag=stack)

Has anyone considered the possibility all of his secretive dealings were an effort to surprise New Yorkers? On the eighth anniversary of the jihadist attacks on the World Trade Center, maybe he was planning a citywide gift distribution. After consulting a list of traditional gifts for anniversaries, Zazi could have been secretly arranging the placement of improvised explosive devices in pottery or bronze receptacles through the city. The residents could have been greeted with lovely gunpowder-fueled displays spelling out "I heart NY" in shrapnel. Perhaps he preferred the modern suggestion of lace or linen so we can deduce what he had in mind: new burkas for every woman in the city! So, FBI, are you happy now that you ruined the surprise for everyone? What a bunch of spoilsports!

Did the FBI consider the possibility that Zazi's reference to an actual, planned wedding was, in fact, legitimate but just not recognized under the American legal system? News out of Sudan showed that Islamists do not discriminate against people with an alternative sexual orientation(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4748292.stm). Moral relativists certainly should demand that the FBI display a higher level of tolerance for this cultural aspect of Islam, in addition to other cherished Islamic practices like female genital mutilation, wife-beating and murder of rape victims. Once again, Americans have demonstrated their bigotry toward sexual minorities!

Undoubtedly, people in the United States will label Zazi as an "extremist" or a "radical" adherent of Islam. A more unfounded accusation could not be hurled at him. Zazi has faithfully devoted himself to following the tenets and commandments of the Koran. He has not strayed into un-Islamic activities like befriending infidels, repairing vandalized churches or synagogues, protesting against terrorism, composing music or creating works of art like sculptures or portraits. Therefore, those who have besmirched his allegiance to Allah should acknowledge Zazi's commitment to true Islam!

Is it too much to ask for Americans to view the situation from Zazi's point of view? We should consider his unease about seeing his relatives for the upcoming the celebration of Eid al-Fitr. He would have had to face yet another plethora of irritating comments from his parents such as "Your older brother Mohamad killed three infidels and one apostate during Ramadan. That's more than you killed all year! Even your younger brother Mohamad martyred himself last month. Why can't you stop being such a slacker and act like your brothers?" Due to his shirking of his responsibilities to Allah and Mohamad, Zazi's parents will not give him that brand new explosive vest on which he has had eye for months now. Instead, he will have to settle for a box cutter as the gift from his parents. That kind of torture would not be permitted by the United Nations yet we expect that this young man to suffer like this? Have you no heart, Americans?

I would like to offer a compromise. We should allow him to behead a few members of Code Pink or the John Adams Project to placate his demanding parents. The members of those groups would just blame the slayings on George Bush, Israel's existence, global warming or any other culprit except for Islam. So what would be the problem?

In conclusion, I wish to all my devoted Mohamadan readers, HAVE AN EXPLOSIVE EID AL-FITR!

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT SEPTEMBER 2009

Hidden by the ongoing debate and protests over the proposed socialization of the American health care system in addition to the recent death of the man responsible for Mary Jo Kopechne's death, the Obama administration has started its torment of the defenders of American security. The Obama regime has been returning political favors to those that supported his campaign. Among these are the self-loathing Americans who want the United States to accept defeat and retreat on all of fronts in the Islamic war against the Free World. Therefore, the Obamaniacs have demanded that their messiah's henchmen unsheathe their daggers then plunge them into the exposed backs of patriots combating jihadis. 

American service personnel have already been forced to concede to Islamists' demands regarding the treatment of the jihadis. American tax dollars were spent to provide a Koran, prayer rug and prayer beads to every captured jihadi. This funding of religious instruction exists in addition to the highly expensive provision of halal meals to cater to the savages' tastes. All of this undeserved treatment of these criminals flies in the face of the Geneva Convention. None of these goons were wearing a distinguishable military uniform while engaged in such activities as firing on American and allied forces, planting explosives and other acts of war.

There is no precedent for this appeasement of Islamists' demands for undeserved treatment. German prisoners during the Second World War never received free copies of <i>Mein Kempf</i> during their captivity. During that same war, the few Japanese soldiers captured by American  were not issued any means to commit ritualistic suicide as their ideology mandated. Additionally, captured communist forces during the wars in Korea and Vietnam never were issued copies of <i>The Communist Manifesto</i> or any other Marxist literature supplied by the country that they sought to defeat. One must ask why do adherents to Islam deserve complementary implements of their ideology when adherents to other strains of totalitarianism were denied similar luxuries. Not only were Axis and Communist forces never pampered in captivity, those who engaged in military operations while not in uniform were frequently executed. Anyone involved in acts of sabotage or other hostility while not in uniform are considered as spies; those have no protections under the Geneva Convention.  Instead of bowing down to Allah five times per day, these jihadis should reserve some gratitude for Uncle Sam for his naive and short-sighted magnanimity.

So what practices have drawn the ire of the useful idiots more concerned about pleasing Islamists than preventing further acts of jihad against the United States? Some of these prisoners were strip-searched, had ink smeared on their faces, were held in solitary confinement, were deprived of shoes, had cigar smoke blown in their faces or saw an interrogator squat over, stand on or kick a Koran. Can anyone hand-wringing over these incidents name just one person who has ever died or suffered disabling injuries from any of these actions?

Mohamad al-Kahtani, the would-be twentieth hijacker of the plot on the eleventh of September in 2001, faced annoyances such as sleep deprivation, exposure to cold  and insults to female members of his family. Many of the members of the American armed forces have endured the same treatment during their training. When will any member of the ACLU or any other jihadi-coddling group lift a finger to halt to rough treatment meted out to American service personnel?

In a pursuit of justice, someone should conduct of poll of survivors of jihadist violence. The question would ask, “Would you rather undergo the same treatment suffered by the prisoners at GITMO or would prefer the fate of the passengers of the hijacked planes and by the occupants of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?” Maybe such an undertaking would open the eyes of the “Hate America First” crowd to see the folly of their myopic and self-destructive agenda.

COPYRIGHT CHARLES KASTRIOT SEPTEMBER 2009

Once again, the most wonderful time of the year is on the verge of arriving for fans of the National Football League. The NFL's exhibition games, euphemistically named "pre-season", have commenced with the annual kickoff at the Hall of Fame Game in Canton, Ohio. Fans know that their teams' weekly contests and all the days pre-game speculation and post-game dissection are just around the corner. The sensation for football aficionados resembles that of children when the Christmas merchandise appears in stores. Unfortunately, the anticipation has been needlessly extended just like the retail outlets do by decorating immediately after Labor Day instead of after Thanksgiving Day.

Honestly, does anyone still cling to the antiquated notion that professional football players need four meaningless games in order to prepare themselves for the regular season slate of sixteen? Teams engage in mini-camps throughout the off-season. Plus, players voluntarily participate in drills with teammates during the spring and summer before the official opening of training camps. The days when most, if not all, players showed up to training camp in mid-summer noticeably overweight, stiff or, in any other way, indifferent of any football related matter since their teams' final game of the previous season have gone the way of the phonograph and black/white televisions.

Granted, most fans enjoy watching the first and possibly the second exhibition games. Those two provide an opportunity to view rookies selected in the draft and new additions to the team acquired via free agency or off-season trades. Few fans have access to the scrimmages conducted during training camp so the first exhibition game remains the initial viewing of the newcomers in their new uniforms. However, the novelty soon dissipates in the knowledge that any outstanding performances must be weighed against the half-hearted level of effort of veterans in the games and the irrelevancy of the final scores. The only drama for those fans who watch the final two exhibition games lies in the holding of their collective breath in hope that none of the starting players of his/her teams sustain any injuries preventing them from playing the the games that actually count in the standings.

Therefore, this writer proposes the elimination of the last two exhibition games. Undoubtedly, the owners and others who benefit financially from the staging of these meaningless contests will object. After all, NFL teams charge hefty prices for tickets to these glorified scrimmages which season-ticket holders cannot avoid since these exhibition games are included in their season ticket packages. Those who make their living based on attendance at the games such as vendors, employees at parking lots and others would hate to see two of their ten opportunities for sales to vanish. Obviously, some recompense must be offered to assuage the pain of withdrawal.

The solution will prevent the loss of revenue by those with a stake in upholding the number of games played at an NFL venue yet give the fans more of what they deserve: games that count in the standings. The final two exhibition games should be replaced with two more regular season non-conference games. Just as college football teams typically play two or more non-conference opponents at the start of a season, the NFL would benefit by such a structure of scheduling. The number of games a team would host would not change so there would be no loss of revenue. Fans would not feel cheated by paying to see as many inconsequential games as they do currently.

To further bolster the appeal of these two additional non-conference games, each team would have a list of annual opponents that would spark much interest among the fans to see the teams play every season despite not being in the same conference. Several match-ups of teams in the same state or otherwise within close proximity to each other stand out as obviously interesting contests. The high level of anticipation would exist regardless of the records of the teams entering the contests. Opponents in the same media markets such the Jets and the Giants in addition to the Raiders and the Forty-Niners would provide an outlet for the antipathy between both sets of fans on the field during a relevant game of the regular season. Intrastate matches such the Cowboys versus the Texans, the Buccaneers versus the Dolphins, the Redskins versus the Ravens, the Eagles versus the Steelers and the Rams versus the Chiefs certainly hold more allure in a regular season game even though these teams often play their in-state counterpart in exhibition contests. Even annual meetings between teams of states bordering each other like the Colts versus the Bears, the Lions versus the Browns, the Chargers versus the Cardinals and the Falcons versus the Jaguars could develop into heated rivalries with a traditional early season date against each other.

An extra financial benefit of scheduling these games with teams within a close distance of each other should appeal to owners as well as fans. The shorter distance between the city of visiting team and the home team's stadium will reduce travel costs. For some of these proposed annual contests, the visiting team could easily take buses to their opponent's stadium. A person does not need a Ph.D. in economics or management to realize the tremendous savings in the substitution of one or two short bus trips for several dozen adults instead of flying across timezones for a handful of trivial exhibition games. Also, visiting fans will be more likely to attend games if they can drive to the opponents' stadium and return home the day of the game.

So when will Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners of NFL franchises adjust to the current situation and abolish some of its needless games in favor of some that will draw much more attention from the fans? Hopefully, the change will occur sooner than the decades that passed before the NFL acknowledged the utility of the two-point conversion and implemented it.

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT AUGUST 2009

I thought that I could watch television news channels or surf internet news sites again. Certainly, our national period of mourning must have ended by now, or so I hoped. Alas, like the zombies featured in the music video for the song Thriller, the reports persist in haunting my search for coverage of worthwhile events.

The never-ending drama surrounding the death of Michael Jackson needs to cease. He passed away unexpectedly more than three weeks ago yet still remains far too prominent among media coverage. Despite the devotion of his blindly enamored fanatics, his superficial impact on the world does not merit the overindulgence of attention accorded to his life’s accomplishments, his funeral, the custody of his children and the division of his estate.

His cult of personality has ballooned to an absurd level, way out of proportion to his contemporary relevance or to human history. Statements crediting him with breakthroughs in the arena of civil rights resonate as curious hyperbole at best. As a role model for black Americans, particularly black males born since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Jackson left much to be desired. Granted, he transferred his success as a pre-teen pop star with his four brothers into a solo singing career. However, he chose to undergo multiple cosmetic surgeries over the course of his adulthood to obscure and eventually remove his distinctively black facial features. In the final few years of his life, Jackson resembled an alabaster and androgynous freak more suited to the day-time tawdry talkshows.

Further undermining the de facto sainthood accorded to Michael Jackson are the rumors and confirmed reports of his creepy interaction with children. Obviously, Jackson suffered from the deprivation of a healthy childhood. Due to his parents’ hard-driving exhortations to pinnacles of fame and fortune in the music industry, many of the joys of adolesence eluded Jackson. Evidently, he thought that by creating a fantasy-inspired home appropriately named “Neverland” that he could recreate the youth which he was denied. Nevertheless, any man who actively seeks the company of pre-teen boys who are not related to him stands out as strange. Jackson’s overt catering to preteen boys eerily resembles behavior employed by child molesters to lure in their prey. Regardless of whether he desired sexual exploitation of his young male companions or simply and selfishly wanted the typical boyhood experiences that he was denied, he rightfully deserved the scorn and condemnation that he received for his bizarre behavior.

Granted, Jackson’s albums rank as some of the highest selling of all-time. However, overblown statements labeling him as the greatest singer or musician or entertainer of all time need a strong case of tempering with historical perspective without the emotional tumult following his recent death. He never mastered any musical instrument; his ability to read and compose music has not been substantiated. Sadly, his legions of adorers mistake his effeminate voice, flashy gyrations and self-fondling for musical perfection.

What will cure the American, indeed, world’s obsession with this death of one man and its endless, overdramatized aftermath? Should we hope for the addition of another pet to the Obama White House? Will it necessitate O.J. Simpson's involvement in more felonious activities? Does another bubble-headed, bleached blonde, third-rate actress have to die unexpectedly? Perhaps, only the unexpected death of another washed-up pop star that also peaked in the 1980s will halt the gluttony of paparazzi's obsession with Jackson’s passing. So, will you help us out of this misery, Madonna?

COPYRIGHT BY CHARLES KASTRIOT JULY 2009

Popular rebellions throughout history have proved extremely difficult to gauge. Pundits and politicians attempt to project their final results. Often sparked by dour economic conditions combined with repressive governmental actions, rebellions open the portals for inundations of demands for economic and social transformations.

The French Revolution started when peasants' crops failed leading to famine. Decades of deficit spending precluded the ability of King Louis the Fourteenth's regime from doing much to alleviate the suffering. The knowledge of the aristocracy's opulence sparked the peasantry's rage. Intermingling with this anger, advocates of the Enlightenment, enthralled with novelties called representative democracy and liberty, joined the anti-monarchical chorus. The fervor eventually led to verbal and physical assaults on Catholic installations and clergy. The urge to overthrow all peripherals of the system even lead to abolition of the Christian calendar and its replacement by a week of ten days and a year that started on the day of the autumnal equinox.

The Russian Revolution grew out of opposition to Czar Nicholas the Second's decision to enter the First World War. Political minorities, factions of Marxism, anarchism and capitalism, became involved in the opposition to the monarchy; they disagreed on what form of government should replace it but all openly pushed for the end of the Czarist autocracy. Eventually, the totalitarianism of the Bolsheviks replaced the autocracy of the Czar. This upheaval led to fundamental changes such as the full-scale oppression of the Orthodox Christian Church and its institutions, even its calendar which the monarchy had used for centuries.

At the present, the world is watching the tumult occurring in Iran. After thirty years under a totalitarian government, the Islam-based oppression is chafing some teens and twenty-somethings. Despite the mullahs' efforts to isolate Iranians, increased ease of communication with the Free World has allowed the penetration of non-Islamic concepts. During the street protests, women have dared to pull back their legally-mandated head-coverings to un-Islamic standards, if not remove them completely. Reports indicate that demonstrators have yelled, "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Khamenei!" If those have been occurring, the rebellion exceeds a mere burst of outrage by devotees of a candidate who lost an election. The suicide bombing of the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution which installed the Islamic regime, carries profound significance. That act of violence may portend opposition to the entire theocracy, not simply to the loony figurehead who holds the position of President of the Islamic regime.

Some question Mir Mousavi's alleged reformist agenda. Considering that politicians truly antipathic toward Islamic regime are never permitted to seek offices in the government, such skepticism is warranted. Therefore, one can rightfully question Mousavi's commitment to advocate for personal freedom and legitimate democracy in Iran.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never attempted to hide his mental instability. He openly denies the Nazi genocide directed at Jews. He leaves a seat vacant just in case a supposed messianic figure called the "Twelfth Imam" happens to stop by wherever Ahmadinejad is making a public appearance. He actually says with a straight face that Iran wants a nuclear energy program for strictly peaceful purposes. How can any sane person justify the pursuit of nuclear technology for energy production in a country which is one of the largest exporters of petroleum in the world? I suppose Ahmadinejad expects that the "Twelfth Imam" will provide some sort of rational explanation or just bring the nuclear weapons himself, rendering the secretive program obsolete.

No one knows how this tumult will resolve itself. The theocrats in Iran may unleash a torrent of violence to crackdown on the protestors. However, that could possibly fan the blames of opposition causing undecided Iranians to side with the anti-regime forces. Middle Eastern experts might try to predict the outcome yet they have limited access to current developments inside Iran. Intelligence agencies of various countries are undoubtedly extracting all possible information that their agents can obtain. Nevertheless, a multitude of surveillance technology and inside sources cannot provide perfect clairvoyance and clairaudience. In the end, we will only know the fate of Iran after the demonstrations have concluded, either victoriously or in vain.

COPYRIGHT JUNE 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Among the ongoing debates within the Obama Administration and the rest of the American society about the fate of the war criminals detained at Guantanamo Bay, jihadis reminded those paying attention why the facility exists in the first place. Four career criminals were in the process of waging jihad in New York. In the nearly eight years since the Islamic terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, the Koran and its exhortations to violence and oppression of non-Mohamadans have not changed. The Islamists' will to impose Islamic dictates on the Free World has not evaporated either.

The continued detainment of jihadis at Guantanamo Bay does inspire other Mohamadans to respond to calls for jihad, as well as it should. If they die in the process of killing non-Mohamadans, they believe an eternity in a free bordello awaits them. If they succeed in murdering so-called "infidels" yet survive the attacks, they will be hailed as heroes throughout the Islamic bloc. If they are captured in the process of jihad, they will be rewarded with three halal meals per day plus a Koran, prayers beads and rug in addition to exercise equipment and furnished living quarters, all paid for by the suicidally naive U.S. government. With these three possible outcomes serving as the only consequences of engaging in jihad versus Americans, one must wonder why all Mohamadan males are not pursuing this path to limitless sex, fame or leisure.

This latest Islamic plot to attack Americans also raises an inexplicable phenomenon. The sheer stupidity of permitting Islamic clerics to enter American prisons stands out as astounding act of national self-immolation. These Islamists prey on criminals who already have little to no regard for the lives and property of law-abiding Americans. The Islamists give them an excuse for their rage against democracy, capitalism and freethinking. Then they encapsulate their lusts for murder, theft and rape by justifying such crimes as permissible by following the example of Mohamad ibn Abdullah (May he burn in hell forever) as recorded in the Koran and the hadiths.

Never in the history of the United States were enemy agents allowed to enter the country so openly and operate so freely as during this current war. The Nazi regime was not allowed to send representatives to scour Depression-era American jails for potential recruits for the SS or Wehrmacht. Without a doubt, Americans with Fascist or Marxist sympathies cruised "Hoovervilles" to stir up anti-republicanism or anti-capitalism. However, they did not do so with explicit approval of federal, state or local governmental sanction. The politically-correct acquiescence to Islamists' demands will continue to produce future enemy agents bent on murder and destruction within the United States. Prison authorities or the politicians controlling the funds supporting those authorities must halt this treacherous permissiveness before more home-grown jihadis strike again.

Whenever politicians run for office, they regularly promise favors and special treatment for those who have supported them. Over the course of American political history, such paybacks have varied from secretly provided to openly proclaimed. While not yet mentioned in an official White House press release or in a joint statement by the Democrats in Congress, the dervishes of political correctness are on the verge of reaping their rewards for their presidential jihad on behalf of Barrack Hussein Obama.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The bill awaits widely expected passage by the Senate. President Obama's signature on the bill transforming it into law appears to be a foregone conclusion.

This bill perpetuates the Orwellian campaign against lines of thinking deemed punishable by the thought police. Despite the doublespeak about the value of freedom of speech and the right to hold unpopular opinions from the proponents of this bill, its provisions will be implemented as a weapon to punish those with politically incorrect viewpoints. These include, but are not limited to, opposition to legalization of homosexual marriage, normalization of homosexuality in general, support for at least some legal restrictions on abortion, opposition to racial quotas and preferences and criticism of Islam. Therefore, when a member of a politically correct group such as "sexual minorities" and "persons of color" has been involved with a violent incident with a non-member of these groups, the non-member faces a ten year prison sentence or possibly a life sentence. The prosecutors need only persuade a jury that the non-member was thinking about the "privileged" person's actual or perceived membership in one or more classifications prior to or while engaging in seemingly illegal acts. We will be told to never mind the fact that the "sexual minority" member or "person of color" may have instigated a violent confrontation. The more politically incorrect traits someone possesses (Caucasian race, male gender, Christian faith, European ancestry or heterosexual preference), the more grounds for accusation of "hate" will become available for the thought police.

One might ask what is the purpose of this proposed law. It would allow federal money and other forms of assistance to be sent to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies. This aid would only be available if someone is accused of committing a crime against someone who is "different" as long as the "difference" has been consecrated by the thought police. Someone targeted based on his preference for engaging in anal intercourse can demand prosecution based on this law. However, someone attacked because of his preference for eating meat does not have such an option. A group of thugs who attacked a man for wearing a mini-skirt and cosmetics faces additional punishment for doing so; the same group of thugs who attacked a man for wearing a military uniform does not risk more punishment for their choice of target.  This subjective legal protection for behaviors like sodomy and cross-dressing but not consumption of meat or service in the armed forces proves that some minorities are more equal than others.

In the 1930s, adherents to Fascism and to Communism both claimed to stand on the verge of seizing control of various nation-states, with the goal of inevitable global domination. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been carved out of the corpse formerly known as the Russian Empire. Fascists in Italy had bullied their way into power, threatening ideologues who opposed them then bludgeoning or incarcerating those who persisted in resistance. Their German counterparts followed suit several years later.  Communists were sowing havoc within the fragile society of China throughout the 1930s, provoking a civil war. With the Great Depression gripping most of the world's economies, it appeared that capitalism and representative democracy were stumbling toward extinction.

Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War.  The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.
 
In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World. Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.

Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!

Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html</a>
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."

Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.

The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards.  Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.

Despite all the unabashed glee among the Leftist media, Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrat Party should have shocked no one who has been paying attention to his political career. He has been the bane of conservatives within the Republican Party. The most recent example of his fondness for a bloated, over-spending federal government is found in his support for the pork-laden American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. He has championed the cause of unrestricted abortion on demand during his tenure in the Senate, much to the chagrin of most of his fellow party members. In 1987, he carried a prominent torch among the witch-hunting mob targeting Judge Robert Bork due to Bork's openly and strictly Constitutional views on various issues. The senator from Pennsylvania spinelessly attempted to placate both sides of the aisle by voting on the impeachment charges against former President Bill Clinton as "not proven" despite the fact that no such option exists in American jurisprudence. The fact that this "Republican in Name Only" did not bolt sooner for the Democrat plantation stands as the sole surprise in this latest episode on Capitol Hill.

His tenuous loyalty to the Republican Party has been as glaring as the midday sun in the Sahara Desert. Former President George W. Bush should have steered clear of this eventual turncoat. Instead, Bush foolishly played the role of a team player to campaign publicly for Specter in 2004 despite strong criticism from within his ranks for doing so. Disproving the myth that elephants possess a strong capacity for remembering, the Republicans foolishly chose Specter as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005. Did they think that he needed a forum to add more verbs to the American lexicon in addition to his contribution to the creation of the term "bork"? In response to his successful re-election, Specter showed his ingratitude by warning that any of Bush's judicial nominees who did not spout the pro-abortion mantra would be subject to filibusters to prevent confirmation. With RINOs like Specter in key positions of power, why did the Democrats worry so much about regaining the majority in Congress?

So what served as Specter's response to growing criticism from conservatives and his attempt to curry favor with his constituents? He implied that his home-state's Philadelphia Eagles lost the thirty-ninth Super Bowl due to forbidden video recording by their opponents, the New England Patriots, in the game. Such phony pandering on a diversionary topic revealed this Ivy Leaguer's contemptuous condescension toward those he purported to represent.

Time will tell what fallout will result from this bombshell that Arlen Specter has ignited. His treachery may have consolidated the Democrats stranglehold on power in Washington. Assuming that Al Franken's lackeys have successfully stuffed enough questionable ballots in the appropriate boxes, the Republicans will no longer be able to resort to filibusters. If the failed talk show host can dupe the members of the Minnesota Supreme Court into confirming his ascension to the Senate, no roadblock will lay in the path to the Proletarian Paradise.

As for the Republican Party, what has it lost in this incident? The defection of a long-time member carries a modicum of embarrassment, at least on a superficial level. Such decisions can rattle the confidence of party loyalists. Feelings of despair and resignation to further desertions in the future may result. However, when someone exploits a moment of weakness of his comrades for his own self-aggrandizement and personal gain, one must question the true value of that traitor. Specter's departure frees the Republicans to support Representative Pat Toomey, an unblushing proponent of capitalism, in next year's senatorial election. At least the Republican voters of Pennsylvania will have not be forced to debate loyalty to their party versus fidelity to their principles while standing in the voting booths next year.

The talking heads' ridiculous pronouncements of the collapse of the Republican Party betray their willful ignorance of recent American political events. Did the Democrat Party fall into a continuous downward spiral in 1994 when it lost control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate for the first time in four decades? Did the Democrat Party decline into irrelevance after Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Representative Billy Tauzin switched from Democrat to Republican in 1995? Did the Democrats shrink into a merely regional party in 2003 after the Republicans had won a majority of the seats in the Senate after already holding the White House and House of Representatives for the first time since 1953? Was the death knell pronounced for the Democrats in 2004 when Tom Daschle, the Senate Minority Leader at the time, lost his re-election bid? The announcements of the downfall of the Republican Party betray the fantasies of those that utter them rather than objective prognostication.

Numerous Obamaniacs faulted former President Bush for engaging America's enemies militarily instead of diplomatically. They believed that if only their Messiah had the opportunity to speak to hostile nations and their leaders, then peace, prosperity and utopia would soon follow. Recent events have demonstrated the folly of believing conversations will end anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and terrorism. 

Obama strode into the Summit of the Americas with the self-assurance of an actor on the red carpet of the Oscars, anticipating his impending plethora of awards and plaudits from the Academy. Apart from an opus of Ameriphobic rubbish from Hugo Chavez, a deceitful diatribe from Daniel Ortega and some empty rhetoric about political prisoners from Raul Castro, Obama left empty-handed. In fact, he lost the few remaining strands of his cloak of invincibility by his attendance. The phony Messiah revealed more glaringly his unwillingness to the defend the honor of the country that elected him. Additionally, his incapability of speaking without a script showed as he could only offer anemic responses to Ortega's "Blame the U.S.A. for Everything Wrong in Central America" speech. Even Obama's conversations with the Marxist leader of Venezuela resulted from Chavez slyly orchestrations to bolster his amount of time in front of the cameras, not Obama's efforts to take charge of the agenda of the Summit of the Americas and actually accomplish something of note.

At the recent United Nations' Summit on Racism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again displayed his Islamic brand of lunacy. He reinforced his previously expressed delusions about the historical reality of the Nazis' efforts at genocide directed at the elimination of Jews. He blamed the U.S. and Western Europe for "occupying" a country referred to as "Palestine", which never existed prior to its invention as a part of a plot to deny the existence of Israel. Some people have suggested that Ahmadinejad only needs to see videos and photographs of the death camps; others have proposed his meeting with survivors. Clearly, this Islamist has fully stepped through the looking-glass so any view of reality would become so distorted beyond all recognition. So what could Obama utter that would enlighten this Jew-hating snake? Such a task would prove Herculean, even for the Messiah and his magical teleprompter.

While Obama' administration continues to exceed the ineptitude of the Carter Administration, his devotees continue to hope for change. They spin his every word and deed as obviously successful then point to the next opportunity to awe the enemies of liberty. Much like other adherents of Stalin, Mao and other demagogues, paradise lies always just around the corner, if only the lackeys continue to believe and submit to the party's agenda. Unfortunately, the pervasive Ameriphobia and threatening jihad will not cease by their warm and fuzzy fantasies.

Since Wednesday, various leftist media members have taken swipes at the Tea Parties across the U.S.A. Unaccustomed to viewing protesters peacefully gathering instead of vandalizing businesses and battering opponents, the Lefties seemed confused initially. How could thousands of people congregate for an issue other than the corruption of marriage, the legal right to murder babies or the support of totalitarians bent on destroying capitalism and democracy? Quickly, they recovered to fire off tawdry remarks and dismissive comments.

On Keith Olbermann's show, Janeane Garofalo accused the protesters of "racism" because they demonstrated anti-Obamania yet she failed to indicate what was racist about their signs, statements, chants and so forth. One can only assume that she meant that any negativity directed toward Obama by Whites is inherently racist. Such an attitude shows her narrow-mindedness and cerebral atrophy. That explains her erroneous description of herself as an "actor". Is she betraying gender identity issues?

The clip of Susan Roesgen proselytizing to the protesters has widely circulated throughout the Internet. She bared her Obamania while attempting to argue with protesters in Chicago. At least she exposed less of herself on this occasion.

When she was at WDSU, New Orleans' NBC affiliate, in the 1990s, she was covering the parades on Fat Tuesday. One of her breasts was exposed through her costume while she was on camera. She may have bought into the urban legend that all women exhibit themselves during Carnival. She was so mortified that she left the day-long broadcast, ahead of public ridicule of her meager mammary.

Anderson Cooper, on his show, 360, stated, "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging" with the air of master of such activity. The glee on his face could have been viewed unaided from the moon. Finally, Cooper had the opportunity to discuss a hobby without outing himself publicly. Perhaps, in the future, Cooper will find another occasion to spout his insider's double entendres if another group of protesters uses fudge as a prop.

Keith Olbermann further justified his Outstanding TV Journalism Segment award from a homosexual alliance against criticism in March of this year. His proudly displayed his knowledge of teabagging, interspersing references to the practice throughout his rants. Considering Olbermann's apparent lack of testicles since he never invites any guests who disagree with him, one must assume that he has been on the receiving end in order to have acquired his plethora of expertise.

Rachel Maddow could not contain her revulsion at the whole topic of teabagging. Maybe she was simply upset about missing a women's softball league game in order to cover a bunch of capitalist-oriented protesters. She gave every indication that she would have preferred to slip into her finest flannel shirt and sandals then partake in some bearded clams. Sadly, she finds herself in that annual lull between the end of the NCAA women's basketball tournament and the season opener of the WNBA.

As much as the Lefties denigrated the Tea Parties, they fear the rise of an activist movement among Conservatives allied with Libertarians. The continued decline of the American economy and the rise of socialism touted by the Obama Administration and Democratically-controlled Congress will lead to change. However, it will not consist of the type demanded by Obamaniacs. Numerous heated Congressional races will occur, especially if entrenched incumbents receive credible challengers next year. By then, the American people will have discovered if these tea parties were only a one-time fad.

After too many hours of dawdling, providing sustenance to the jihadis, communicating with them and otherwise, wasting time, the U.S. Navy finally instituted a suitable response to the savages who had attacked the Maersk Alabama. Happily, the captain of the ship survived while three of his captors succumbed to simultaneous contractions of cranial lead poisoning. Unfortunately, one of barbarians fell into the custody before being sent off the Great Eternal and Celestial Whorehouse for Islamo-murderers. He will have to settle for the fawning and sympathy of the Atheists', Criminals' and Lunatics' Union and other self-loathing American useful idiots.

The United States has a history of confronting jihadis who were plundering ships flying the American flag. In the first two decades of the nineteenth century, American naval forces and members of the fledgling U.S. Marine Corps confronted North African Islamo-pirates. After continuously paying tribute to the savages of the Barbary States, the American government gradually realized that only brutal reprisals would convince the jihadis to cease the attacks. The first conflicts between Islamists and Americans can provide lessons those living in the twenty-first century.

It is incumbent upon the civilized nations of the world to muster their naval forces to crush these jihadis. Let us not repeat the same errors in judgment as those in power throughout Europe committed during the era of the Barbary States' terrorism. Instead of uniting against their mutual foe, the various Western countries rendered protection money to the savages, just as cowardly dhimmis had done when the Islamic hordes conquered new territory. These bribes happened in hopes that the Mohamadans would target the ships of other nations. Those payments, as well as modern attempts at appeasement, only embolden the thieves to raise the costs of future jizya.